South Carolina Attorney General Asks Flock Safety to Explain AI Use and Data Sharing
The inquiry examines the company’s public privacy assurances, including who can access shared camera data and how long records are kept.
Loading page…
The inquiry examines the company’s public privacy assurances, including who can access shared camera data and how long records are kept.
Listen to this story
The inquiry puts Flock Safety’s public privacy assurances under scrutiny, but does not accuse the company of breaking the law. Wilson is asking whether AI is used to identify vehicles or people, how the company’s multi-customer network limits access and sharing, and whether retention rules are mandatory. With Flock operating more than 120,000 cameras in 49 states, its response could clarify practices relevant to law-enforcement customers well beyond South Carolina.
Wilson’s October 2 letter to Flock CEO Garrett Langley gives the company 30 days to respond; Wilson announced the inquiry on October 5.
The AI question covers identification of both vehicles and people, rather than facial identification alone.
Wilson cited S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20, which he said requires truthful, nondeceptive representations, and asked about Flock’s claims that it does not use facial identification and restricts data access.
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson is asking Flock Safety to explain both what its camera technology identifies and what happens to the data afterward. His October 2, 2026 letter seeks answers about artificial intelligence, access, sharing and retention, giving the license-plate camera company 30 days to respond to the privacy and security inquiry.
The letter is addressed to Flock CEO Garrett Langley. In an October 5 news release, Wilson said the inquiry followed public representations by the company. He framed the request around protecting citizens’ privacy while law enforcement uses technology to fight crime.
Wilson’s questions cover more than the cameras’ identification technology.
“The instruments we use to ensure public safety should also take extra care to value the privacy of the same citizens we are protecting from crime.”
Alan Wilson, in his October 5 news release
Wilson tied the inquiry to S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20, which he said requires representations to be truthful and not deceptive. He pointed specifically to Flock’s statements that it does not use facial identification technology and has built-in restrictions on data access. Those assurances are the subject of his questions, not findings in the letter that the company has violated the law.
Wilson said many South Carolina law enforcement agencies use Flock to help identify and apprehend suspects, and he supports giving officers the latest tools. But he warned that even useful tools can be misused. He cited Flock’s reach—more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states—as a reason the stakes are particularly high.
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain where you would draw the line on sharing.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.