Flock CEO defends surveillance expansion as privacy concerns intensify

# Flock Safety CEO Defends Surveillance Technology Amid Growing Privacy Backlash

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley defended the continued expansion of surveillance technology at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco on Wednesday, arguing that concerns about its limitations should not prevent the development of tools that could help solve crimes and hold offenders accountable.

“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 a panel discussion, according to TechCrunch.

His comments come as Flock Safety faces increasing scrutiny over its license plate-reading cameras and other surveillance products. Several communities have cancelled contracts or declined to renew agreements, citing concerns about privacy, data access and the potential misuse of surveillance information. The company has also announced workforce reductions amid the wider backlash.

During the discussion, Langley defended Flock’s technology by referring to conversations with police chiefs and local officials, along with examples of criminal investigations that he said had benefited from the company’s systems. He maintained that the technology could help law enforcement agencies identify vehicles connected to crimes and support investigations.

Flock’s cameras capture vehicle license plate information, enabling authorized users to search for vehicles that may be relevant to an investigation. However, the technology has prompted questions about the extent of monitoring it enables, how long information is retained and whether data can be accessed or shared beyond its original purpose.

Addressing concerns raised by a customer, Langley said Flock’s systems do not use facial recognition. He acknowledged, however, that the technology can detect and track people. The distinction has done little to settle broader concerns about surveillance, particularly when information collected in one location may be used by law enforcement agencies operating elsewhere.

Privacy advocates have warned that widespread deployment of such systems could allow individuals’ movements to be monitored in ways they may not expect. Critics also question whether sufficient safeguards exist to prevent authorized users from accessing data for personal reasons or using it beyond legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Langley argued that technological progress should not be abandoned simply because a system is imperfect. Comparing surveillance technology with driverless cars, he suggested that problems should prompt improvements rather than lead to the outright rejection of an emerging technology.

He also said Flock did not want to dictate how police departments and local governments carried out their responsibilities. According to Langley, the company can provide recommendations and establish default settings, but it aims to limit mandatory features and policies that would restrict how customers operate their systems.

Langley acknowledged that Flock was not perfect and said he had made mistakes. He argued that new technologies are often assessed against an ideal standard rather than evaluated in comparison with the alternatives already available.

As part of his defense, he highlighted staffing shortages in law enforcement, pointing to San Francisco as an example of a city with hundreds of vacant police positions. He suggested that surveillance technology could help departments maintain their ability to investigate crimes despite limited staffing and other operational challenges.

However, when the discussion turned to preventing surveillance abuse and ensuring accountability, Langley offered few specific proposals for additional safeguards that could be implemented without affecting police operations.

The company has faced criticism over how law enforcement personnel use its systems. TechCrunch reported cases in which officers faced disciplinary or legal consequences after allegedly abusing access to license plate data, including for personal surveillance. Such incidents have intensified questions about user permissions, oversight and the consequences of improper access to sensitive information.

Langley maintained that Flock’s technology had improved the lives of millions of people and argued that its benefits justified the mistakes made along the way. His remarks reflected the company’s position that surveillance tools can provide meaningful public safety benefits even as their limitations and risks require attention.

The discussion at TechCrunch Disrupt highlighted the continuing debate over the role of surveillance technology in criminal investigations. Supporters point to its potential to help police identify vehicles and gather investigative leads, while critics emphasize the risks of intrusive monitoring, unauthorized data access and insufficient accountability.

As communities reassess their contracts with Flock Safety, questions remain about how surveillance systems should be governed, what protections should apply to collected data and how companies and law enforcement agencies should respond when the technology is misused. Balancing public safety objectives with privacy rights and transparent oversight remains central to the debate over the expansion of automated surveillance.