How We Score Cities

Each city receives a surveillance report card grade from F to A+. The grade is based on a simple, weighted average of several transparency and harm-reduction criteria. Each criterion is scored between 0 and 1, then combined into a 0–100 score and finally mapped to a letter grade.

Criteria

• Total number of Flock cameras per resident – Fewer cameras per 1,000 residents earns a higher score.
• Disclosing the number of cameras – Cities that publish how many cameras they operate score higher.
• Transparency portal – A public transparency or accountability portal boosts the score.
• Data retention policy – Shorter retention periods are better. We treat 0 days as ideal and 365 days or more as the worst case.
• Disclosing camera locations – Publishing approximate locations of cameras improves the score.
• Auditable search logs – Having logs that can be audited by an independent body improves accountability.
• Disclosing data-sharing partners – Cities that list which agencies they share data with get a higher score.
• Total number of data-sharing organizations – Fewer organizations with access is better; a very large number of partners reduces the score.

Weights and thresholds

Each criterion has a weight that reflects its importance. By default we give extra weight to camera density and data retention, because they directly affect how much data is collected and for how long. All of the weights together add up to 1 so the final score is easy to interpret.

We convert the weighted 0–1 score into a 0–100 number and then into a letter grade using this scale:

• F: 0–19
• D: 20–39
• C: 40–59
• B: 60–79
• A: 80–94
• A+: 95–100