Flock Safety CEO Says Privacy and Safety Need a "Compromise" Amid Surveillance Backlash

The country needs to find a "compromise" between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley. "When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise," Langley said during a recent interview with Fox News. "How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?"

Langley's Fox News appearance was just the latest interview he's given as the company faces a growing public outcry around concerns that Flock's surveillance cameras, drones, and license plate recognition technology could be misused. These concerns aren't just hypothetical. The Washington Post recently identified 46 cases where police officers have been accused of using Flock technology for unauthorized purposes, including to stalk their wives, girlfriends, or exes.

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." At the same time, he insisted, "I don't think that Flock created police abuse. I think we're the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it."

A Bipartisan Backlash

Just as the data center backlash has become a potent issue on both the left and the right, both Democratic and Republican politicians have begun to aim Flock. On the left, Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed recently 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." And Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders posted, "STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE. STOP FLOCK."

On the right, three House Republicans recently introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license plate recognition, "including a Flock Safety camera." The bipartisan nature of the criticism is striking and suggests that concerns about mass surveillance transcend traditional political divisions.

The Company's Response

Flock has already made some changes in response to the criticism, reducing the default data retention time from 30 days to seven days and requiring that a case code be entered before accessing data. But both of these changes can be overridden; for example, police can save data for a longer time period by using a setting called Evidence Mode.

In its response to Flock's announced changes, the American Civil Liberties Union said, "While Flock has not shortened the default retention period to the ACLU's recommended 48 hours, its proposal may be a step in the right direction. Whether this is a real change or just another Flock PR move, however, will depend on how its 'Evidence Mode' operates."

For his part, Langley has said that state regulators should "pass bills that make [the illegal use of Flock data] a criminal offense." And during his Fox News interview, he pointed to the changes the company has already made, while also saying, "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."

The Broader Debate

The Flock Safety controversy is part of a broader national debate about the role of surveillance technology in American life. As AI-powered cameras and license plate readers become more common, concerns about privacy and potential misuse have intensified. Proponents argue that these technologies are essential tools for fighting crime and keeping communities safe. Critics contend that they represent a dangerous expansion of government surveillance powers that could be used to target marginalized communities or violate individuals' privacy rights.

Langley's framing of the issue as a "compromise" between privacy and safety reflects a recognition that both values are important and that finding a balance is essential. However, critics argue that the balance has already tipped too far in favor of surveillance and that more robust safeguards are needed to protect civil liberties.

The Role of Regulation

The Flock Safety case highlights the need for clearer regulation of surveillance technology. Currently, the rules governing the use of these tools vary widely from state to state and often lack robust enforcement mechanisms. Langley's call for state regulators to make the misuse of Flock data a criminal offense is a step in the right direction, but critics argue that more comprehensive federal regulation is needed.

The bill introduced by House Republicans to prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems is one example of the kind of regulation that could be enacted. However, such a bill would not address the widespread use of these systems by state and local law enforcement agencies.

What's Next?

The debate over Flock Safety and its technology is far from settled. Langley will be appearing on-stage at TechCrunch's Disrupt conference in October, where he will likely face tough questions about privacy, accountability, and the company's role in the surveillance landscape. In the meantime, the company will continue to face scrutiny from civil liberties groups, lawmakers, and the public.

As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the conversation about privacy and safety is only just beginning. The answers that emerge will shape not only the future of Flock Safety but also the broader relationship between technology, law enforcement, and civil liberties in the digital age.