Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley said the United States must find a “compromise” between privacy and safety as his company faces mounting criticism over police misuse of its surveillance technology. In a recent Fox News interview, Langley said, “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise.”
The comments come as Flock, which sells automated license plate readers, cameras, and drones to law enforcement, confronts a growing public outcry. The Washington Post recently identified 46 cases in which police officers were accused of using Flock technology for unauthorized purposes, including stalking wives, girlfriends, or exes. After listening to an interview with one alleged victim, Langley told CBS News, “I apologize. It kills me that she went through that.” He added, “I don’t think that Flock created police abuse. I think we’re the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it.”
Also read: Nvidia shows the AI 'harness' — not the model — is what turns a chatbot into an agent
Bipartisan political pressure intensifies
Much like the backlash against data centers, opposition to Flock has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. On the left, Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed accused his opponent Mike Rogers of supporting “this mass proliferation of Flock cameras, any and everywhere, watching your every move to collect information without you even noticing.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders posted on social media: “STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE. STOP FLOCK.”
On the right, three House Republicans introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems using facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license plate recognition, “including a Flock Safety camera.” The bipartisan nature of the criticism signals that the company’s challenges extend beyond any single political faction.
Also read: Harvard’s $699 Startup Bootcamp Deploys AI Avatars of Its Instructors
Policy changes and lingering concerns
Flock has already made some adjustments in response to the criticism. The company reduced its default data retention period from 30 days to seven days and now requires a case code before accessing data. However, both safeguards can be overridden. For instance, police can preserve data for longer by using a setting called Evidence Mode.
The American Civil Liberties Union responded cautiously, saying, “While Flock has not shortened the default retention period to the ACLU’s recommended 48 hours, its proposal may be a step in the right direction. Whether this is a real change or just another Flock PR move, however, will depend on how its ‘Evidence Mode’ operates.”
Langley has said state regulators should “pass bills that make [the illegal use of Flock data] a criminal offense.” During his Fox News interview, he pointed to the company’s changes while acknowledging, “Today, it is too often that in Flock and in other technologies, there’s no regulation. There’s no accountability, and we think that’s wrong.”
What to watch next
The debate over Flock’s technology is far from settled. The company’s practices will likely face continued scrutiny from lawmakers, civil liberties groups, and the public. TechCrunch is set to interview Langley on-stage at its Disrupt conference in October, where he will face questions about these issues directly.
As the conversation around surveillance and privacy evolves, the outcome of Flock’s policy changes and the proposed legislation will be closely watched. The company’s ability to balance its business model with public accountability may determine its long-term standing in the market.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. The surveillance technology market is subject to regulatory changes and public opinion shifts that could affect company performance.
Be the first to comment