The founder and CEO of Flock, Garrett Langley, believes that the risks of extensively introducing monitoring technology are not greater than the benefits it brings.
“If we want to live in a society where if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, then we should not pause our progress,” Langley said during a roundtable discussion at the TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 event held in San Francisco on Wednesday.
In this interview, this controversial founder avoided the sharp questions from the outside world regarding Flock. Flock is a surveillance company that produces license plate cameras and other recording equipment, and it is now facing criticism. These criticisms have led to the cancellation of contracts and even layoffs. Langley responded to questions mainly with anecdotes about its conversations with sheriffs and city leaders across the United States, as well as several cases it is alleged to have solved, rather than providing practical solutions to people's concerns.
In this process, Langley describes Flock as a technological advancement, and to some extent, this advancement is inevitable. He emphasizes that if people want to live in a better society—a society with less crime—they must be willing to sacrifice their privacy in exchange.
Similar arguments about trade-offs and rewards can also be applied to artificial intelligence. When promoting it to the public, AI is described as being able to significantly improve life, automate tedious tasks, and make things more convenient. On the other hand, the cost is handing over everything about us to the manufacturers of these AI agents, as well as the possibility of human destruction, which some people are concerned about.
The backlash triggered by AI and the controversy surrounding Flock overlap to some extent, which is not surprising. Similar to AI, Flock is also a technology that some people consider to have been imposed on the public without their consent.
For Langley, this is simply the essence of progress, he explained.
"Technology, by its very nature and definition, is about doing things better. It's not about making things perfect," he said. "Autonomous cars, I think, are a fitting analogy. Autonomous cars are clearly safer than human drivers. And when an accident occurs, I don't think the solution is to stop using autonomous cars. The solution should be to say, 'Hey, let's talk about how to prevent more accidents in the future.'"
But autonomous vehicle manufacturers don't just shrug off accidents; these companies will pause their fleets for repairs. In contrast, Flock, as a company, still seems to be struggling to determine when it is time for the company to get involved. From Langley's response, it seems that he would prefer to leave the ethical decisions regarding how Flock should be used to others.
"We don't want to tell city leaders how to do their job," he pointed out. "We will provide suggestions and default settings, but we will try to minimize the number of mandatory requirements, features, and policies."
CEO : Flock is far from perfect
One of the many objections raised by opponents in the interview by Langley is that incorrect information regarding Flock led some customers to cancel their cooperation. For example, he mentioned that some customers terminated their contracts because they thought these devices had facial recognition capabilities. Although the cameras from Flock do not have facial recognition functionality, they are indeed capable of detecting and tracking individuals.
Langley also spent a considerable amount of time criticizing those who believed that his technology, or any technology for that matter, should be flawless, and attributed this statement to an unnamed community leader.
"At that time, he was describing a situation where, as society, we often do not compare technology with the past, but rather judge it by comparing it to perfection. Flock is far from perfect; I am also far from perfect – I have made many mistakes," said Langley.
Another objection is that Flock is described as a more effective form of policing, which allows police departments to accomplish more with fewer personnel.
"If you look at the development of policing over the past decade, especially after the pandemic, the number of employees in law enforcement agencies has been declining rapidly. In places like San Francisco, there are hundreds of vacant positions that may never be filled," he said, describing Flock as a technology that could fill these gaps.
However, when questioned about the abuse of its company's monitoring technology and its invasive nature, Langley did not provide any substantial answers.
"I believe that if the goal is to curb abuse, I think there are ways to achieve that without disrupting the legal system or the efficiency and operation of the police department," said Langley, but he did not specify what those methods are.
For Langley, these seem to be secondary issues, as his belief in Flock serving the public interest is very strong.
"I believe that one of the unfortunate consequences of building a company with significant influence is that you have to pay such a price, but I think it's worth it, because today millions and millions of people are living a better life because of Flock," he said. "Obviously, we have also made many mistakes, and there are some people who disagree with our approach, but it's worth it, because one day they too might become victims," Langley added.
