Flock CEO defends surveillance technology amid backlash, rejects calls for oversight
Flock's Garrett Langley argued at TechCrunch Disrupt that surveillance cameras are necessary for public safety and framed criticism as misunderstanding inevitable technological progress.
What happened
Flock CEO Garrett Langley spoke at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco defending the company's license plate recognition and people-tracking cameras amid sustained public and political backlash that has resulted in cancelled contracts and layoffs. Langley characterized surveillance technology as essential to crime reduction and rejected the premise that risks outweigh benefits, arguing that "if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable" with such systems. When pressed on how to prevent abuse and invasiveness, he stated that curbs on abuse could be implemented without disrupting law enforcement efficacy without elaborating. He positioned Flock as filling gaps left by declining police employment, particularly in cities like San Francisco with hundreds of unfilled positions.
Context
Flock's surveillance infrastructure faces opposition similar to broader AI backlash over technology deployment without public consent and questions about acceptable trade-offs between privacy and security. The company's deflection of substantive concerns about misuse and abuse—combined with its resistance to mandatory safeguards in favor of voluntary recommendations—leaves unresolved the question of who bears responsibility for preventing surveillance overreach. Flock's positioning as inevitable technological progress mirrors common industry framings that treat adoption as necessary even when concrete safeguards remain undefined. The contrast to how autonomous vehicle makers respond to crashes—by pausing and applying fixes—highlights the different standard Langley applies to surveillance technology failures.