Garrett Langley, co-founder and CEO of Flock, defended the company’s Gunshot Detection product, saying that its microphones detect “only gunshots.” However, Flock’s website and a subsequent statement from a company spokesperson provide a much broader description of the system’s capabilities, raising direct questions about the types of sounds the platform collects and how they are used.
Flock says its audio systems can identify the source of gunfire immediately, and can also detect car meetups, serious car accidents, fireworks, and other “disruptive community events.” The FAQ section states that the company’s detection library is continuously expanding to include emerging threats that align with customers’ needs.
From Gunshots to “Disruptive Events”
During his appearance at TechCrunch Disrupt, Langley said the product was designed because many people do not call emergency services when they hear gunfire. He added that some customers wanted to receive alerts when a kidnapping occurred or someone was harmed in parking lots, so the company tested that capability with a limited number of customers before backing away from it.
Flock announced its Gunshot Detection feature last year, initially indicating that it could listen for “screams.” After criticism from privacy groups, the company changed the wording to “human distress sounds,” then later said it had removed the ability to detect “distress” from the accounts of customers who had tested it.
When Langley was asked about the contradiction between his statements and Flock’s materials, which mention other sounds, he replied that the system was “for gunshots only.” However, spokesperson Paris Lewbel explained to TechCrunch that the technology is used primarily to detect gunfire, but can also detect fireworks, car meetups, and potential car accidents. He confirmed that Audio Detection is not intended to monitor conversations or analyze speech, and that it does not currently detect screams or human distress sounds.
Why Does This Contradiction Matter?
The issue is not merely about the accuracy of an audio-detection model, but about the boundaries of surveillance that local communities may accept. The difference between detecting a specific gunshot and detecting a broader range of sounds changes how residents and customers perceive the system’s scope, and makes the wording of usage and oversight policies more important.
Langley said that the number of Flock microphones is roughly comparable to the number of ShotSpotter microphones, which had about 25,000 microphones as of 2024, according to a Wired report. The statements come amid increasing scrutiny from privacy groups, including the ACLU, and from individuals concerned about the misuse of surveillance technologies. Texas and Florida are also attempting to end their relationships with Flock, while Amazon Ring ended its partnership with the company.
The available facts establish a discrepancy between the product’s public description and the CEO’s statements, but they do not by themselves determine how each system is operated by every customer or the amount of data retained. Questions about transparency, the scope of alerts, and local safeguards governing the use of audio recordings therefore remain open for customers and the public.