Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley pushed back against claims that the company’s expanding network of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) is contributing to a surveillance state, telling Newsweek that transparency and accountability are central to the company’s approach as it unveils new privacy protocols this week amid widespread backlash and protests.
The technology executive told Newsweek in a Tuesday video interview that Flock’s “end goal isn’t a dystopian future of surveillance; it’s one where we all feel safe.”
Critics of Flock, however, argue the opposite is true, saying the company’s influx of cameras raises significant privacy concerns and, rather than making communities safer, can leave sensitive data vulnerable to misuse and mass surveillance.
Read More on News
Flock Safety is among the country’s largest providers of ALPRs, which scan and record vehicle information that can then be searched by a policing network. The company has cameras in every U.S. state except Alaska, and partners with over 6,000 law enforcement agencies and more than 5,000 private customers across the U.S.
Langley says the technology solves crimes, helping recover stolen vehicles and find missing people, saying that the company’s cameras helped detect over 1,000 missing people and more than 20,000 stolen cars in July. Last year, it supported more than 1 million criminal investigations and incidents, according to the company.
However, as more and more cameras have been installed, Flock has faced growing scrutiny from a range of Americans, including privacy advocates, local activists and those across the political spectrum who argue the cameras create tracking databases that include information on people without any criminal records.
The backlash has intensified in recent months as communities across the country have debated whether to renew or cancel Flock contracts amid concerns over data retention, information sharing and the potential use of ALPR data in immigration enforcement.
A “perfect storm” has united many Americans of divergent ideologies against Flock, says Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who has spent years looking into Flock’s expanding ALPR network.
Marlow told Newsweek, “Flock offends everyone, but for different reasons,” arguing that libertarians see it as government intrusion into private life, some MAGA supporters view it as an example of the “deep state,” conservatives see it as expanding government power, progressives object to its surveillance capabilities, and others question why their movements are being tracked at all.
“The constitutional concern is that the Flock system empowers the government to surveil every single person in the country and track their private location movements everywhere they go without any criminal suspicion and without a judicial warrant, which is a significant constitutional problem,” he said.
Marlow added, “constitutional rights are a floor, not a ceiling, so even beyond what the Constitution finds problematic, I think Americans have even greater objections to what Flock and its ALPR system are doing.”
What Is Flock Safety?
Langley, who created the company in 2017, said it started with a “real simple goal, which was just build safer neighborhoods.” Over time, he realized that the technology itself is not necessarily the key, but rather “how it’s used determines whether it’s perceived as good or bad for the world.”
Langley graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with a degree in electrical engineering and said his educational and professional background helped shape his views on data retention policies. He told Newsweek that he has long favored shorter retention periods because “data is a liability, not an asset,” and argued that clear rules should govern how it is stored and used.
Flock says on its website that it is used for public safety investigations, not for mass surveillance or tracking of people, and has repeatedly said that it does not sell data. However, many critics have pushed back against this, such as Marlow who told Newsweek, “Flock saying it doesn’t sell data would be like the Ford Motor Company saying it doesn’t sell steering wheels.”
He continued, “I understand that Flock is not actually advertising buy our data any more than Ford is advertising buy our steering wheels, but data is an integral part of Flock’s product in the same way steering wheels are an integral part of Ford’s product. The thing that Flock most prominently advertises is this nationwide data sharing network where you can look up any car in the country you’re interested in. What exactly are they selling there? They’re selling access to their data,” he said.
Flock’s network of cameras takes images of vehicles that pass by, reads the license plate, and, “assuming you are never a part of an investigation, that image is deleted in seven days,” Langley said referring to the updated default protocol that reduces retention. However, local agencies may apply different state laws to that, and the seven-day retention is not a requirement.
When asked what happens to data that has already been shared with partnering agencies, and whether it is also erased, Langley told Newsweek “that data is deleted. It’s a hard delete. And it’s from all systems, unless it’s a part of a criminal investigation, which at that point, it’s evidence, and there’s an entirely separate legislation and laws around evidence.”
Flock’s growth has boomed in recent years and in April it was valued at $8.4 billion. A recent funding round was led by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and the Atlanta-based company is backed by several prominent Silicon Valley investors, including Founders Fund, Kleiner Perkins, Tiger Global, Greenoaks Capital, Meritech Capital and Y Combinator, among others.
