Flock CEO Calls for Privacy-Safety Compromise as Surveillance Backlash Grows

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley is calling for a national balance between privacy and public safety as the surveillance technology company faces mounting criticism over how its license plate-reading network can be used and abused.

During a recent Fox News interview, Langley argued that focusing exclusively on either privacy or safety misses the larger issue. He said governments need rules that preserve the benefits of crime-fighting technology while providing meaningful privacy protections and accountability.

Police misuse cases intensify scrutiny of Flock

The debate has grown more urgent following reports of officers using automated license plate readers for unauthorised personal purposes. The Washington Post identified 46 cases in which police officers were accused of improperly using Flock’s network, including cases involving alleged surveillance of wives, girlfriends or former partners.

Langley subsequently apologised after hearing from one woman affected by alleged misuse. In a CBS News interview, he said the company could have done more earlier but rejected the idea that Flock created police misconduct. He argued that stronger auditing technology can make abuse easier to identify.

Flock operates a network of more than 120,000 automated license plate readers nationwide. The cameras photograph passing vehicles and record information including license plates and vehicle characteristics, creating searchable records that participating law enforcement agencies can use during investigations.

Flock introduces new privacy safeguards

In response to the backlash, Flock is reducing its default data retention period from 30 days to 7 days. The company will also require a case code before searches are conducted and plans to make its Audit Assistance tool, designed to flag unusual search behaviour, mandatory for law enforcement customers by the end of the year.

There are exceptions. Information related to an investigation can be retained beyond 7 days through Flock’s Evidence Mode, while agencies may adopt different retention periods when state or local policies require them.

The American Civil Liberties Union said reducing the standard retention period could be a positive step but questioned how Evidence Mode will operate. The organisation has also called for independent evaluation of Flock’s misuse-detection tools and argued that the company’s safeguards still leave significant civil-liberties concerns unresolved.

Opposition is becoming bipartisan

Flock’s technology is increasingly becoming a political issue ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Axios reported that opposition to the cameras is emerging across ideological lines, reflecting broader public unease over surveillance and AI technologies.

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has criticised the spread of Flock cameras, while independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders posted a message calling to “STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE. STOP FLOCK.”

Republican lawmakers have also proposed restrictions. Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, which would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing, operating, or accessing automated license plate recognition systems, including Flock Safety cameras, as well as facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technologies. It would also prevent state, local and tribal governments from using federal funds for those systems.

Langley has said regulation should go in another direction, arguing that states should make the illegal use of surveillance data a criminal offence. He has also acknowledged that technologies such as Flock currently operate in an environment where regulation and accountability can be insufficient.

The growing dispute is therefore no longer simply about whether license plate readers can help police solve crimes. It increasingly centres on who should be allowed to search the data, how long it should exist and what consequences should follow when surveillance tools are used for purposes unrelated to legitimate investigations.