内容来源：https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/08/13/1141904/flock-is-tightening-its-rules-in-response-to-a-growing-surveillance-backlash/

内容总结：

美国监控技术公司Flock因警方滥用其车牌识别系统、多地政府终止合同而面临舆论压力，近日宣布收紧使用规则，以应对日益高涨的反对声浪。新规要求警察在搜索车牌数据时必须输入刑事案件编号，并强制启用自动审计系统，以识别可疑搜索行为。然而，批评者指出，由于公司不核实案件编号的真实性，警方仍可轻松绕过限制，规则存在明显漏洞。

据报道，Flock公司拥有约12万部摄像头，构成覆盖全美的车牌识别网络，警方可借此获取海量位置数据。近期《华盛顿邮报》调查发现，至少46起案件中，警官涉嫌利用该系统进行跟踪、骚扰前伴侣等未经授权的行为。为此，Flock要求警官在搜索前必须填写案件编号，并全面启用自动审计功能，向管理员标记可疑搜索行为。但美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）发现，此前类似要求下，部分警官仅输入“调查”等通用词，甚至有人输入“哈哈哈”20次敷衍了事。

此外，Flock还建议机构将数据保留时间从30天缩短至7天，并允许各部门限制其他机构出于特定目的（如“绑架调查”）搜索本部门数据，但不得用于“移民执法”。公司CEO加勒特·兰利表示，这些调整旨在强化技术公司的责任，而非仅提供“可选项”。他否认公众担忧源于实质问题，称主要是“错误信息”导致客户流失，但ACLU等批评者指出，公司曾多次向地方议会隐瞒技术真实能力。

尽管新规被视为向公众压力低头，但ACLU高级政策顾问查德·马洛认为，这些措施只是“小步改进”，且公司拒绝向独立研究人员开放系统，因此难以验证其有效性。他强调，车牌识别技术的大规模部署，使警方能在无搜查令的情况下随意查询民众行踪，这已触及美国隐私保护的底线。目前，全美已有至少30个城市放弃与Flock的合同，部分州甚至考虑立法禁止车牌识别设备。

中文翻译：

弗洛克公司正在收紧其规则，以应对日益增长的监控抵制浪潮。在有关警察滥用技术、多个城市终止合同的报道传出后，该公司正在对其警用技术施加新的限制措施。但这些改变留下了明显的漏洞。

警用科技巨头弗洛克公司今天宣布，将调整警员对其全国车牌识别摄像头网络的访问权限，此举显然是为了平息日益高涨的抵制情绪，并赢回因大规模监控和警察滥用问题担忧而流失的合同。

几项变更直接针对近期登上头条的一个问题：警员滥用弗洛克技术来跟踪和骚扰现任或前任恋爱对象。弗洛克公司的12万摄像头形成了一个全国性网络，可供警察部门使用，警员因此可以访问海量的可搜索位置数据。最近《华盛顿邮报》的一项调查发现了46起警员被指控使用弗洛克摄像头进行跟踪等未经授权用途的案件。

为应对这一问题，该公司将要求警员在进行搜索前输入刑事案件编号。该系统去年曾作为可选功能推出，现在已成为强制要求。其目的是核实每次搜索都具有合法用途。

这是公民自由团体一直要求的基准标准，但警员已经找到了绕过类似保障措施的方法。美国公民自由联盟（ACLU）最近发现，当弗洛克要求警员输入搜索理由时，有些人使用“调查”之类的通用词语，或者干脆嘲讽该提示；在俄勒冈州的一个警察部门，警员输入了20次“呵呵呵”。由于弗洛克不会核实案件编号，警员同样可以轻松绕过这一新保障措施。

但该公司今天宣布，弗洛克正在扩展一个自动审计系统，该系统旨在识别试图这样做的人。该功能会分析警员的搜索活动，并将有可疑搜索行为的人标记给管理员。这项功能去年也是作为可选项推出，现在已成为强制要求。弗洛克尚未公布自动审计工具的准确率细节，也未向独立评估机构开放。

除了试图防止警员滥用之外，弗洛克还做出了一些改变，以回应更广泛的抵制声音，涉及该网络收集了多少数据以及谁可以搜索这些数据。该公司现在建议各机构将数据保留7天而不是30天（尽管它们可以选择否决这一建议）。警察部门现在还可以限制其他部门对其摄像头数据的搜索，仅限于特定声明理由的搜索；例如，它们可以允许与“绑架”相关的调查，但不允许出于“移民执法”目的进行调查。这又是一项依赖警员如实报告搜索目的保障措施。

