Garrett Langley defended the company’s crime-fighting technology at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026, despite canceled contracts, employee reductions and growing concerns about police misuse of surveillance data.
Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley defended his company’s surveillance technology Wednesday, October 14, 2026, arguing that concerns about privacy and misuse should not prevent law enforcement agencies from adopting tools that help investigate crimes.
Speaking at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco, Langley acknowledged that Flock has made mistakes. However, he maintained that its automated license plate readers and other surveillance products provide important public safety benefits.
His comments came amid increasing criticism of the company’s technology, canceled government contracts and a workforce reduction affecting approximately 270 employees.
The controversy centers on whether police departments and private technology companies have adequate safeguards to prevent the misuse of information collected about drivers and their movements.
CEO Argues Surveillance Technology Helps Fight Crime
During an interview with TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos, Langley defended the role of surveillance technology in modern policing.
He argued that giving investigators better tools increases the likelihood that people who commit crimes will be identified and held accountable.
Langley also suggested that the public sometimes expects new technology to operate without mistakes, rather than judging its performance against existing methods.
He compared the debate surrounding surveillance systems with the development of self-driving vehicles. In his view, problems involving emerging technology should lead to improvements rather than automatically ending its use.
The comparison reflected his broader argument that technological development involves challenges that can be addressed as systems improve.
Langley acknowledged that neither he nor Flock Safety had operated perfectly. He nevertheless defended the company’s overall impact, saying its technology had improved the lives of millions of people.
Those claims were presented as the CEO’s assessment of Flock’s effectiveness. The discussion did not establish an independently verified figure for the number of people who had benefited from its products.
How Flock Safety Cameras Work
Flock Safety is best known for automated license plate readers installed along public roads, in commercial areas and near residential communities.
The cameras photograph passing vehicles and use software to identify license plates. Depending on the equipment and system configuration, they can also record identifying characteristics such as vehicle make, model and color.
Police departments can search stored records while investigating stolen vehicles, missing persons and other incidents involving automobiles.
The information can also help investigators identify where a particular vehicle was observed at different times.
Unlike conventional traffic cameras, these systems are designed to collect information that can be searched after a vehicle has left the area.
That capability is central to the privacy debate because people who have not been suspected of criminal activity can also have their vehicle movements recorded.
Langley emphasized that Flock’s license plate-reading cameras do not use facial recognition. However, some of the company’s surveillance products can detect or track people through other methods.
The distinction matters because identifying a person’s face is not the only way surveillance technology can reveal personal information.
Repeated vehicle sightings can potentially disclose travel patterns, workplaces, frequently visited locations and other aspects of daily life.
Police Misuse Raises Accountability Questions
Criticism of Flock has intensified following reports that some law enforcement personnel improperly accessed license plate databases.
TechCrunch reported that officers in several jurisdictions had been arrested, dismissed or pressured to resign after allegations that they used surveillance records for unauthorized personal purposes.
Some cases involved allegations of tracking individuals without legitimate investigative justification.
These incidents have raised questions about whether existing access controls, audit procedures and disciplinary systems are sufficient.
During Wednesday’s discussion, Langley was asked whether Flock should take greater responsibility for preventing abuse by its customers.
He responded that the company does not want to dictate how police departments or local governments operate.
Flock can recommend policies and provide default settings, he explained, but generally prefers not to impose extensive mandatory restrictions on agencies using its systems.
That position leaves significant responsibility with local authorities, which may have different rules governing searches, data retention and information sharing.
Langley acknowledged that measures could be introduced to reduce misuse without disrupting legitimate police work. However, he did not identify a detailed set of additional companywide safeguards during the discussion.
In a separate TechCrunch interview, Langley said Flock had not terminated any police department contracts because of customer abuse of its technology.
The company’s approach has become an important issue for critics who believe surveillance providers should accept greater responsibility for preventing unauthorized access.
