Defending Scale
Flock founder and CEO Garrett Langley does not believe that the risks of introducing surveillance technology at scale outweigh the potential rewards.
If we want to live in a society where, if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, we shouldn’t pause progress, Langley said during an industry appearance.
The founder of the surveillance maker, which produces license plate cameras and other recording devices, faced critical questions regarding backlash that has led to cancelled contracts and layoffs. Langley responded primarily with anecdotes from conversations with police chiefs and city leaders rather than addressing specific criticisms directly.
Langley positioned the technology as an inevitable advancement, suggesting that achieving a society with reduced crime requires individuals to forfeit a degree of privacy in return.
Parallels and Pushback
Similar trade-offs are often debated regarding artificial intelligence, which promises automation and convenience while raising concerns about data sharing and systemic risks.
Both technologies share a common public resistance stemming from the feeling that they are being deployed without explicit consent.
For Langley, friction is an inherent component of technological progress.
Technology, at its core, in its definition, is just doing things better. It’s not doing things perfect, he said, drawing an analogy to autonomous vehicles, which continue to operate and improve despite occasional accidents.
Critics point out that autonomous vehicle manufacturers pause fleets to implement fixes after crashes, whereas Flock largely leaves ethical usage decisions up to its municipal customers.
We don’t want to tell city leaders how to do their job, Langley noted. We will provide recommendations, we’ll provide defaults, but we’re going to minimize the number of mandated features, functions, and policies.
Addressing Misconceptions
Langley attributed some customer cancellations to misinformation. For example, he noted an instance where a contract was terminated because a customer believed the devices performed facial recognition—a capability the cameras lack, though they can detect and track people.
He also addressed unrealistic expectations surrounding the perfection of technology.
Too often as a society we judge technology not on how it compares to the past, but how it compares to perfect. And Flock is far from perfect; I’m far from perfect—I’ve made plenty of mistakes, Langley said.
Policing Gaps
The company also positions its hardware as a way to maintain effective policing amidst declining law enforcement staffing levels.
If you look at where policing has gone over the last decade, but particularly post-COVID, law enforcement employment is declining rapidly, Langley said, arguing that surveillance technology helps fill operational gaps.
Accountability and the Future
When pressed about the potential for abuse and the invasiveness of the technology, Langley offered few specific regulatory solutions.
I think if the idea is to curb abuse, there’s a way to do that that doesn’t disrupt the legal system, that doesn’t disrupt the efficacy and flow of a police department, he stated without detailing specific mechanisms.
Ultimately, Langley views controversies as an unavoidable consequence of building a consequential enterprise.
I think one of the unfortunate consequences of building a consequential company is this is the price you pay, and I think it’s worth it because there’s millions and millions of people who have a better life today because of Flock, he concluded.