这些改变出台之际，针对弗洛克的抵制正从四面八方涌来。塔克·卡尔森表示，该技术正在助长“奴隶国家”的形成。据报道，由于这些抗议，一些城市已终止与弗洛克的合同，尽管难以估算具体数量：2月份，美国国家公共广播电台（NPR）发现，过去一年至少有30个城市终止了合同，但激进组织DeFlock认为数字更高。一些州或地方政府正在通过法律全面禁止车牌识别摄像头，而一些允许使用的地区则从弗洛克转向其他行业领导者——Axon和摩托罗拉。弗洛克表示，这些解约在其签约的5000个机构中只占少数。

美国公民自由联盟的高级政策顾问查德·马洛已成为弗洛克及其他自动车牌识别摄像头制造商的某种克星。他表示，抵制情绪的驱动因素与其说是个人滥用行为——尽管这些行为无助于缓解问题——不如说是弗洛克摄像头所实现的大规模监控覆盖范围。

“在美国，只有当你认为某人做了错事时，你才能调查他，”马洛说。随着车牌识别摄像头变得越来越普及，警员无需事先确立犯罪嫌疑就有越来越大的自由来调查民众，因为搜索这些摄像头收集的数据不需要搜查令。他补充道：“为了抓到一定数量的罪犯、找回一定数量的被盗车辆，就摧毁美国人的隐私，这值得吗？”

弗洛克首席执行官加勒特·兰利则将抵制情绪归因于另一个问题。“如果你看看我们失去客户的主要原因，那就是虚假信息，”兰利告诉《麻省理工科技评论》。他说，人们错误地认为弗洛克会进行人脸识别或将收集的数据出售给商业买家。（不过，“虚假信息”的指控是双向的；美国公民自由联盟和其他批评者曾多次发文称，该公司在技术能力方面屡次对市议会和其他决策者撒谎。）

尽管公司已针对公众关切采取了措施，“我们的立场转变更多是从建设可选项，转向建立更强的信心，即作为一家科技公司，我们有责任执行限制措施，而不是提供选择余地，”兰利说。

与美国公民自由联盟所倡导的目标相比，弗洛克的新规则无疑是微小而渐进的。马洛对此大体持支持态度，但他指出，要判断这些规则是否真的减少了滥用行为，需要公司首次向独立研究人员开放其系统，而不是仅仅引用内部研究。

但更广泛地说，他表示抵制浪潮正将该公司置于一个十字路口。

“弗洛克之所以坐到谈判桌前，是因为这场前所未有的全国性抵制运动让他们感到了恐惧，”马洛说。“但与此同时，他们绝对不愿意做出真正需要的改变来切实回应这些关切。所以，这是该公司愿意做的最大限度的让步。”

