Flock offers to pay employees to leave — and the backlash gets hotter

Flock Safety is offering employees money to leave.

The surveillance company opened a voluntary separation program on September 18, according to Wired, which received an internal email. Applications are due October 2. Flock expects to approve most applicants, with most accepted employees departing by October 29. Wired said the company did not immediately respond to its requests for comment.

A canceled contract doesn’t necessarily mean fewer cameras.

The buyouts don’t establish that Flock is going broke, but they do give the company a way to reduce its workforce while its business faces public scrutiny.

As I reported last month for Blaze News, cities were already canceling Flock contracts, but some were replacing its cameras with competing systems. The buyouts add a new development to that story. Residents still need to know what happens to the cameras and the information they collect after Flock leaves town.

Local camera, much larger audience

Boston offers one example of why residents might be skeptical of assurances about data access.

According to Ars Technica’s September 15 report, city officials said Flock enabled nationwide access during the opening days of a 2025 pilot despite a contract restricting sharing. Boston’s surveillance report attributed it to vendor error and said the access was disabled after it was discovered.

Boston abandoned Flock, but it has been testing competing systems. A canceled contract doesn’t necessarily mean fewer cameras. A change in suppliers might solve a specific contract issue, but it won’t do anything to actually improve your sense of privacy.

RELATED: Cities are kicking out Flock. The surveillance might be here to stay.

Scharfsinn86/Getty Images

There are also some issues related to how these searches are controlled. For instance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s analysis of police audit logs revealed such entries as “LOL” and “idk” in fields that are supposed to describe the searches. The sheriff’s department of San Diego County told the EFF that the searches it analyzed were connected with ongoing investigations. Inappropriate log entries do not automatically mean that all the searches were performed incorrectly. However, it certainly makes supervision more difficult. A reviewer must be able to explain the reasons behind the search of one’s car records without interpreting the abbreviation.

Drop-down menus aren’t enough

Flock claims to have introduced a mandatory offense category selector. Flock documents indicate that agencies may provide written explanations, while selecting “Other” requires a written explanation. The company frames this update as a measure to enhance audit consistency. However, if the officer selects the crime category, who confirms that the search was related to this investigation? How frequently does the agency check the access? What happens when a search cannot be justified?

These are legitimate questions to ask in a council before approving renewal of a surveillance contract. Residents do not need to be public records experts to find out whether any controls are placed on the system that their taxes fund.

I certainly appreciate the need for useful investigative tools. At the same time, I would like officials to specify these limitations and what can be done to enforce them. It means nothing to say that access is restricted if nobody can prove that the restrictions were indeed enforced.

Flock’s employees have a deadline for deciding whether to leave. The public has a longer job: making elected officials account for the surveillance they have purchased, including whatever replaces a canceled Flock contract.