Should Flock Safety require Joshua Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map?
Flock Safety demands that Joshua Michael remove his surveillance map and related material. Michael calls the legal pressure a threat to public-interest research. Named participants disagree over whether the publication deserves protection or enforcement.
Claim in dispute
Joshua Michael must remove material that discloses information obtained from Flock Safety's systems and stop accessing Flock's systems.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
Flock Safety's counsel sent Joshua Michael a cease-and-desist letter on September 25, 2026. It demanded removal of his material, an end to access to Flock systems, preservation of evidence and confirmation by September 28. The company alleges unlawful access and threatens legal remedies. The letter is not a court order.
Michael argues that his research exposes security weaknesses in a surveillance system used by police. In an October 1 post, he criticized Flock's customer warning and rejected the demand. His report describes a dataset containing device records, including records beyond installed license-plate cameras. Its total should not be treated as a verified count of live cameras.
ACLU policy counsel Chad Marlow criticized Flock's attempt to protect its own privacy. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco called for arrests of those responsible for information he described as illegally accessed and published. The disagreement concerns the justification for legal pressure and enforcement, not simply whether the map exists.
The full letter and Michael's report establish the parties' stated positions. They do not resolve whether his access was authorized, whether each legal demand is enforceable or whether the map must be removed.
Timeline
4 timeline entries on this page. Dates: September 25, 2026 to October 1, 2026
September 2026
3 events
Flock's counsel sends removal demands
Source release
The letter demands removal of Michael's material, cessation of access, preservation of evidence and confirmation by September 28. It threatens legal remedies without supplying a court order.
[01]Flock Safety's September 25 cease-and-desist letter to Joshua Michael
Flock's counsel demands removal of Michael's material, cessation of access, preservation of evidence and other steps. The letter states allegations and threatens legal remedies; it is not a court order.
Flock Safety's September 25 cease-and-desist letter to Joshua Michael · Flock SafetyThree-page letter dated September 25, 2026; numbered demands and September 28 deadlineMarlow and Bianco take different positions on enforcement
Reaction
A Daily Caller News Foundation report quotes Chad Marlow criticizing Flock's stance and Chad Bianco calling for accountability for information he characterizes as illegally accessed and published.
[02]Chad Marlow and Chad Bianco discuss Flock's surveillance-map dispute
The report quotes Marlow criticizing Flock and Bianco calling for accountability for information he characterizes as illegally accessed. Bianco's characterization is not a judicial finding.
Chad Marlow and Chad Bianco discuss Flock's surveillance-map disputeSeptember 27 report (11:17 a.m. ET); paragraphs quoting Chad Marlow and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco from their statements to the Daily Caller News FoundationWFSB reports Flock's warning to police customers
Source release
WFSB reports on Flock's customer warning and Michael's research. The investigation describes the company's account of the incident rather than establishing the legality of Michael's access.
[03]WFSB reports on Flock's warning to Connecticut police
The investigation reports Flock's warning and the company's response to Michael's research. The company's account of unlawful access and law-enforcement involvement remains attributed to Flock.
WFSB reports on Flock's warning to Connecticut policeSeptember 29 investigation, updated October 2; company's customer warning and response
October 2026
1 event
Michael publicly rejects the legal pressure
Reaction
Michael criticizes Flock's threats and customer notice, argues that his report raises security concerns and says he will not back down.
[04]Joshua Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure
Michael criticizes Flock's legal threats and customer notice, explains his security argument and says he will not back down. His assessment of national-security risk is his argument.
Joshua Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure · Joshua MichaelOriginal post, October 1, 2026, 9:06 p.m. EDT; full text beginning 'Flock Safety sent me a cease-and-desist letter'
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
Joshua Michael must remove material that discloses information obtained from Flock Safety's systems and stop accessing Flock's systems.
Flock Safety
Sources (1)
- Flock Safety's September 25 cease-and-desist letter to Joshua Michael · Flock SafetyThree-page letter dated September 25, 2026; numbered demands and September 28 deadline
Response record
Responses
Latest recorded positions: 4. Dates: September 25, 2026 to October 1, 2026
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
2 responses on this page
Joshua MichaelCybersecurity researcher and map publisherDirectly involved "I'm not backing down"
CondemnedCase context: Should Flock Safety require Joshua Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map?
Read more
Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure and argues that his research exposes a security risk in the company's surveillance infrastructure.