Local Governments Reconsider Camera Contracts
Flock’s difficulties are not limited to individual misconduct cases.
Across the United States, local governments have been reviewing contracts with the company as residents question how much surveillance is appropriate in public spaces.
Some communities have canceled agreements, suspended equipment or considered alternative systems.
In California, the Costa Mesa City Council ordered an examination of its license plate reader program following concerns about misuse by a police officer.
The Los Angeles Times reported in April that the city operated more than 40 Flock cameras and that council members wanted an audit and an assessment of alternatives.
The controversy has also affected government agencies outside California.
An October 15 report from Axios described a debate involving the Cleveland Metropolitan School District, which is considering whether to renew a $603,000 surveillance contract.
The district uses approximately 200 license plate readers across 62 school locations. Supporters argue that the equipment helps investigate criminal activity, while opponents have questioned the collection and sharing of surveillance information.
In Harris County, Texas, officials have also struggled to establish a comprehensive picture of the camera networks operating across different jurisdictions.
The Houston Chronicle reported that inconsistent policies and uncertainty over access have complicated efforts to oversee the technology.
These disputes demonstrate how surveillance decisions made by individual departments can affect residents beyond the boundaries of a single community.
Workforce Cuts Add to Company’s Challenges
Flock has also announced workforce reductions while dealing with public criticism and changing business conditions.
Reuters reported that the company planned to reduce its workforce by approximately 18%, affecting around 270 employees.
The departures were associated with a voluntary separation program, with employees expected to leave toward the end of October.
A Flock spokesperson described the program as part of efforts to position the company for its next stage of growth.
The company has not established that public opposition alone caused the reductions.
Nevertheless, the announcement arrived during a period when municipalities were reexamining surveillance spending, long-term contracts and the risks of expanding camera networks.
An investigation published by Wired in October found that some cities had substantially increased their spending on Flock products as they expanded camera installations and purchased additional services.
Those costs have created another consideration for local governments deciding whether surveillance systems deliver sufficient value.
Questions Extend Beyond License Plate Readers
Flock’s product portfolio includes additional public safety technologies, including gunshot detection equipment.
During another exchange at TechCrunch Disrupt, Langley described the company’s audio detection equipment as focused on identifying gunfire.
TechCrunch subsequently noted that Flock’s own website also described uses involving street takeovers and severe traffic collisions.
The apparent difference between the CEO’s description and the company’s published product information raised further questions about what its equipment detects and how the collected information is processed.
For privacy advocates, the issue extends beyond whether a particular device recognizes faces, identifies vehicles or detects sounds.
The broader concern involves what information is collected, how long it remains available, who can search it and whether inappropriate use can be detected.
Supporters of automated surveillance argue that searchable records can help investigators act more quickly, especially when departments face staffing shortages.
Langley cited San Francisco as an example of a city with numerous unfilled police positions, suggesting that technology could help compensate for limited personnel.
Critics counter that efficiency alone does not establish whether surveillance programs have appropriate boundaries or sufficient oversight.
Debate Over Privacy and Public Safety Continues
Flock’s growing network has placed the company at the center of a national debate over public safety, technology and personal privacy.
Langley’s appearance made clear that he does not intend to retreat from the company’s core business because of criticism.
He believes the potential benefits of improved criminal investigations justify continuing to develop and deploy surveillance systems, even when problems have occurred.
However, his defense left questions about accountability unresolved.
Local governments must still decide whether their existing policies adequately protect residents, including people whose information enters surveillance databases without any connection to suspected crimes.
Those decisions include determining who receives access, how searches are reviewed and when information should be deleted.
The next developments will come from cities, school districts and other public agencies reviewing their relationships with Flock Safety.
In Cleveland, school district officials are scheduled to vote on the proposed contract renewal October 27. The decision will provide another example of how public officials are weighing the investigative value of surveillance against concerns about privacy and oversight.
IMAGE: Source Flock Safety ALPR Camera Author Tony Webster This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.