Flock Transparency Portals: Inadequate, Incomplete — and Alarming
What Flock’s “transparency” portals really show—and what comes next for MLT.
Hi neighbors,
As we settle into the reality that Mountlake Terrace has entered a contract with Flock Safety, I’ve continued looking deeper into how this surveillance system operates—not just here, but across Washington and across the country.
One of the most revealing tools Flock offers is its so-called “Transparency Portals.” These websites are intended to show how each police department uses the system: what agencies they share data with and, occasionally, why license plate searches were performed.
After reviewing portals from more than a dozen Washington State agencies—and examining audit files when available—it’s clear that these portals offer very little true transparency. And in some cases, what they reveal is downright alarming.
🚨 The Audit Logs: Few and Far Between
While it’s been reported that nearly 100 agencies in Washington State have contracts with Flock, I was only able to find about 13 transparency portals. Just 5 of those provided downloadable audit logs.
From the logs I reviewed—over 300 records—I found search reasons that included:
“follow up”
“suspicious”
“info”
“traffic complaint”
Some of these are vague and raise questions. Others, like “traffic complaint,” are troubling because “traffic enforcement” is explicitly listed as a prohibited use under Flock’s own policy.
Despite this, there’s no indication that searches using these questionable justifications were rejected or reviewed. That’s not real oversight—that’s rubber stamping.
🔍 Who’s Watching the Watchers?
Here’s where the picture gets even murkier.
If Mountlake Terrace begins sharing data with nearby agencies, and those agencies in turn share with others across the country, who is making sure our data isn’t misused?
Take a look at the Puyallup Police Department’s Flock Transparency Portal. They list nearly 300 other agencies they share data with—including dozens in other states. Among them:
U.S. Border Patrol
Homeland Security Investigations [Federal] [Inactive]
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Agencies in 35 other states, including Texas, Florida, Arizona, and others with no state-level protections like Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act
This is not hypothetical. Similar to ICE, the U.S. Border Patrol is a division of the Department of Homeland Security, and it is explicitly listed as a current data-sharing partner in Puyallup’s portal.
So even if Mountlake Terrace only shares data with nearby cities, our residents’ license plate information could easily travel down a chain of sharing that ends in the hands of DHS.
Some agencies, like Arlington, don’t even show who they share with. That’s an even bigger problem—no list means no accountability.
🧾 About the Keep Washington Working Act
Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act (RCW 10.93.160) restricts local law enforcement from participating in federal immigration enforcement.
But here’s the catch: It doesn’t apply to private companies.
That means Flock—the company that owns and operates this surveillance network—is not legally bound by the Act.
In fact, under Section 5.3 of the City’s Service Agreement, Flock can share data if it has a “good faith belief” that disclosure is necessary. That could include sharing with law enforcement, other agencies, or even third parties to respond to “safety concerns” or “technical issues.”
There is no requirement that Flock notify the City or the public when this happens.
So even if the Mountlake Terrace Police Department follows the law, Flock doesn’t have to.
🧩 Connecting the Dots with DHS
When transparency portals list agencies like Homeland Security Investigations or U.S. Border Patrol, even if marked “inactive,” it suggests Flock has—or has had—data-sharing relationships with these divisions of the Department of Homeland Security.
As a private company, Flock is not bound by state-level privacy laws like KWW. Instead, it can operate on its own terms—changing its Terms and Conditions without notice, and deciding when to share your data based on internal discretion.
Given what we know—that at least one Washington police department actively shares data with U.S. Border Patrol—is there any reason to believe Flock isn’t sharing its broader customer data with DHS?
So far, I haven’t found one.
📨 Why I Filed a Public Records Request
In light of all this, I recently submitted a public records request to the City of Mountlake Terrace for all communications about Flock Safety.
I don’t take this lightly—I know the burden public records requests can place on staff.
But this contract was signed without changes. Questions from council and the public have gone unanswered. And the transparency portals most cities rely on? They’re insufficient.
We need real answers—and public documents are one way to get them.
✅ What We Can Still Push For
Let’s focus on what we still have power over:
MOUs with other agencies must be shared publicly and approved by Council before any data sharing occurs.
A Community Advisory Board must be reinstated to audit Flock usage, as proposed by Councilmembers Paige and Wahl.
Regular and frequent audit logs should be released to the public—detailing reasons for searches, who performed them, and how they were resolved.
These are the bare minimums of community oversight and digital civil rights.
🕵️♀️ What Comes Next?
The Mountlake Terrace City Council next meets on Wednesday, June 26. While Flock is not currently listed on the agenda, I expect that—given the strong public interest, continued concern, and Councilmembers Wahl and Paige’s support for citizen oversight—it will be a topic of discussion.
I recommend we wait and see how that meeting unfolds.
It will be a test of how much our City Council is truly listening.
Thanks for staying informed and involved.
More soon,
Dustin