Before the statement
Michael says Flock sent him a cease-and-desist letter and that a journalist has since shared the email Flock sent its customers.
After the statement
He asks readers to examine the documents and support his work. His national-security assessment remains an attributed argument.
Joshua Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure · Joshua MichaelOriginal post, October 1, 2026, 9:06 p.m. EDT; full text beginning 'Flock Safety sent me a cease-and-desist letter'Flock Safety's September 25 cease-and-desist letter to Joshua Michael · Flock SafetyThree-page letter dated September 25, 2026; numbered demands and September 28 deadlineJoshua Michael's Flock vulnerability-disclosure and security report · Joshua MichaelPages 1-14, 27-30 and 46-48; December 2025 access account and disclosure discussionWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Flock should require Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map and related material. Michael said Flock sent him a cease-and-desist letter, called Flock's customer email a confirmation of his thesis and said he is not backing down. That rejects the demand and fits Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, which would fit a dispute over how Flock describes him without rejecting compliance.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Flock SafetyCompany, through its legal counselDirectly involved"Remove any websites, repositories, databases, files, posts, publications, or other materials under your control that make available or disclose information obtained from Flock's systems ... Provide written confirmation by no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 28, 2026 that you have complied with these demands. ... Flock is prepared to pursue all available legal remedies without further notice"
Defended or excusedResponding to: Joshua Michael must remove material that discloses information obtained from Flock Safety's systems and stop accessing Flock's systems.
Read more
Flock's letter argues that Michael's alleged access and publication justify removal demands and possible legal remedies.
Before the statement
Michael published research and a map concerning Flock's surveillance infrastructure.
After the statement
The letter sets demands and a compliance deadline. It does not contain a court ruling requiring removal.
Flock Safety's September 25 cease-and-desist letter to Joshua Michael · Flock SafetyThree-page letter dated September 25, 2026; numbered demands and September 28 deadlineWhy this label?
The reference point is whether Flock should require Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map and related material. Flock's counsel demanded removal of material that discloses information obtained from its systems, an end to access and written confirmation by September 28, and said Flock was prepared to pursue legal remedies. Demanding removal on those terms fits Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, which would fit an offer to resolve the matter on narrower terms; the letter ties resolution without litigation to complete compliance.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(5)
Original text
Flock Safety's September 25 cease-and-desist letter to Joshua Michael
Relevant passage: Three-page letter dated September 25, 2026; numbered demands and September 28 deadline
About this source
Flock's counsel demands removal of Michael's material, cessation of access, preservation of evidence and other steps. The letter states allegations and threatens legal remedies; it is not a court order.
- Author
- Ginger Barry Boyd, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
WFSB reports on Flock's warning to Connecticut police
Relevant passage: September 29 investigation, updated October 2; company's customer warning and response
About this source
The investigation reports Flock's warning and the company's response to Michael's research. The company's account of unlawful access and law-enforcement involvement remains attributed to Flock.
- Author
- Sam Smink
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Joshua Michael's Flock vulnerability-disclosure and security report
Relevant passage: Pages 1-14, 27-30 and 46-48; December 2025 access account and disclosure discussion
About this source
Michael's report describes data access and security concerns. Its device totals include records beyond installed license-plate cameras and must not be presented as an independently verified camera count.
- Author
- Joshua Michael
- Published
- Accessed
Reporting
Chad Marlow and Chad Bianco discuss Flock's surveillance-map dispute
Relevant passage: September 27 report (11:17 a.m. ET); paragraphs quoting Chad Marlow and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco from their statements to the Daily Caller News Foundation
About this source
The report quotes Marlow criticizing Flock and Bianco calling for accountability for information he characterizes as illegally accessed. Bianco's characterization is not a judicial finding.
- Author
- Dylan Kresak
- Published
- Accessed
Original post
Joshua Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure
About this source
Michael criticizes Flock's legal threats and customer notice, explains his security argument and says he will not back down. His assessment of national-security risk is his argument.
- Author
- Joshua Michael
- Published
- Accessed
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Should Flock Safety require Joshua Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map?
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/flock-safety-joshua-michael-surveillance-map-removal
The Dispute Index. "Should Flock Safety require Joshua Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map?". First published: 2026-10-07. Last updated: 2026-10-07. https://disputeindex.com/cases/flock-safety-joshua-michael-surveillance-map-removal