Flock CEO defends surveillance technology amid national backlash: ‘We shouldn’t pause progress’

Flock's surveillance tech is now being positioned as a critical tool for understaffed police departments.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley defended his company's surveillance technology at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026, asserting that progress should not be halted despite national backlash and cancelled contracts. Langley argued that increased accountability for criminals is a societal benefit that outweighs privacy concerns, comparing Flock's technology to the development of driverless cars. He suggested that public perception is often based on a desire for perfection rather than a comparison to past methods. Langley acknowledged that misinformation, such as the belief that Flock cameras perform facial recognition (they do not, but can track people), has contributed to customer cancellations. He also posited Flock as a solution to declining law enforcement employment, enabling police to do more with fewer staff. Langley indicated Flock provides recommendations and defaults but largely leaves ethical usage decisions to city leaders, stating the company's mission to improve lives makes the controversies worthwhile.

Flock's strategy of presenting its surveillance technology as an inevitable advancement, akin to AI, frames public debate around trade-offs between privacy and security. By deferring ethical usage decisions to local governments, Flock aims to mitigate direct responsibility for potential abuses, a tactic that mirrors how some AI developers approach their products. This approach could set a precedent for other surveillance technology companies facing similar scrutiny, suggesting a model where technological deployment precedes comprehensive regulatory or ethical frameworks. The CEO's consistent defense, emphasizing crime reduction benefits, indicates a company doubling down on its core value proposition despite significant public and contractual resistance.

The analogy to driverless cars, while intended to normalize potential accidents as part of technological progress, overlooks the distinct accountability structures in place for autonomous vehicle development. Unlike car manufacturers that pause fleets to address safety, Flock appears resistant to admitting corporate responsibility for misuse, instead placing the onus on users. This stance risks alienating potential clients and policymakers who demand robust safety and privacy guarantees, potentially limiting Flock's market penetration and inviting stricter regulatory intervention.