# Flock Condor Video and Wing Gateways Flock markets Condor as an AI-assisted video-camera family and Wing as a gateway for bringing video streams into its software. These products extend the vendor's public offering beyond fixed plate capture, but the available sources do not establish that any Arkansas agency in this corpus bought or enabled them. ## Vendor self-description Flock's current video page describes Condor variants, visual alerts, vehicle and people searching, and a “non-biometric” people-search design that the vendor says does not use facial recognition. Those are current vendor representations, not independent accuracy or configuration findings (vendor primary/self-description, [Flock video-camera page](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/flocksafety.com/video-cameras.md)). The May 26, 2026 catalog lists multiple Wing gateway configurations. One named configuration provides eight streams, 8 TB of storage, eight AI channels, and 30 days of storage; other catalog configurations and capacities differ. These are dated SKU specifications and do not establish what a particular customer installed (official procurement attachment / vendor catalog, [Flock price list, May 26, 2026](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/omniapartners.com/r250203-flock-pricing-2026-05-26.md)). ## Internet-exposure dispute 404 Media reported that at least 60 Condor PTZ systems it examined exposed live streams, archived video, and administrative functions without authentication. Flock later acknowledged that a carrier placed a small number of PTZ cameras on a public cellular network and exposed a diagnostic interface, but disputed access to its cloud, camera control, modification, and archived video (web research 2026-07-20, [404 Media report](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/404media.co/flock-condor-camera-internet-exposure-2025-12-22.md); vendor primary/self-description, [Flock cybersecurity response](../../web%20archive/2026-07-20/flocksafety.com/flock-safety-cybersecurity-how-we-protect-customer-community-data.md)). The competing accounts are preserved at [[T010 - Condor Internet Exposure Competing Accounts]]. ## Evidence boundary - “Non-biometric” is a vendor description of method; it does not mean the resulting clothing, movement, association, or location evidence is non-identifying. - A gateway's listed local capacity does not prove a customer's actual retention setting, network exposure, or cloud synchronization path. - The disputed 2025 exposure does not prove every Condor device was exposed, and Flock's response does not independently resolve what the examined systems allowed. - No Tier-1 Arkansas record currently ties Condor or Wing to Conway, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Sherwood, Fayetteville, ASP, or ARDOT. ## Open questions - Do any Arkansas agencies hold Condor/Wing quotes, orders, asset inventories, diagrams, or tenant configuration exports? - For any deployed gateway: which streams are ingested, where is video stored, how long is it retained, and what identities can reach live, archived, or administrative functions?