Source Details

{
    "source_type": "extension",
    "content_hash": "0ed5324cfbb73dee1833d4ab4da6f99cdc287e3aff6ce101694423bb6cc8d1b6",
    "submitted_via": "chrome_extension",
    "extension_version": "1.0.18",
    "original_url": "https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/28\/nyregion\/nyc-flock-nypd-surveillance-cameras.html?emc=edit_nn_20260928&nl=the-morning&segment_id=227179",
    "parsed_content": "AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTSupported bySKIP ADVERTISEMENTN.Y.P.D. Officers Used Flock Safety to Track License PlatesPublic records show police officers used Flock Safety\u2019s technology to make more than 1,700 searches. The department did not have a contract with the company.Listen \u00b7 8:09 min Share full articleA Flock camera at Avenue U and East 58th St. in the Mill Basin neighborhood of Brooklyn.Credit...Dave Sanders for The New York TimesBy Maria CramerSept. 28, 2026, 3:00 a.m. ETSee more of our coverage in your search results.Encuentra m\u00e1s de nuestra cobertura en los resultados de b\u00fasqueda. Add The New York Times on GoogleAgrega The New York Times en Google Some New York City police officers used Flock Safety, a system of automated license-plate readers that has been criticized as an invasion of privacy, to run searches even though the Police Department did not have a contract to do so.At least two dozen officers made more than 1,700 searches in Flock\u2019s nationwide database between March 2023 and December 2025, according to an analysis of public data by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project and LatinoJustice, a national civil rights organization. Those figures were confirmed by a New York Times analysis.The Police Department confirmed that a \u201chandful\u201d of officers used the technology during the period cited in the report. The department never had a contract with Flock, but the officers used the technology in an ad hoc manner, the police said in a statement.The officers received access to Flock after representatives of the company offered them a free trial, the statement said. The automated license plate readers use artificial intelligence to identify and track vehicles. The officers used the database to look for cars that were believed to have been stolen or involved in hit-and-runs and had been driven to other jurisdictions, the police said.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTFlock Safety, a company based in Atlanta, has 120,000 cameras across the country that alert law enforcement agencies whenever the cameras spot cars wanted in a crime or of interest to police. It allows police officers to search through its system even if the police agencies do not own the company\u2019s cameras.\u201cThe N.Y.P.D. does not and has never had any Flock cameras,\u201d the police said. \u201cIt is not unusual for members of law enforcement or any government agency to test different products to see if they would be beneficial.\u201dAccording to the organizations\u2019 analysis, the officers included sergeants and detectives in the department\u2019s auto crime unit; its highway collision division; and in the Queens district attorney\u2019s office. The searches raise questions about how the department used the technology, which has faced backlash because of privacy concerns, said Andrew Case, a lawyer with LatinoJustice.Around the country, cities and towns have deactivated the cameras or ended their contracts because of public outcry about mass surveillance and fears that the information gathered could be misused.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTIn New York City, officers frequently wrote \u201cinvestigation,\u201d \u201chomicide,\u201d \u201csex trafficking,\u201d or \u201cwanted person\u201d in the reason field where they are supposed to explain why they were looking up a license plate, according to the organizations\u2019 analysis. But in 16 cases, they left that same field blank.Hundreds of other reasons that were given included apparent case numbers, license plate numbers and police acronyms that did not make clear why officers made a search. About a dozen others had numbers and letters that were indecipherable, according to the analysis. It\u2019s unclear why some fields were left blank. The police said there is no evidence to suggest searches were done \u201coutside of investigation purposes.\u201dThe department said that no executives, such as a chief or deputy commissioner, approved the officers\u2019 use of Flock. The department added they did not know who approved the access to Flock, but said the use of the technology did not violate any rules or regulations.Under a policy that was approved in June, supervisors must get permission from the first deputy commissioner before meeting with vendors.The department said it ultimately did not adopt Flock\u2019s system because it already has a contract with another company, Vigilant Solutions, which also tracks license plates. Civil libertarians have also raised concerns about how the department uses Vigilant Solutions.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTMr. Case said it is critical that the police are more transparent about how they use powerful surveillance tools.\u201cThere is no natural sense of caution or hesitation,\u201d he said. \u201cEvery new surveillance technology is thought of as a net bonus.\u201dFlock did not respond to messages seeking comment.The organizations compiled the data by scouring Have I Been Flocked, a database that stores public records responses from municipalities that have received requests from people asking if their license plate numbers were searched.ImageThe New York Police Department said it did not adopt Flock\u2019s license plate-reader technology because it already has a contract with Vigilant Solutions.Credit...Dave Sanders for The New York TimesAlthough New York City, which is known for its vast system of cameras and license plate readers, does not have any government-owned Flock cameras, companies such as Home Depot, which has stores across the city, have contracts with Flock.