Garrett Langley, the CEO of Flock Safety, called for finding a “compromise” between privacy and safety as the company faces mounting criticism over the use of its cameras, drones, and license plate recognition technologies. In an interview with Fox News, Langley said that focusing solely on privacy or safety represents the wrong priority, and that the goal should be to strike a balance between the two.
The statement comes amid concerns that Flock systems could be used for unauthorized purposes by law enforcement agencies. The Washington Post reported that it identified 46 cases in which police officers were accused of using Flock technology illegally, including cases in which the technology was allegedly used to track wives, partners, or former partners.
Controversy Extends Beyond the Company
In an interview with CBS News, Langley apologized to one of the alleged victims after hearing her account, but declined to hold Flock responsible for police misuse of the data, saying that the company did not create the violation; rather, it was the first company to highlight it and provide tools to detect it.
The controversy is no longer confined to civil rights groups. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for the Michigan Senate, criticized what he described as the widespread deployment of Flock cameras, while Senator Bernie Sanders posted a call to halt “AI mass surveillance” and stop Flock. On the Republican side, three Republican members of the House introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric identifiers, or license plate recognition, including Flock Safety cameras.
What Has Changed in Practice?
Flock has already announced two changes in response to the criticism. It reduced the default data-retention period from 30 days to seven days, and it now requires a case code to be entered before accessing the data. However, both measures can be bypassed; police can retain the data for longer through a setting called Evidence Mode.
The American Civil Liberties Union believes that reducing the period could represent a step in the right direction, but it does not meet its recommendation to retain data for only 48 hours. It also said that assessing the seriousness of the change will depend on how Evidence Mode operates, not on the default period alone.
Why Does This News Matter?
The case shows that reducing the retention period or adding a procedural step alone does not resolve the risks of unauthorized access to surveillance data. The practical impact also depends on exceptions, audit logs, the entities authorized to use them, and accountability mechanisms when they are misused. This is a point supported by the facts presented in the report, not a conclusion about the effectiveness of the Flock system as a whole.
Langley said that state lawmakers should pass laws making the illegal use of Flock data a crime, adding that the absence of regulation and accountability is not limited to Flock alone. The open question remains whether the current changes will impose real restrictions on use or remain default settings that can be easily bypassed.