Flock CEO calls for compromise as surveillance company faces growing backlash

WASHINGTON, 24 AUGUST 2026 —

Flock Safety CEO urges “compromise” amid mounting backlash over surveillance tech

Flock Safety, a New York‑based company that supplies automated surveillance equipment to police departments across the United States, has been thrust into the spotlight after a series of allegations that its technology has been misused by law‑enforcement officers. CEO Garrett Langley has responded by calling for a “compromise” between privacy and safety, a stance that has drawn both support and criticism from lawmakers and civil‑rights groups.

The controversy began when the Washington Post published a list of 46 incidents in which police officers allegedly used Flock’s technology for unauthorized purposes, including stalking personal relationships. The report highlighted cases in which officers used the company’s cameras and drones to monitor spouses, girlfriends or ex‑partners without consent.

In response, Langley apologized to one of the alleged victims during a CBS News interview, stating, “It kills me that she went through that,” while insisting that Flock had not created police abuse but rather “shined a light on it and built the tools to find it.”

The backlash has spread beyond the media. Democratic and Republican politicians have both taken aim at the firm. Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El‑Sayed criticized his opponent Mike Rogers for supporting what he described as “the mass proliferation of Flock cameras, any and everywhere, watching your every move to collect information without you even noticing.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders posted a call to “STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE.

STOP FLOCK.” On the other side, three House Republicans introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric IDs or license‑plate recognition, explicitly naming Flock Safety cameras.

In an effort to address the concerns, Flock has made some changes to its product settings. The company reduced the default data‑retention period from 30 days to seven days and introduced a requirement that a case code be entered before accessing data. However, these changes can be overridden. Police can extend the retention period by enabling a setting called “Evidence Mode,” which allows data to be stored for longer periods.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has noted that while Flock’s new default retention period is longer than the 48‑hour period recommended by the ACLU, the real test will be how the Evidence Mode operates in practice.

Langley has called on state regulators to “pass bills that make [the illegal use of Flock data] a criminal offense.” He also emphasized the need for regulation and accountability, saying, “Today, it is too often that in Flock and in other technologies, there’s no regulation. There’s no accountability, and we think that’s wrong.” The company’s CEO will appear at TechCrunch’s Disrupt conference in October, where he is expected to address the ongoing concerns.

For Malaysian readers, the debate over Flock Safety’s technology echoes broader regional discussions about surveillance, privacy and public safety. In Malaysia, the use of facial‑recognition cameras in public spaces has sparked similar concerns, with the government citing national security while civil‑rights groups warn of potential abuses. The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has recently issued guidelines on the deployment of biometric systems, emphasizing the need for clear legal frameworks and data‑protection measures.

The Flock case also highlights the global nature of technology regulation. While the U.S. Congress is debating federal restrictions, other jurisdictions—including the European Union, which has already imposed strict limits on facial‑recognition use in public spaces—are setting precedents that could influence Malaysian policy. The United Nations Human Rights Council has called for “transparent, accountable and proportionate” use of surveillance technologies, a principle that aligns with the concerns raised by the ACLU and other advocacy groups.

Looking ahead, the outcome of the U.S. legislative proposals and the company’s internal policy changes will likely shape the future of automated surveillance. If the federal bill introduced by House Republicans passes, it could set a new standard for how surveillance technology is procured and used by law‑enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, Flock’s willingness to adjust its default settings and engage with regulators may serve as a model for other tech firms facing similar scrutiny.

In the meantime, stakeholders across the spectrum remain divided. Law‑enforcement officials argue that such technology enhances public safety and crime‑prevention capabilities, while civil‑rights advocates warn that without safeguards, the tools can become instruments of surveillance and abuse. The balance between privacy and safety will continue to be a central theme in the debate, both in the United States and in countries like Malaysia that are grappling with the rapid adoption of surveillance technologies.

Related: MAS · Washington