Flock CEO calls for privacy and safety compromise amid scrutiny

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley has called for a national “compromise” between privacy and safety as public criticism grows around the company’s surveillance cameras, drones and automated license plate recognition technology. In a Fox News interview, Langley said that treating privacy or safety as the sole priority misses the need to balance both concerns.

The debate has sharpened as allegations of misuse have emerged. The Washington Post identified 46 cases in which police officers were accused of using Flock technology without authorization, including allegations involving the stalking of wives, girlfriends or former partners. After hearing an alleged victim’s account, Langley apologized to CBS News and said it pained him that she had gone through the experience.

Misuse concerns meet a wider political response

Langley said Flock did not create police abuse, but argued that the company had built tools capable of exposing it. He has also said state regulators should make illegal use of Flock data a criminal offence. In the Fox News interview, he said the lack of regulation and accountability around Flock and other technologies was wrong.

Opposition now spans the political spectrum. Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed criticized the proliferation of Flock cameras, while Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called for an end to AI mass surveillance and to Flock. Three House Republicans have introduced legislation that would bar federal purchases of automated surveillance systems using facial recognition, biometric identification or license plate recognition, explicitly including a Flock Safety camera.

The local procurement dispute reflected in LAPD contract dispute over Flock privacy underscores how concerns over privacy can shape decisions about public-safety technology, not only national political rhetoric.

Retention changes leave important exceptions

Flock has reduced its default data-retention period from 30 days to seven days and now requires a case code before users can access data. Those measures do not remove all discretion, however. Police can preserve data for longer through a setting called Evidence Mode.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the seven-day default still falls short of its recommended 48 hours. It described the proposal as a possible step in the right direction, while saying the practical significance would depend on how Evidence Mode operates.

For organisations evaluating surveillance systems, the business implication is clear: default retention periods and access requirements should be assessed alongside override powers, enforcement mechanisms and auditable accountability controls.