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, whose cameras and licence plate readers are used by law enforcement across the United States, 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, the CEO of Flock Safety, a company that sells surveillance cameras, drones, and licence plate recognition technology to police forces across the United States, went on Fox News recently with a simple message: America needs to find a middle ground between privacy and safety.

"How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?" he asked.

It is a reasonable question. The problem is that the company is already at the centre of documented abuse, not a hypothetical one.

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, girlfriends, or ex-partners. That is real harm to real people, not a theoretical risk.

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, though, 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?

The company has made two adjustments so far. It cut the default data-retention period, the length of time footage and plate data are stored, from 30 days to seven days. It also now requires officers to enter a case code before accessing stored data, a step that creates a paper trail.

Both changes can be overridden. Officers can switch on a setting called Evidence Mode to keep data for longer. The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights organisation, said the moves "may be a step in the right direction" but warned the real test is how Evidence Mode operates in practice.

The ACLU had recommended a 48-hour default limit. Seven days is still more than four times longer.

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." On the other side, three House Republicans introduced a bill that would bar the federal government from buying automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric identification, or licence plate recognition, with Flock Safety named explicitly in the bill text.

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."

For people who live in areas where Flock cameras operate, which includes many towns and suburbs across the country, the practical takeaway is straightforward: your licence plate may be logged every time you drive past one of these devices. Ask your local police department how long they store that data and under what rules officers can access it.