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTMany law enforcement agencies across the country have said the cameras help solve crimes, allowing them to determine the last place a wanted vehicle was seen.The company\u2019s cameras can produce an enormous trove of highly sophisticated surveillance records instantly that are often shared across states and jurisdictions. During its trial use, the department said it never provided its data to Flock and information was never shared with other jurisdictions. The department also does not give internal data to Vigilant Solutions, the police said.But investigators do rely heavily on license plate readers, which they said have helped solve serious crimes.Most recently, license plate readers helped the police solve the rape of a 21-year-old woman, who was assaulted in June by a man she thought was her Uber driver. The readers also helped the police track down and arrest two men who were seen coming out of a manhole on Wednesday in the Upper East Side of Manhattan.Critics of the technology say officers in other states have abused Flock cameras, using them to stalk people, follow a woman who was suspected of having an illegal abortion and track a romantic partner.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTIn New York City, officials said there was no indication the officers used Flock for anything other than training or investigative reasons.\u201cWe used it for official purposes,\u201d said Nicholas J. Sofokles, a recently retired detective who was identified as one of the officers who used Flock.He said the system was helpful, but declined to comment further.James Essig, who was chief of detectives until he resigned in August 2023, said he was not approached about trial access to Flock when he was still on the job. But, he said, it makes sense that a police supervisor would have been interested in trying out a new tool for investigating crimes.\u201cThere is not an inch of New York City that isn\u2019t covered by video,\u201d Mr. Essig said. \u201cIf there is a camera that catches a crime in action, why shouldn\u2019t law enforcement be able to use that information to solve the crime?\u201dLatinoJustice and the Oversight Project have filed a freedom of information request asking that the department release more information about the use of the technology, its communications with Flock, which officers used the system and what kind of training they received.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT\u201cWe\u2019re demanding that the N.Y.P.D. explain how it tracks New Yorkers on the road,\u201d said Eleni Manis, research director at the Oversight Project.Since at least 2014, the police have used Vigilant Solutions, which entered into a three-year, $565,000 contract in 2025, according to city records. Mayor Zohran Mamdani\u2019s administration reviewed the contract earlier this year over concerns that federal immigration authorities had gained access to a database maintained by Vigilant Solutions.The administration concluded that the department\u2019s use of Vigilant Solutions followed local laws, which forbid cooperation between the police and the federal government on immigration enforcement.Eli Murray contributed reporting. Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT",
    "published_at": "2026-09-28T07:00:06+00:00",
    "author_name": "Maria Cramer",
    "site_name": "The New York Times",
    "section": "NYRegion",
    "publisher": "The New York Times Company",
    "ai_headline": "N.Y.P.D. Officers Used Flock Safety to Track License Plates",
    "ai_simplified_title": "NYPD Officers Use Flock Safety Without Contract",
    "ai_excerpt": "New York City police officers used Flock Safety's license-plate readers for over 1,700 searches between 2023 and 2025, despite the department not having a contract with the company. This ad hoc use raises privacy concerns and questions about departmental oversight.",
    "ai_subject_tags": [
        "NYPD",
        "Flock Safety",
        "License Plate Readers",
        "Surveillance Technology",
        "Privacy Concerns",
        "Law Enforcement",
        "Civil Rights",
        "New York City"
    ],
    "ai_context_type": "News",
    "ai_context_details": {
        "tone": "informative",
        "perspective": "neutral",
        "audience": "general",
        "credibility_indicators": [
            "expert_quotes",
            "data_cited",
            "organizational_analysis",
            "police_statement"
        ]
    },
    "ai_source_vector": null,
    "ai_confidence_score": 0.9999999999999999,
    "ai_extraction_metadata": {
        "extracted_at": "2026-09-30T11:06:41.693796Z",
        "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
        "extraction_method": "automated",
        "content_length": 8694,
        "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 8694,
        "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
        "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/28\/nyregion\/nyc-flock-nypd-surveillance-cameras.html",
        "existing_metadata": {
            "author_name": null,
            "published_at": null,
            "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
            "site_name": null,
            "section": null,
            "publisher": null
        },
        "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false
    }
}

{
    "extracted_at": "2026-09-30T11:06:41.693796Z",
    "ai_model": "gemini-2.5-flash",
    "extraction_method": "automated",
    "content_length": 8694,
    "metadata_prompt_body_chars": 8694,
    "metadata_prompt_truncated": false,
    "url": "https:\/\/nytimes.com\/2026\/09\/28\/nyregion\/nyc-flock-nypd-surveillance-cameras.html",
    "existing_metadata": {
        "author_name": null,
        "published_at": null,
        "domain_name": "nytimes.com",
        "site_name": null,
        "section": null,
        "publisher": null
    },
    "openai_refusal_gemini_fallback": false
}