Garrett Langley, chief executive of Flock Safety, has said the United States needs to find a compromise between privacy and public safety. In an interview with Fox News, Langley argued that focusing solely on one side—either privacy or safety—constitutes the wrong priority and that the country should seek balance.
Growing controversy and allegations of misuse
Langley’s Fox News appearance was one of several interviews he has given as the company faces mounting public criticism over the potential misuse of its cameras, drones and license-plate recognition systems. The Washington Post reported 46 cases in which police officers were accused of using Flock technology for unauthorized purposes, including stalking wives, girlfriends or ex-partners.
After listening to an interview with one of the alleged victims, Langley told CBS News, “I apologize. It kills me that she went through that.” He also maintained that he did not believe Flock created police abuse, saying the company was the first to highlight such abuses and build tools to detect them.
Political responses from both sides
The issue has drawn attention from both left- and right-leaning politicians. On the left, Michigan 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: “STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE. STOP FLOCK.”
On the right, three House Republicans introduced a bill that would bar the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license-plate recognition, explicitly naming “including a Flock Safety camera.”
Company changes and remaining concerns
Flock has implemented some changes in response to criticism: it reduced the default data retention period from 30 days to seven days and now requires that a case code be entered before data can be accessed. However, those default settings can be overridden—for instance, law enforcement can retain data longer by using a setting called Evidence Mode.
In its response to Flock’s announced changes, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that while Flock did not shorten default retention to the ACLU’s recommended 48 hours, the proposal may be a step in the right direction. The ACLU added that whether the change is real or merely public relations depends on how Evidence Mode operates.
Langley’s proposals and next steps
Langley has suggested that state regulators should pass laws making illegal uses of Flock data a criminal offense. In the Fox News interview he pointed to the company’s recent changes and said, “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.”
TechCrunch also plans to question Langley about these issues when he appears on stage at the Disrupt conference in October.
Why this matters
The debate highlights a broader societal question about balancing measures intended to improve public safety with protections for civil liberties. As Flock and similar technology providers adjust practices and face potential regulation, policymakers, civil liberties groups and the public will continue to scrutinize how surveillance tools are deployed and governed.
