Flock Safety's CEO wants a 'compromise' on surveillance. Critics say the cameras are already out of control.

Key points

• Police officers in 46 cases have been accused of misusing Flock Safety surveillance technology, including to stalk current and former partners, according to a Washington Post investigation.
• Flock Safety cut its default data-storage window from 30 days to seven days in response to public pressure.
• Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have moved against the company, with three House Republicans introducing a bill to ban federal purchases of licence plate recognition systems.
• Flock CEO Garrett Langley has called for state laws making unauthorised use of the company's data a criminal offence.

Garrett Langley, Flock Safety's CEO, went on Fox News recently with a message he has now repeated across several networks: America needs a middle ground between privacy and safety. "When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing," he said. "How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?"

Reasonable framing. The trouble is that documented abuse, not a hypothetical, is already the story.

What has actually gone wrong?

The Washington Post identified 46 cases in which police officers stand accused of using Flock technology without authorisation, in several instances to track and stalk wives or ex-partners. That is real harm to real people. We first reported on the pattern of officers misusing licence-plate readers on 13 August, when Flock operated around 120,000 roadside cameras across the United States.

After Langley heard one alleged victim describe her experience in a CBS News interview, he said: "I apologize. It kills me that she went through that." He also argued that Flock did not create police misconduct: "I think we're the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it."

Critics are not convinced that building the tools that enabled the abuse is the same as solving it.

What changes has Flock actually made?

Two adjustments so far. Flock cut the default data-retention period, the length of time footage and plate data are stored, from 30 days to seven days. Officers must also enter a case code before accessing stored data, creating a paper trail.

Both changes can be overridden. Officers can activate Evidence Mode to keep data for longer. The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights organisation, warned that whether the seven-day window is a real change or a PR move "will depend on how its 'Evidence Mode' operates." The ACLU had recommended a 48-hour default limit, which means seven days is still more than three times longer than that threshold.

Who is pushing back, and how hard?

The backlash spans the political spectrum. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders posted a blunt demand: "STOP AI MASS SURVEILLANCE. STOP FLOCK." Three House Republicans, meanwhile, introduced a bill that would bar the federal government from buying automated surveillance systems using facial recognition, biometric identification, or licence plate recognition, with Flock Safety named explicitly in the bill text. On the Democratic side, Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed accused his opponent of supporting "this mass proliferation of Flock cameras, any and everywhere, watching your every move."

Langley has said he wants state governments to make unauthorised use of Flock data a criminal offence. He also acknowledged on Fox News: "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."

Here is what I keep coming back to after covering this story across three separate reports: Langley is publicly asking for the regulation that would constrain his own product, which is either genuinely principled or a calculated move to shape whatever law comes next before Congress does it for him. Either way, if you live somewhere Flock cameras operate, ask your local police department exactly how long they store your plate data and who can pull it.