Garrett Langley, the founder and chief executive of the US surveillance firm Flock, has admitted that his company was too slow to implement necessary safeguards against the misuse of its technology by law enforcement. The company, which provides license plate-reading cameras, drones, and sensor networks, has faced significant public backlash after reports emerged of officers using the equipment to track romantic partners and stalk strangers. While the technology has been used to find stolen cars and missing people, the instances of abuse have sparked a national debate.
When asked during an interview if it had taken the firm too long to protect its tens of thousands of cameras and sensors from police abuse, Langley responded, “Yeah… yes.” In response to these controversies, Flock is now rolling out stricter measures. The company is cutting the number of days most data is retained, reducing the window from 30 days to seven. Furthermore, abnormal searches and uses will now be automatically flagged by the system to prevent unauthorized behavior.
Flock cameras have been used by police to track former and current romantic partners, and in one documented case, even a woman who had sought an abortion. These incidents have led to officers across the US either quitting or being fired for their misuse of the technology. In Indiana, one man discovered through a public records request that police had set a surveillance alert for his vehicle, despite him not being suspected of any wrongdoing, highlighting the potential for overreach.
At least 50 cities have cut ties with Flock this year due to the public outcry. However, Langley told the that 16 cities that previously turned off Flock services have returned in the last three months. He claims the company is currently seeing a 7:1 ratio of new customers to lost customers, maintaining that the technology remains a vital tool for modern policing.
Langley revealed that just six months ago, he asked in a meeting of the company’s board why there seemed to be a growing public focus on Flock. This inquiry occurred around the time Amazon’s Ring cancelled a partnership with Flock following an outcry over a Super Bowl advertisement that sparked concerns about unwanted surveillance. Reflecting on his past management style, Langley admitted, “Historically, my point of view as a chief executive of a private company was, I don’t know if I should be making these decisions. I don’t know if it’s my job to say how long data should be retained.”
He has since shifted his perspective, stating he now agrees with privacy advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation that police should be required to provide an active case number to search Flock’s data. “They’re right. I think it should be required,” Langley said. He noted that employees and communities have demanded a stronger stance from the company, a responsibility he previously resisted.
However, critics remain unconvinced by these changes. Cooper Quintin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation described Flock’s new updates as “piecemeal, voluntary, and reversible,” arguing they fall short of meaningful privacy protections. Quintin emphasized that simple feature updates can be circumvented and insisted that invasive searches, such as automated license plate reader database queries, must require a judicial warrant.
Langley now accepts responsibility for exerting more control over how his company’s products are used. He continues to pitch Flock’s technology as crucial for combating crime, claiming that cities choosing not to use the system are effectively opting “to be less safe.” Despite this, he acknowledged that the technology has been misused, noting that “we’re only as good as the data coming in” and that wrongful arrests often stem from bad data or officers failing to follow established rules.
The CEO also observed that because Flock’s cameras are clearly visible in neighborhoods, the public increasingly views the firm as a primary outlet for concerns regarding privacy and technology. “Because you can see our cameras, it’s easier to get mad,” Langley remarked. He noted that in the US, there is currently no comprehensive federal law governing the collection, use, or sale of personal data, which complicates the regulatory landscape.
During a recent trip to Cleveland, Langley met a woman who was vociferously against the presence of Flock in her community. When he asked why she disliked the technology, she explained it was ultimately a tool for police to “abuse their power.” Interestingly, Langley found that many police officers shared this sentiment. He noted that conversations with law enforcement often turned to officers complaining about colleagues, saying, “We knew that person was not good. We had no way to prove it.”
This internal feedback loop led to the development of a new audit feature, released as an option earlier this year. The feature automatically creates an audit log of all searches conducted on the platform and flags unusual search behaviors. Most police customers have opted to turn on this feature, which Langley hopes will provide better oversight of officer conduct.
Looking ahead, Langley maintains that while a camera is “very far from a deadly weapon,” it remains a “very powerful tool.” He insists that officers who abuse their positions are “horrible” and should face consequences beyond simple dismissal. As the company navigates this transition, it faces the dual challenge of satisfying public demand for privacy while maintaining its position as a primary technology provider for American law enforcement agencies.
Comments