Garrett Langley, the founder and CEO of Flock, believes that the advantages of implementing surveillance technology on a large scale outweigh the associated risks. “If we aspire to live in a society where individuals who commit crimes are more likely to be held accountable, we must not hinder progress,” Langley stated during a panel discussion at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco on Wednesday. Throughout the interview, the founder of the controversial surveillance company, known for its license plate cameras and other recording devices, sidestepped challenging inquiries regarding the backlash Flock has encountered, which has resulted in contract cancellations and layoffs. Instead, Langley often responded with anecdotes from discussions with police chiefs and city officials across the United States, recounting the numerous crimes Flock has purportedly helped solve, rather than providing concrete solutions to the public’s concerns. In doing so, he portrayed Flock as an inevitable advancement in technology. He emphasized that for society to improve—specifically in terms of reducing crime—individuals must be willing to sacrifice some degree of privacy in exchange. A similar discourse surrounding trade-offs and benefits can be applied to artificial intelligence, which is promoted as significantly enhancing our lives by automating mundane tasks and increasing convenience. However, this comes at the cost of sharing extensive personal information with AI developers, raising concerns about potential existential threats, according to some critics. It is not surprising that the backlash against AI intersects with the criticism aimed at Flock. Like AI, Flock is perceived by some as a technology imposed on the public without their consent. For Langley, this is simply the nature of progress. “At its core, technology is about doing things more efficiently. It is not about achieving perfection,” he remarked. “Driverless cars serve as a pertinent analogy. I believe they are unequivocally safer than human drivers. When an accident occurs, the solution is not to ban driverless cars but to discuss how to prevent future incidents.” However, unlike driverless car manufacturers, who take proactive measures following accidents by pausing their fleets and implementing fixes, Flock appears to struggle with determining when it should take responsibility for intervention. Langley’s responses indicate that he prefers to leave ethical considerations regarding Flock’s usage to others. “We do not intend to dictate how city leaders should perform their duties,” he stated. “We will offer recommendations and defaults but will limit the number of mandated features, functions, and policies,” he added.
CEO: ‘Flock is far from perfect’ Among the various defenses Langley presented against his critics during the interview was the assertion that misinformation about Flock has contributed to some customer cancellations. He cited an instance where a client terminated their contract under the mistaken belief that the devices were capable of facial recognition. While Flock cameras do not utilize facial recognition technology, they can detect and track individuals. Langley also took the opportunity to criticize those who expect his technology, or any technology, to be flawless, attributing this sentiment to an unnamed community leader. “He noted that society often evaluates technology not by how it compares to previous iterations but by an unrealistic standard of perfection. Flock is far from perfect; I am far from perfect—I have made numerous mistakes,” Langley acknowledged. Another point of contention was the characterization of Flock as a more efficient policing tool, one that enables law enforcement agencies to operate effectively with fewer personnel. “Considering the trajectory of policing over the past decade, particularly in the aftermath of COVID-19, law enforcement employment is plummeting. Take San Francisco, for example, where there are hundreds of unfilled positions that may never be filled,” he remarked, positioning Flock as a technological solution to these staffing shortages. However, when pressed about potential abuses and the intrusive nature of his company’s surveillance technology, Langley failed to provide substantial answers. “If the goal is to mitigate abuse, I believe there are ways to achieve that without disrupting the legal system or the operational efficiency of a police department,” he stated, without elaborating on what those methods might entail. For Langley, these concerns appear to be of secondary importance, as his conviction in Flock’s role as a public benefit remains strong. “One of the unfortunate consequences of establishing a significant company is the price one must pay, but I believe it is worthwhile because millions of individuals are leading better lives today thanks to Flock,” he asserted. “We have certainly made our share of mistakes, and there are those who oppose our actions, but it is worth it because one day, they too might find themselves as victims,” Langley concluded.
