FLOCKWATCH USADirect Answer
FlockWatch USA is an advocacy-minded surveillance accountability project with an evidence-first editorial standard: factual reporting should be sourced, uncertainty should be visible, and opinion should not be disguised as fact.
Evidence first
We prefer primary sources: statutes, bills, court orders, government agendas and minutes, signed contracts, public-record responses, audit logs, agency policies and official datasets. When primary records are unavailable, we use reputable reporting and identify the source.
What our scores mean
FlockWatch density scores are descriptive comparisons based on reported mapped ALPR counts and land area. A score does not determine whether a camera system is lawful, effective, appropriate or abusive. Community-mapped datasets can be incomplete, so raw counts and methodology should be read with the stated limitations.
Reporting, analysis and advocacy
News articles report documented developments. Analysis explains what a development may mean and identifies uncertainty. Advocacy reflects FlockWatch USA’s mission of stronger privacy protections, transparency and constitutional safeguards. We do not fabricate facts to support that mission.
Corrections
If a material fact is wrong, we aim to correct it promptly and transparently. Send corrections through our Contact page and include the page URL plus supporting documentation.
Anonymous and confidential sources
We may consider information from sources who do not want to be publicly identified, but anonymity does not eliminate the need to verify the underlying facts. Standard website forms are not a secure-drop system; do not send highly sensitive material through an ordinary web form if disclosure could create serious risk.
Conflicts and attribution
We attribute disputed claims, identify material conflicts when relevant, and link readers to source material whenever practical. FlockWatch USA is not affiliated with Flock Safety or other surveillance vendors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does FlockWatch USA have an advocacy position?
Yes. The project supports stronger privacy, transparency and constitutional safeguards, while factual reporting is expected to remain evidence-based and clearly sourced.
How are corrections handled?
Material factual errors should be corrected promptly. Readers can send a page URL and supporting documentation through the Contact page.
Are FlockWatch scores legal judgments?
No. Density scores compare reported mapped camera concentration. They are not findings about legality, wrongdoing or policy quality.
Can a source remain unnamed?
FlockWatch USA may consider unnamed-source information when necessary, but underlying facts still require verification and the standard site forms should not be treated as a secure anonymous drop box.