Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure
Joshua MichaelCybersecurity researcher and map publisher
Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure and argues that his research exposes a security risk in the company's surveillance infrastructure.
“I'm not backing down”
Original post
Original text
Original text
Where this statement fits
Should Flock Safety require Joshua Michael to remove his surveillance-camera map?
Flock Safety's lawyers demanded that Joshua Michael remove material about its surveillance network and stop accessing its systems. Michael rejects the pressure, while other named participants disagree over whether publishing the information deserves protection or enforcement.
Source and context
Original post
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.
Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Original text
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.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
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 quotation
He asks readers to examine the documents and support his work. His national-security assessment remains an attributed argument.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why 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.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Flock Safety
More from this case
Read the full caseBianco supports enforcement against alleged unlawful access
“need to be arrested and held accountable”Read statement
Marlow criticizes Flock's removal pressure
“[I]t is ridiculous that a company that clearly does not care about other people's privacy at all is suddenly incredibly worried about its own privacy, and and I would say that if there is a group out there that is actively trying to protect Flock's privacy, maybe their efforts would be better concentrated on protecting the privacy of everybody else”Read statement
Flock demands removal and threatens legal remedies
Flock Safety
“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”Read statement
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/5082-michael-rejects-flock-s-legal-pressure-and-argues
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Michael rejects Flock's legal pressure". First published: 2026-10-07. Last updated: 2026-10-07. https://disputeindex.com/events/5082-michael-rejects-flock-s-legal-pressure-and-argues