Flock’s Updated ProtocolsStandard Data Retention
One of the company’s policy changes unveiled Thursday reduces Flock’s default data retention period from 30 days to seven days. The new standard is shorter than the retention limits set by almost all states with explicit ALPR laws, which range from three minutes in New Hampshire, to 21 days in Maine and Virginia, and to 30 months in Georgia.
“The changes that we’re launching would make this the most stringent state regulation by an order of magnitude. The only state with a bill more prohibitive would be New Hampshire,” Langley said.
Marlow acknowledged that shorter retention periods can benefit privacy but argued the impact of Flock’s change may be limited because it applies only to the company’s default settings, and not to states.
“In and of itself, less data retention is better for privacy,” Marlow said. However, he noted that Flock is “only changing their default period. So, when a state like Georgia, which has a 30-month data retention period comes in and says we want 30 months, Flock will say happy to do so,” arguing that the policy change affects the default setting rather than how long data may ultimately be retained in jurisdictions with longer retention requirements.
Evidence Mode
Flock is launching Evidence Mode for cases that might need more time than the seven days and would require a search to be “tied to a case number, that data is preserved instead of aging out after 7 days. Agencies can still set retention to whatever their state or local policy requires,” a press release sent to Newsweek announced.
Langley said if that photo is not logged before the seven days, and the settings of the local agencies are that, then it is gone, adding, “this is this balance of privacy and safety, which is we don’t solve every crime in America, but we want privacy. And that’s the trade-off we’re willing to make.”
Marlow described Evidence Mode as “very vague” on how it actually works, and what may be classified as search data—whether just the specific data relevant to a case or if any data included in this search—which would encompass a lot more.
More Local Control
In the press release, Flock says that customers are now able to determine which offenses, such as homicides, arson, assault, etc., are permissible when outside agencies are searching their cameras, noting that a city could block searches related to immigration enforcement, for example.
“Flock has tried that in the past, and its security system could have been defeated by a 10 year old kid,” Marlow said.
An ACLU of Massachusetts review found that officers frequently used broad terms such as “investigation” or “susp” when searching license plate reader databases, rather than documenting a specific investigative purpose. September 2025 records from a local Oregon police department showed officers were able to query the database using vague or meaningless entries in the search-reason field, including 111 uses of “investigation” and 20 of “hehehe.”
Marlow said, “Flock has not only not demonstrated an ability to effectuate that, but their previous attempts have failed,” regarding implementation of more local control.
Audit Assistance
In recent months, Flock audits have uncovered misuse of the database by law enforcement officers, prompting investigations and terminations. Police departments across the U.S. including in Georgia and South Carolina have reported cases involving officers accused of improperly accessing Flock data for personal use.
The company had rolled out an optional Audit Assistance program in April, and, as part of its updated protocol, is making it mandatory. It monitors system activity and brings forward search patterns that fall outside an agency’s typical usage, according to the company.
“Police abuse was here 20 years ago, and we think that the problem is no one else is shining the light on what law enforcement does,” Langley told Newsweek, saying that “99.99 percent is really good, but that one officer can erode the trust of the entire community.”
Marlow said making the tool mandatory is a positive step, but questioned whether there is enough independent evidence to assess its effectiveness. He argued that, without outside evaluation, it is difficult to determine whether the system is identifying most instances of misuse or only a small fraction of them.
Case Code
Related to the more local control change, Flock is requiring a “reason for every search” and a case code. Responding to criticism against Flock for allowing searches, Langley said, “as some of our fiercest critics have acknowledged, why not just mandate a case code? Don’t give a reason, give a case code, criminal investigation code.”
He continued, “the way we see it is we have an obligation to do more. We have an obligation to establish a precedent. And so for something like that, we require now the case code and we got that one wrong. We should have required it out of the gate.”
The update also includes a proactive lockout trigger: When a “user’s activity meets defined criteria for abnormal behavior, Flock will automatically suspend that user’s access pending administrator review.”
Marlow said that the update isn’t too different from the current standard, and, in all, “this is the ultimate PR response rather than a substantive response.”
‘DeFlock’ and Anti-Flock Pushback
As Flock’s footprint has expanded, so too has the backlash, with residents in dozens of communities urging local leaders to cancel contracts, deactivate cameras or impose stricter limits on how the technology can be used.
“From big cities like LA to small communities, over 80 communities have rejected Flock. Unfortunately, the focus seems to be on the company and not the technology. So communities are getting rid of Flock only to buy the same technology from Axon or another company,” Andrew Ferguson, law professor at The George Washington University who specializes in police surveillance technologies, told Newsweek in an email about Flock resistance.
