Flock CEO Garrett Langley says the company has never dropped a customer over abuse of its surveillance products. That describes Flock’s decisions as a vendor, not whether police departments and cities are choosing to stay. Some communities have canceled their contracts or let them expire, citing privacy concerns.
Speaking with TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos at Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco, Langley addressed reports of police officers misusing Flock’s license plate tracking tools. Reporting by 404 Media and USA Today has identified dozens of officers who were arrested, fired, or told to resign after abusing access to Flock’s nationwide database of license plate detections, often to stalk people without permission.
Langley said Flock would end a customer relationship in cases of clear, widespread abuse. The company has debated that step internally, he said, but has not yet “fired” a customer, such as a police department or another law enforcement agency. He argued that removing the product could deprive a community of a tool it might need to fight crime.
“If a customer knowingly broke the law, we would fire them immediately. That’s very easy,” Langley said.
“Most of the debate is nuanced into ‘what if two officers out of fifty were caught?’ Today, we haven’t fired any customers, but it’s not off the table in the case of some pretty drastic law-abiding issue,” he added.
Flock’s response hinges on that distinction between individual officers’ misconduct and an agency’s responsibility. Langley outlined circumstances that could trigger a cutoff but confirmed that the company has not taken that step against any customer.
The Atlanta, Georgia-based company has more than 100,000 cameras around the United States. Its license plate readers let local police departments and federal agencies track vehicle plates, and the people associated with them, as vehicles pass cameras. That access can reach beyond a department’s jurisdiction: through Flock’s national central database, some police departments can track cars across the country.
Customers have made their own decisions about that reach. Towns, cities, and communities have rejected Flock cameras by canceling agreements or letting them expire over privacy fears. The Los Angeles Police Department, for example, let its contract expire amid concerns about civil liberties and privacy. Multiple reports of Flock reactivating cameras against customers’ wishes have also prompted residents to cover cameras with trash bags and, in other cases, destroy them.
Protest outside Disrupt during Flock interview
While Langley spoke on the Disrupt Stage, demonstrators gathered outside San Francisco’s Moscone Center to protest Flock’s AI-powered surveillance. Some wore red robes associated with “Handmaid’s Tale”; others wore cardboard replicas of Flock cameras on their heads. Clips from the movie “1984” played over a loudspeaker behind them. Signs included “Flock off” and “Flock = ICE.”
A TechCrunch photograph documented the protesters outside Moscone Center. Photo credit: TechCrunch.
Flock does not have a direct contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. The agency has, however, reportedly accessed Flock data through collaboration with local police departments that use its cameras.
Ashley Ortiz, an organizer with the local progressive activist group The Wolves, told TechCrunch she wants local lawmakers to take constituents’ concerns about Flock more seriously. She said opposition to the cameras crosses political lines.
“I think Flock is going to be the start of a lot more community building, because we can come together around something as bipartisan as not enjoying mass surveillance,” Ortiz said. “We have Republicans who join us, conservatives who agree, we have sovereign citizens cutting down Flock cameras, so it’s not just the left who doesn’t want AI-powered mass surveillance.”
Asked what she would ask Langley, Ortiz said, “What about AI-powered mass surveillance should be making us feel safe?”
On stage, Langley’s defense focused on solving crime. He argued that Flock’s license plate tracking system has been helping police departments solve more crimes and solve them faster. His anecdotes included a stolen car with a baby in the back seat, which he said was found quickly thanks to Flock’s systems.
The criticism extends beyond deliberate misuse. Flock has also faced scrutiny over cybersecurity issues, including stolen police logins that exposed its surveillance cameras to hackers. License plate camera accuracy problems have been linked to dozens of police stops and wrongful arrests. Reported cases include innocent motorists detained at gunpoint or jailed, and a journalist wrongly tracked while driving a review vehicle.
Leaving Flock doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning license plate surveillance. Some communities have replaced their Flock contracts with competing providers, including Axon, which makes Taser weapons and police body cameras.
Asked about a potential sale to Axon, Langley said Flock was not considering one: “No, we’ve no desire to sell the company.”
