Flock CEO Defends Surveillance Technology Against Privacy Criticism at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026

Image: TechCrunch · Source

Flock CEO Garrett Langley argues surveillance tech’s crime-fighting benefits outweigh privacy concerns, framing it as inevitable societal progress despite backlash and canceled contracts.

At the 2026 TechCrunch Disrupt event in San Francisco, Garrett Langley, founder and CEO of Flock, publicly defended his company’s surveillance technology amid growing national criticism over privacy issues. Flock specializes in license plate recognition cameras and other recording devices used by law enforcement to solve crimes. Despite backlash resulting in canceled contracts and layoffs, Langley emphasized that the benefits of holding criminals accountable justify continuing technological progress.

Addressing concerns about privacy, Langley argued that if society aims for lower crime rates, some concessions in privacy are necessary. He compared the controversy around surveillance technology to debates about AI and driverless cars, technologies that improve safety and convenience but also raise ethical questions and fears of misuse. Langley stated, “Technology, at its core, is just doing things better. It’s not doing things perfect.” He urged that instead of halting progress due to incidents or concerns, the focus should be on improving oversight and reducing negative outcomes.

During the session, Langley deflected direct criticism by highlighting anecdotes from police chiefs and city officials who praised Flock’s impact on crime solving. He avoided detailing specific measures his company takes to mitigate abuse or invasion of privacy, positioning these as decisions for local authorities rather than the company itself. "We don’t want to tell city leaders how to do their job," Langley said, noting they provide recommendations but avoid mandating features or policies.

Langley also addressed misunderstandings about Flock’s capabilities, clarifying that while their cameras detect and track people, they do not perform facial recognition. Some previous contract cancellations were attributed to misinformation regarding these features. Furthermore, he acknowledged that neither Flock nor the technology it implements is perfect, emphasizing the incremental nature of technological advancement.

With law enforcement staffing declining, Langley positioned Flock’s surveillance tools as vital to filling operational gaps, particularly in cities like San Francisco with open police positions. Still, when pressed on potential abuses or privacy invasions, he offered no detailed solutions, suggesting that curbing misuse should not disrupt policing efficacy or legal processes.

Langley concluded by framing the company's controversial role as an unavoidable consequence of building impactful technology. He argued that despite disagreements and mistakes, Flock has improved millions of lives by assisting law enforcement, and the trade-offs are justified in the interest of public safety.

Flock remains at the center of debates on balancing crime prevention benefits with ethical and privacy concerns in widespread surveillance deployment. Langley’s defense highlights the ongoing tension between innovation and civil liberties as emerging technologies reshape law enforcement capabilities.