He added that this movement has “been the first sustained rejection of a system of police surveillance.”
Opposition to Flock has also coalesced into a growing grassroots movement. Concerns over privacy, data sharing and immigration enforcement have fueled protests at city council meetings from California to New York. Residents have urged elected officials to cancel the city contracts with Flock, while others have protested by covering the cameras.
Langley said “the 16 cities in the last few months who tried turning their cameras off, saw crime go up, saw police departments get frustrated because they couldn’t do their job…and so they turned the cameras back on.”
Several police departments have praised the technology, such as Police Chief Paul Melanson in Farmington, Connecticut, who said that the LPRs “played a critical role” in investigating and helping solve three homicides over the past 10 months.
Cleveland Deputy Chief Jarod Schlacht said in June that if the city did not renew it’s Flock contract, “we would lose one of the most valuable investigative tools we have right now.” He added, “this technology helps solve crimes, period.” In July, the city extended its contract for six months.
However, elsewhere, more than 20 jurisdictions have moved to cancel or deactivate Flock systems in July, according to DeFlock, an open-source project that tracks the technology’s deployment and communities that have canceled or suspended new contracts with Flock. Langley had once called the group “terroristic,” and later apologized. The group, which was started by software engineer and privacy advocate Will Freeman in 2024, has mapped 129,229 cameras in the U.S. and flagged 100 cities rejecting ALPRs.
Surprise, Arizona suspended its 28 cameras earlier this week, after a routine audit this week identified an anomaly in the use of the system, the city said. The city has launched an investigation and one police officer is on administrative leave.
“This technology has proven to be extremely valuable in solving serious crimes. As we look to continue the use of this public safety tool, we want strong safeguards in place that not only alert of misuse but also prevent it,” Surprise Police Chief Evan Becher said.
Earlier this year, Mountain View, California, turned off its Flock cameras after the police department’s audit discovered that the city’s data had “been accessed by federal and state law enforcement agencies in violation of the City’s approved policies,” the city said in a February press release. The City Council unanimously voted to terminate the contract with Flock.
The company has repeatedly said that it does not have a direct contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, there are circumstances under which ICE and DHS can access information through partner organizations that share intel with immigration enforcement agencies.
“There are police departments in America who knowingly, proactively work with ICE and receive federal funding for it. And I think that’s a local decision,” Langley told Newsweek.
The Future of Flock?
Langley noted that the company sells a range of other products, and while the ALPR is their biggest business unit, it’s less than 50 percent of the company’s revenue going forward. Flock also sells drones, which he says can be quickly deployed in first responder situations, as well as live cameras.
When asked if Flock’s technology is pushing the U.S. toward a dystopian “big brother” society, Langley responded, “No, I don’t think so,” adding, “I’m a father of three little kids, I live in Atlanta, I pay my taxes, like I’m a pretty normal person. I have the same types of anxieties of like, where’s the world going? What are we setting up for?”
He continued saying that unlike applications from the App Store that often ask for a person’s location and data without much information on where it is going and how it is being used, if Flock was pushing toward mass surveillance, “why would this company, Flock, be so transparent?”
However, some have questioned Flock’s transparency pledge. At the City Club of Cleveland forum in July, someone asked Flock Chief Communications Officer Josh Thomas if the company has a contract with any federal agency, adding, “Why should we believe you since you’ve lied about it before?”
Thomas replied, “You said Garrett did that. I didn’t. I didn’t lie about this. That is, that is true. But also, we all have a boss, in some ways, of [President] Donald Trump. Just because he lies doesn’t mean that…”
Thomas continued, “we do have federal contracts, we work with the federal government, absolutely. They have resources to do things that local police departments do not have, to stop things like human trafficking and fentanyl drug trafficking. Now, what we don’t do is we don’t work with any immigration services. We don’t have contracts with ICE. We don’t.”
In addition to transparency concerns, Marlow said some of the frustration with Flock is “actually an objection to automatic license plate readers. And the objection to Automatic License Plate Readers is really an objection to mass government surveillance.”
He added that unlike other forms of surveillance, Flock cameras are actually “very easy to identify in public. So you know you’re being watched.”
“I think Flock is the tip of the iceberg, not the iceberg,” he added.
With communities across the country weighing whether to expand, restrict or abandon the technology, the debate over Flock is unlikely to fade anytime soon, as officials balance its crime-fighting capabilities against growing concerns surrounding privacy and government surveillance.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jason Lemon and Edward T. Cummins.