Flock Safety CEO Calls for Compromise Amid Growing Backlash Over AI Cameras
The CEO of Flock Safety has urged for “compromise” as the company faces escalating criticism over its AI-powered license plate cameras. The technology has been subjected to vandalism nationwide and has drawn bipartisan opposition in Congress.
“What we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Garrett Langley stated in an interview with Fox News broadcast Saturday. He argued that Americans framing the debate as a binary choice between privacy and safety are “prioritizing the wrong thing.”
Flock Safety has managed to unite lawmakers who typically find little common ground. Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, announced this month his intention to introduce legislation to halt “AI mass surveillance.” Meanwhile, House Republicans, led by Representative Tim Burchett, have proposed a bill to prohibit the federal government from purchasing Flock cameras. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, has also initiated a separate Senate inquiry.
Langley contended that an outright ban would be “like banning vehicles,” drawing a parallel to the country’s rejection of such a measure in favor of regulations like drunk driving statutes, seatbelts, and airbags. He suggested that regulators should instead focus on two key areas: data retention, where Flock recently reduced its recommended retention period to seven days, a move that surpasses the strictest state limit of 21 days, and accountability for law enforcement officers who misuse the system. “The person who wants a bad cop gone first is a good cop, and 99.9% of cops are good,” he asserted.
A Washington Post investigation published on August 19 revealed that at least 69 law enforcement officials have been accused, charged, or convicted of misusing Flock or similar license plate readers. In at least 15 of these instances, the initial discovery of misuse came from outside the department, involving victims, activists, or journalists.
Reporters subsequently identified three additional officers by analyzing public search logs. One officer in Indianapolis had conducted 3,759 searches over ten months on vehicles belonging to his wife and two acquaintances, averaging roughly twelve searches per day. All three departments involved stated they did not regularly audit officer searches, and two of the implicated officers have since faced disciplinary action.
Six days prior to the Post‘s publication, Flock announced it would mandate all law enforcement customers to enable Audit Assistance, a feature designed to flag abnormal search patterns, by the end of the year. This feature had been optional since April, and Flock reported that approximately one-third of the 7,000 agencies utilizing its system had activated it.
Langley also addressed inquiries regarding a WIRED investigation published on the same day as the Post‘s report. That investigation found that Flock had developed an AI tool capable of identifying drivers based solely on their movement patterns, without requiring a license plate or name to initiate a search.
He did not dispute the findings, describing AI as “incredibly powerful, but also a very dangerous tool.” Langley emphasized that its deployment in public safety necessitates third-party attestation, stating, “When you call 911, it has to work. There’s no space for hallucination.”
Flock claims its technology supported over a million criminal investigations last year and aided in locating more than 10,000 missing individuals. These figures are derived from the company’s own “Impact Census,” a survey of nearly 700 agencies that Flock acknowledges is an early methodology open to critique. The number of investigations includes those in which the technology played a role; Flock separately estimates its contribution to approximately 20% of cleared cases in jurisdictions where its cameras are deployed.
Leave a Reply