Victory! Flock Ends Rollout of Audio “Distress Detection” of Human Voices

Victory! Flock Ends Rollout of Audio “Distress Detection” of Human Voices

Reversing course, Flock Safety—the surveillance technology vendor most known for its extensive network ofautomated license plate readers—has announcedthat it will end a pilot for itsacoustic gunshot detection devicesto identify signs of “human distress.”

...public pressure can sometimes work to influence both companies and lawmakers that control a city’s purse strings to discontinue or divest from harmful products...

In October 2025,EFF warned the publicthat Flock was rolling out a new feature called “Distress Detection” that would be deployed through their acoustic gunshot detection devices (formerly known as Flock Raven, now called Audio Detection). This feature purported to use high-powered microphones scattered throughout a city to search for sounds of human distress, with original advertisements from the product indicating it would search for “screaming.” (Since the publication of ouroriginal blog post, Flock quietly amended the ad on thiswebpageto say “distress” instead of “screaming.”)

Now, Flockhas publisheda blog post stating that “[a]fter careful consideration and community consultation, we decided to remove the feature.” Good riddance.

We said it when the product was announced and we’ll say it again: this was a misguided and dangerous feature because of the civil liberties concerns it poses, the possibility it could summon armed police to every loud interaction happening on the street, and because in several placesthis type of spying would be illegal under state eavesdropping laws.

We werenot quietabout this potential new feature. Flock even mentioned our concern about Distress Detection in anattemptto rebut our opposition to the mass surveillance their products enable.

The suspension of Distress Detection, however, does not mean that these high-powered microphones are now magically safe or beyond our concern. Acoustic gunshot detection is still a dangerous andoften highly inaccurate technologythat has resulted in real world harm, as in Chicago where it resulted inpolice shooting at children lighting fireworks. As Flock itself states, “No acoustic system is perfect, and we don't claim otherwise.” But police response to a situation where they believe guns are actively in use seems like a pretty high-stakes situation to be making, selling, and deploying technology known to be imperfect. Flock’s devices also listen for more than just gunshots. Their marketing materials admit to be listening for “community disruption,” which includes “non-violent” threats like car sideshows and fireworks.

Flock’s failed attempt to roll out Distress Detection teaches us a few important lessons about the current state of police surveillance. First, we should not assume that just because these companies are large and well-funded, that does not ensure that they are complying with local privacy laws before floating new products to customers. Second, companies roll out and police adopt invasive technology under the justification that it will be used to address our society’s very worst crimes. However, both the companies and police will leverage deployed surveillance infrastructure to introduce new uses without necessarily seeking the consent or approval of the public. Gunshot detecting microphones eventually being used to listen for screaming is exactly the type of mission creep that we’ve seen happen with other pieces of surveillance technology,including Flock’s license plate readers. Finally, gun violence is too serious and complex of an issue to purport to solve with one flawed piece of technology. It has become too easy for police and cities to listen to thefancy marketing pitches of tech companiesclaiming they’re going to solve all crime instead of doing the hard work of addressing the root causes of societal issues. And, in the meantime, that technology creates more problems and hazards for the communities they blanket in police surveillance.

As we’ve also seen with people across the country pushing back on Flock license plate reader contracts in their communities, public pressure can sometimes work to influence both companies and lawmakers that control a city’s purse strings to discontinue or divest from harmful products. Flock’s decision to end “Distress Detection” for human voices is a win.

Related Issues

Related Updates

Police departments across the country are lining up to launch drone-as-first-responder (DFR) programs, and hundreds have cleared a necessary hurdle toward making deployment a reality, expanding aerial surveillance and data collection even in areas patrol officers typically can't reach.As of February 2026,over 1,000 public safety agencies—including police, fire,...

A new reportfrom the Government Accounting Office reveals that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to nearly triple the number of surveillance towers along U.S. borders, from the current 830 to 2,300 by 2034.DHS expects to expend $1 billion in taxpayer dollars for this dangerous expansion of...

You have an expectation of privacy in location data that reveals your movements in the physical world, and even short-term surveillance of these movements is a search subject to the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled today inChatrie v. United States.The case...

This is not science fiction. It’s not premature. If towns, cities, states, or the federal government want to act to rein in the emergence of armed policedrones and robots, we have precious little time. In the absence of substantial regulation around when and how domestic law enforcement in...

When a car passes anautomated license plate reader(ALPR), its plate is captured and instantly compared against a list of vehicles that police are actively looking for or that police have identified for real-time surveillance. These are called “hotlists,” and EFF has learned that one used by agencies...

Related Issues

Back to top

Follow EFF:

Check out our 4-star rating onCharity Navigator.

Contact

About

Issues

Updates

Press

Donate