Flock CEO defends surveillance tech amid backlash

At TechCrunch Disrupt 2026, Garrett Langley said Flock’s tools can help solve more crimes, as critics point to privacy concerns, abuse risks, and lost contracts.

Flock founder and CEO Garrett Langley used a TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 panel in San Francisco to defend his company’s surveillance tools, arguing that the public should accept some loss of privacy if it means more crimes are solved. He made the case as Flock faces growing backlash, including canceled contracts and layoffs. The debate extends well beyond one company: it goes to the heart of how far cities should go with surveillance technology, and who gets to draw the line.

Langley cast Flock as a tool that helps law enforcement hold more people accountable. But he offered few concrete answers to criticism over privacy, abuse, and the limits that should govern the system. Instead, he leaned largely on stories from police chiefs and city leaders, along with examples of crimes he said Flock has helped solve.

Langley says surveillance concerns should not halt deployment

Onstage, Langley rejected the idea that the risks of deploying surveillance at scale outweigh the benefits.

“If we want to live in a society where, if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, we shouldn’t pause progress,” he said.

That set the tone for the discussion. Langley presented Flock as part of a broader pattern in which people initially resist new technology and later accept it. In his view, a safer society may require giving up some privacy in return.

He also compared the debate around Flock to arguments often made about artificial intelligence. AI is often pitched as a way to automate routine work and make life easier, but it also raises concerns about how much personal data people must share and what happens when systems fail. His point was that backlash is not unique to Flock. As IT-PUB News notes, Langley framed that pushback as part of a wider tension around technologies that many people see as intrusive.

Flock faces criticism over privacy, consent, and local control

The criticism around Flock is not theoretical. The company makes license plate cameras and other recording devices, and it is now facing public pushback strong enough to contribute to contract cancellations and layoffs.

Langley acknowledged that some people see the company’s technology as something imposed on them without consent. But he described that reaction as a familiar response to progress, not a reason to stop deploying the tools.

“We don’t want to tell city leaders how to do their job,” he said, adding that Flock would provide recommendations and defaults while minimizing mandated features, functions, and policies.

That leaves a central part of the ethics debate to local officials rather than the company itself. It also means cities and police departments carry much of the burden of deciding how the technology should be used, even as Flock supplies the cameras and recording systems.

The divide is hard to miss. Supporters see a tool that may help police respond more effectively. Critics see surveillance spreading without enough public control. Langley did not lay out a detailed framework for resolving that conflict.

Facial recognition claims became another flashpoint

One of Langley’s defenses focused on what he described as misinformation about what Flock cameras can do. He said one customer ended its contract because it believed the devices performed facial recognition.

According to Langley, that was not true. Flock cameras do not have facial recognition, although he said they can detect and track people. The distinction matters because public concern over surveillance often intensifies when systems are believed to identify individuals directly.

By pointing to that example, Langley argued that some of the criticism stems from misunderstanding. Even so, the broader issue remains. Whether or not the company uses facial recognition, its tools are still part of a surveillance network that many people view cautiously.

Langley also pushed back on the idea that technology should be judged against a perfect standard. He cited a community leader’s view that society often compares new tools not with what came before, but with an idealized version of what they might become.

“Flock is far from perfect; I’m far from perfect — I’ve made plenty of mistakes,” he said.

Police staffing shortages are central to Flock’s case

Langley also tied Flock’s value to staffing problems in law enforcement. He said police employment has been declining, especially after COVID, and pointed to San Francisco as an example of a city with hundreds of open positions that may never be filled.

In his view, that shortage makes technology like Flock more useful. He portrayed the company as a way for police departments to do more with fewer people.

That argument may appeal to city leaders under pressure to maintain public safety without adding headcount. At the same time, it raises questions about how much policing should be automated or handed over to surveillance systems. Langley’s comments suggested he sees Flock as a practical response to shrinking police ranks, rather than a substitute for a broader policy debate.

When pressed on abuse and the invasive nature of the technology, though, he did not offer much detail. He said there should be ways to curb abuse without disrupting the legal system or police work, but he did not explain what those measures would be.

Langley says criticism comes with building a consequential company

Langley’s broader message was that Flock is doing work with real public impact, and that criticism comes with building something large and influential. He said the technology has already improved life for “millions and millions” of people, while also acknowledging that the company has made mistakes and that many people strongly disagree with what it does.

Still, he maintained that the trade-off is justified because the technology may help prevent future victims.

That leaves Flock in a difficult spot. Its founder is defending it as a public good, while the company continues to face questions about privacy, consent, and how much surveillance a community should accept. Langley made clear that he believes the benefits outweigh the risks. What he did not offer was a detailed answer for people who think Flock itself should do more to limit the harm its systems can cause.