Engadget40%

Los Angeles law enforcement will stop using Flock cameras 24%

By Anna Washenko51%

7/13/2026, 8:02:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Biased Writer Voice, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 7.7% saturation with 16 hits. Analysis detected 16 faulty-reasoning hits from 207 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.7% and a BS Rank of 24% (11,740 of 15,282 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.80% of the article peer group.

The Los Angeles Police Department has suspended its use of controversial surveillance tech from Flock Safety. 
The city's law enforcement had signed a three-year deal with Flock in 2023 that expired over the weekend. 
Flock operates 138 cameras in LA, and they are ostensibly used to check vehicle license plates. 
While that information could help law enforcement to find cars that are stolen or registered to fugitives, city leaders questioned the privacy controls for the data collected by the company. 
Flock has reportedly shared its data with state and federal authorities, including the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, even though California has legislation to restrict what details companies can share with government officials. 
"The sticking point is around having very clear terms about who owns the data, what happens with the data once they collect it," LAPD Chief Information officer Dean Gialamas told the Los Angeles Times. 
He said the department will stop using Flock "Until we can get those data, privacy, security and sharing concerns ironed out through a contractual relationship." 
In addition to the privacy issues around Flock sharing data with immigration authorities, the company's cameras have also been exposed as having multiple cybersecurity flaws. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
7.7%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

207 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker29%attributed speech148writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice

Dean Gialamas

0%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words100% of attributed speech11% writer coverage
Biased Writer Voice-10.8 pts
Writer 11%Dean Gialamas 0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.