Flock CEO apologises for surveillance misuse as company tightens data guardrails
CEO Garrett Langley acknowledges past oversight failures, introducing stricter access controls and shorter retention periods to curb abuse of automatic license plate readers.
Surveillance technology company Flock is implementing significant policy changes to its automatic license plate reader (ALPR) tools following reports of law enforcement officers misusing the data to stalk individuals. CEO Garrett Langley has issued a public apology, stating the company "got this one wrong" regarding its previous stance on oversight and responsibility for how its technology is used. The new measures include making the 'Audit Assistance' feature mandatory to flag abnormal search behaviour, requiring case codes for all searches, and reducing the default data retention period from 30 to seven days.
Langley acknowledged that the company has an obligation to ensure its technology creates a society people want to raise their children in, marking a shift from his previous argument that policymakers should solely determine oversight. This change of course follows a series of incidents where officers allegedly used Flock for stalking and harassment, including cases in Georgia and California where ex-partners were tracked. Langley noted that while he still prefers legislators to make key calls about policing tools, the regulatory process is too slow to address immediate risks, necessitating company-led guardrails.
Key changes include shortening the default data retention period from 30 days to seven days, aligning more closely with recommendations from critics like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The company is introducing granular data-sharing limits, allowing localities to restrict access for specific purposes, such as allowing searches for homicide suspects but not for immigration enforcement. A new 'Evidence Mode' will also be introduced to preserve searches tied to a specific case number, overriding the shortened retention period when necessary for active investigations.
The 'Audit Assistance' feature, which flags abnormal search behaviour and locks out suspicious users until an administrator reviews their activity, was launched as a voluntary option in April. However, only one-third of agencies had adopted it prior to this announcement. Langley stated that identification of abuse predictably went up for those who did use the tool, and the mandatory rollout aims to make it easier for departments to surface suspect behaviour rather than manually combing through logs.
Langley also apologised for previously describing the anti-Flock group DeFlock as "terroristic," calling the characterisation a "mistake." Groups such as the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have accused Flock of misleading the public about the risks of its tools, including potential use for tracking women seeking abortions. Flock has stated that officers are prohibited from conducting searches related to reproductive care in states where such searches are restricted, though Langley admitted the company takes time to realise the sheer impact of its technology.
Langley predicts that the new mandatory measures will lead to more officers being fired or arrested for abusing police power, as the system makes it harder to hide misconduct. He emphasised that the company is asking for a "fair shot" as it attempts to rebuild trust with communities and critics. The updates are expected to be implemented over the coming weeks, with administrators retaining the ability to override restrictions for emergencies, such as tracking missing persons, though those overrides will be automatically flagged for review.
The company’s previous stance that oversight should be the responsibility of lawmakers rather than the company itself has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups. Langley conceded that his approach has evolved through frequent conversations with communities, including at city council meetings. He acknowledged that while Flock helps find missing people and stolen vehicles, the power to track individuals carries a heavy responsibility that the company can no longer defer entirely to government bodies.
These policy shifts come as pressure mounts on surveillance firms to demonstrate accountability. Langley hopes these self-imposed guardrails will also force competing companies to adopt similar standards, creating a broader industry shift towards stricter data governance. The move represents a significant pivot for Flock, which has historically resisted external regulation in favour of localised control by law enforcement agencies.