深度报道
人工智能

一家初创公司声称突破了制约大语言模型的瓶颈
Subquadratic现已公布了其新模型的更多细节。但一些人仍持怀疑态度。

一个根本性缺陷使大语言模型极易受到攻击
这使人们可以轻松诱骗它们做出不该做的事情，比如告诉你如何破坏飞机的导航系统。

Anthropic发现了一个隐藏空间，Claude在其中思考概念
一项新技术使该公司能够比以往任何时候都更深入地探查大语言模型的奇妙运作机制。

Claude Science是Anthropic最新的旗舰产品
该公司正在加大对人工智能用于科学研究的投入。

保持联系
获取来自《麻省理工科技评论》的最新更新
发现特别优惠、热门报道、即将举办的活动等更多内容。

英文来源：

Flock is tightening its rules in response to a growing surveillance backlash
The company is imposing new guardrails on its police tech after reports that officers are abusing it and cities are dropping contracts. But the changes leave glaring loopholes.
The police-tech giant Flock is announcing today that it will change officers’ access to its nationwide network of license plate readers, in an apparent effort to quell a growing backlash and win back contracts lost amid concerns about mass surveillance and police abuse.
Several changes aim directly at a problem that has made recent headlines: officers abusing Flock’s technology to stalk and harass current or former romantic partners. Flock’s 120,000 cameras form a nationwide network that police departments can use, giving officers access to an enormous pool of searchable location data. A recent Washington Post investigation found 46 cases in which officers were accused of using Flock's cameras for unauthorized purposes like stalking.
To combat that, the company will start requiring officers to enter a criminal case number before conducting a search. The system was launched as an option last year but is now required. It’s meant to verify that each search has a legitimate purpose.
This is a baseline standard that civil liberties groups have asked for, but officers have found ways around similar safeguards. The ACLU recently found that when Flock required officers to enter a reason for a search, some used generic terms like “investigation” or mocked the prompt entirely; at one Oregon department, officers entered “hehehe” 20 times. Because Flock won’t verify case numbers, officers could circumvent the new safeguard just as easily.
But Flock is now expanding an automatic auditing system that is supposed to catch those who try that, the firm announced today. The feature analyzes officer search activity and flags to administrators anyone with suspicious searches. This was also introduced as an option last year but is now mandatory. Flock has not shared specifics on how accurate the automatic auditing tool is, nor opened it up to independent evaluators.
Beyond trying to prevent officer abuse, Flock is making changes meant to address broader backlash about how much data its network collects and who can search it. The company now recommends that agencies hold onto data for seven days rather than 30 (though they can choose to overrule this). Departments can also now limit other departments’ searches of data from their cameras to those made for certain stated reasons; for example, they might allow investigations related to “kidnapping” but not for purposes of “immigration enforcement.” It’s another safeguard that depends on officers to accurately report why they’re conducting a search.
The changes come as a backlash against Flock has started to come from all angles. Tucker Carlson has said its technology is contributing to a “slave state.” Some cities have reportedly dropped Flock contracts because of such protest, though it’s difficult to estimate how many: In February, NPR found that at least 30 cities had dropped in the last year, but the activist group DeFlock puts the number higher. Some states or municipalities are passing laws to ban license plate readers altogether, while some that allow them are switching away from Flock to the other industry leaders, Axon and Motorola. Flock has said these cancellations represent a small number of the 5,000 agencies that have contracted with the company.
Chad Marlow, a senior policy counsel at the ACLU who has become a sort of nemesis to Flock and other companies making automatic license plate readers, says the backlash is driven less by individual abuses—though those don’t help—than by the sheer scale of surveillance that Flock’s cameras enable.
“In America, you only get to investigate someone if you think they’ve done something wrong,” Marlow says. As license plate readers grow more ubiquitous, officers have increasing latitude to investigate people without first establishing suspicion of a crime, since searching the troves of data the readers collect does not require a warrant. He adds, “Is it worth it to catch a certain number of criminals, return a certain number of stolen cars, to eviscerate Americans’ privacy?”
Flock CEO Garrett Langley traces the backlash to a different issue. “If you look at the main reason we’ve lost customers, it’s misinformation,” Langley told MIT Technology Review. He says people mistakenly believe Flock does facial recognition or sells the data it collects to commercial buyers. (The misinformation charge cuts both ways, however; the ACLU and other critics have published accounts of the company repeatedly lying to city councils and other decision-makers about what its technology can do.)
Though the company has taken steps in response to public concerns, “our change in stance is more of one from building things that are optional,” Langley says, to “building more confidence that as a technology company we have a responsibility to enforce guardrails, not provide optionality.”
Flock’s new rules are undeniably small and incremental compared with what the ACLU has advocated. Marlow is broadly supportive of them but notes that judging whether they reduce abuse would require the company to open its systems to independent researchers for the first time rather than citing internal studies.
More broadly, though, he says the backlash is putting the company at a crossroads.
“Flock has come to the table because this incredible, unprecedented nationwide uprising against their company has scared them,” Marlow says. “But at the same time, they are just absolutely unwilling to make the actual changes they need to make in order to legitimately respond to these concerns. So this is the best that the company is willing to do.”
Deep Dive
Artificial intelligence
A startup claims it broke through a bottleneck that’s holding back LLMs
Subquadratic has now shared more details about its new model. But some are still skeptical.
A fundamental flaw leaves LLMs strikingly vulnerable to attack
It makes it easy to trick them into doing things they shouldn’t, such as telling you how to sabotage an aircraft’s navigation system.
Anthropic found a hidden space where Claude puzzles over concepts
A new technique has let the company probe deeper than ever into the weird workings of an LLM.
Claude Science is Anthropic’s newest flagship product
The company is doubling down on AI for science.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.