At Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco, Garrett Langley, founder and CEO of surveillance firm Flock, defended the company’s license-plate camera networks and other monitoring tools during heated criticism over privacy and ethics. Langley urged that the potential for holding criminals accountable justifies pushing forward with surveillance, despite growing public unrest. What he did not provide, however, were clear solutions to the mounting worries about misuse, oversight, or transparency.
Backlash, Layoffs, and Contract Cancellations
Flock is under fire. Cities and clients are pulling back or outright severing contracts, driven by concerns over how its technology works and its impact on civil liberties. The company has responded with layoffs, signaling that the backlash is having financial consequences as well as reputational ones. Langley, while acknowledging critics, insisted some cancellations stem from misunderstandings—such as mistaken beliefs that Flock’s cameras use facial recognition, which Langley says they don’t. Meanwhile, the cameras do detect and track people, a distinction some say is cosmetic.
Langley also defended the trade-off between security and privacy. He argued that society must accept some privacy loss in return for lower crime rates. He likened the technology to autonomous vehicles: while no technology is flawless, it shouldn’t be paused because it doesn’t meet perfection. According to him, improvements should evolve through practice rather than strict mandates.
Gaps in Accountability and Ethics
When pressed about the possibility of abuse, particularly by law enforcement bodies using Flock’s tools, Langley offered vague assurances rather than detailed safeguards. He said that if civil rights violations are a concern, there are ways to prevent misuse without hampering legal systems or disrupting police workflows—but he didn’t specify how.
Langley expressed that Flock is not perfect and acknowledged mistakes. He emphasized that the company will offer policy recommendations and default features but expects largely open-ended discretion by client governments. As he sees it, ethical choices over how to use the tools belong to authorities, not the maker.
On law enforcement staffing shortages, Langley made another case for Flock’s importance, citing dramatic declines in police availability in cities like San Francisco post-COVID. He portrayed Flock’s systems as a force multiplier—filling in where officers are not available or cannot monitor all the activity.
Langley closed by stressing his belief in Flock’s public good. He said millions benefit from its services today and that despite opposition, he believes the risk of withholding surveillance outweighs what he sees as its societal value—for those who fear becoming victims more than those who worry about watching.
Why it Matters: Flock’s stance taps into broader tensions in society over surveillance. Advances in facial recognition, video analytics, and tracking systems are prompting fierce debate—but the regulatory landscape lags behind. Questions around consent, proportionality, data protection, and independent audits persist without resolution. As more tech firms push similar tools, policymakers will need to decide whether to enforce checks now or allow market forces and public pressure to guide norms.
What to Watch: Look for state or municipal policies that define what surveillance tools can do—especially in terms of tracking people versus identifying them by face. Also watch for legal challenges or oversight bodies demanding transparency: if Langley doesn’t spell out concrete constraints soon, Flock may face legal, financial, or regulatory headwinds stronger than the current backlash.
