By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley defended the nationwide expansion of his company’s surveillance cameras Wednesday, Oct. 14, arguing that concerns over privacy and potential misuse should not halt technology he believes improves public safety.
Speaking at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco, Langley addressed growing opposition to Flock’s automated license plate readers, which police departments use to identify vehicles and investigate suspected criminal activity.
The controversy has resulted in canceled municipal contracts, public protests and increased scrutiny of how law enforcement agencies collect, retain and share information about motorists.
Despite those concerns, Langley maintained that the technology provides important investigative capabilities that should continue developing rather than being abandoned because of shortcomings.
“If we want to live in a society where, if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, we shouldn’t pause progress,” Langley said during the conference interview reported by TechCrunch.
Flock’s surveillance systems capture images of passing vehicles, record license plates and generate searchable information that participating agencies can use during investigations.
Supporters argue that the technology helps officers identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects and investigate serious crimes. Critics contend that widespread deployment creates a system capable of tracking ordinary motorists who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
The dispute has intensified as local governments reconsider whether the investigative benefits justify the collection of vehicle-location information on a large scale.
Langley acknowledged that Flock’s products are imperfect but argued that technological development should be evaluated against existing alternatives rather than an expectation of flawless performance.
“Technology, at its core, in its definition, is just doing things better. It’s not doing things perfect,” he said.
He compared the debate over surveillance cameras to the introduction of autonomous vehicles, arguing that individual failures should lead to improvements instead of abandoning an entire technology.
“Driverless cars, I think, is a fair analogy. Driverless cars, I think, are definitively safer than human drivers. And when there’s one accident, I don’t think the answer is to shut down driverless cars. The answer is to say, ‘Hey, let’s talk about how we prevent more accidents in the future.’”
The analogy reflects Langley’s argument that emerging technologies inevitably encounter problems, although critics maintain that government surveillance raises distinct questions involving privacy rights, accountability and public consent.
Flock has faced mounting opposition from residents concerned that information collected for local criminal investigations could be accessed or shared more broadly than originally anticipated.
Questions have also arisen about how long vehicle-location records should be retained, who can search them and what safeguards prevent improper use.
Langley said the company generally prefers to leave decisions about surveillance policies to the municipalities and law enforcement agencies purchasing its products.
“We don’t want to tell city leaders how to do their job,” he said. “We will provide recommendations, we’ll provide defaults, but we’re going to minimize the number of mandated features, functions, and policies.”
That approach gives local officials considerable discretion over how the systems operate, but it also raises questions about whether privacy protections should depend on individual police department policies.
When asked how Flock could prevent abuse without interfering with investigations, Langley argued that appropriate safeguards were possible.
“I think if the idea is to curb abuse, I think there’s a way to do that that doesn’t disrupt the legal system, that doesn’t disrupt the efficacy and flow of a police department,” he said.
He did not outline a specific set of safeguards during that portion of the interview.
The controversy has also created financial and operational challenges for the company.
Flock recently announced a voluntary separation program expected to reduce its workforce by approximately 18%, or 270 employees, by the end of October. The staff reductions coincide with growing opposition to automated license plate readers and disputes over municipal contracts.
In a separate statement reported by TechCrunch, the company characterized the departures as part of preparations for its next stage of growth.
Flock has also faced criticism over whether some of its surveillance products can identify or track individuals beyond their vehicles.
The company maintains that its license plate cameras do not use facial recognition, although certain Flock technologies can detect and track people.
Langley suggested that misunderstandings about the company’s capabilities have contributed to some contract cancellations, citing an instance in which a customer reportedly ended its agreement over concerns about facial recognition.
He acknowledged that both he and his company had made mistakes but argued that those shortcomings should be weighed against the benefits Flock claims its systems provide.
“He was describing that, too often as a society we judge technology not on how it compares to the past, but how it compares to perfect. And Flock is far from perfect; I’m far from perfect, I’ve made plenty of mistakes,” Langley said, recalling remarks he attributed to an unnamed community leader.
The CEO also cited police staffing difficulties as a reason departments increasingly depend on technology.
According to Langley, personnel shortages have become particularly significant since the coronavirus pandemic, leaving agencies with investigative demands that exceed their available resources.
“If you look at where policing has gone over the last decade, but particularly post-COVID, law enforcement employment is declining rapidly. I think about a place like San Francisco, and there’s hundreds of open positions. They will probably never be filled,” he said.
Langley argued that automated surveillance could help departments manage those shortages by providing information officers might otherwise lack the time or personnel to collect.
Whether the systems produce measurable improvements in public safety remains an important question for communities considering contracts.
Police departments have credited automated license plate readers with assisting investigations, but critics argue that individual successes do not establish whether extensive vehicle monitoring is necessary or proportionate.
The debate has increasingly shifted toward accountability, particularly whether agencies should obtain judicial authorization before searching historical location records and whether residents should have access to information about local surveillance practices.
For Flock, those questions have become central to its relationships with government customers.
Langley acknowledged that leading a surveillance technology company has brought considerable criticism but maintained that the benefits outweigh the controversy.
“I think one of the unfortunate consequences of building a consequential company is this is the price you pay, and I think it’s worth it because there’s millions and millions of people who have a better life today because [of] Flock,” he said.
“And clearly we’ve made our fair share of mistakes, and there’s some folks who disagree with what we do, but it’s worth it because one day they might be a victim.”
His comments illustrate the competing priorities at the center of the national debate over automated surveillance.
Law enforcement agencies want tools that improve investigations and help compensate for limited resources, while privacy advocates and residents are demanding clearer restrictions on how government agencies collect and use information about people’s movements.
As more municipalities reconsider surveillance contracts, Flock faces pressure to demonstrate that its technology can deliver public safety benefits while providing meaningful safeguards against misuse.
Langley’s appearance made clear that the company intends to continue promoting its systems despite the opposition, leaving local officials and communities to determine how extensively the cameras should be deployed and what oversight should accompany their use.
Original article
Comments