What did Flock say about Fairfax County's data?
WUSA9 reported that Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley sent a formal letter to Board of Supervisors Chairman Jeff McKay ahead of Tuesday's public safety meeting. The letter defends how the county's license plate reader system handles data.
Langley's letter makes several claims about Virginia customers, all described as Flock's own account:
- Virginia customers are not visible to federal users or out-of-state agencies for sharing requests.
- A default opt-in system stays closed to outside jurisdictions.
- An automated statewide filter blocks searches tied to immigration enforcement.
- Captured images are purged after a 21-day maximum retention period for Virginia law enforcement clients.
- Virginia agency data is excluded from machine learning training, based on Flock's reading of Virginia law.
Does Virginia law already restrict sharing?
The report says Virginia law prohibits local law enforcement from sharing license plate reader data with federal or out-of-state entities. Flock says it turned that rule into platform controls. The report does not say whether those controls have been tested by anyone outside Flock.
The letter also says the cameras capture still vehicle images rather than continuous video, and that they lack facial recognition. Fairfax County keeps legal ownership of the data, Flock is barred from selling customer data, and employee access is logged and reviewable.
What changes for drivers?
The report does not say whether any camera in Fairfax County will change. It does not say the county has voted to end or keep its contract. The county is still evaluating the ongoing scope of its partnership with Flock.
The letter concerns the county's own deployment. The report does not discuss cameras run by other jurisdictions, the state, businesses or homeowners' associations. Nothing in the letter says a plate will stop being scanned, recorded or tracked.
What remains unknown?
The report does not give a date for the letter. It also does not say how the Free Form Search moderation works in practice, beyond Flock's statement that queries that could infringe First Amendment rights are flagged or blocked.
Langley has offered to bring Flock's legal, policy and product teams to meet with the Board of Supervisors or the full Commission to audit these safeguards. The report does not say whether the county has accepted that offer.
Questions residents can ask
- Can the county provide the signed contract terms for retention, sharing and audit access?
- Who inside the county can run searches, and how are those searches logged?
- Will the audit Langley offered be public, and will its findings be released?
Check the camera map to see which cameras are mapped in your area, and read how plate readers work for background on what these systems record. Public transparency records for local agencies are listed on the agencies page.
The next event is Tuesday's public safety meeting, which the letter was sent ahead of. The report does not say what the board will do there.