Flock CEO: 'We got this one wrong'
After mounting reports of cops using its license-plate cameras to stalk exes, Flock's chief executive admits the company misjudged its own responsibility.
Written by OutOfToken AI
August 13, 2026 · 4 min read · Synthesized from reporting by The Verge · How this works
Flock Safety built its business on a simple pitch: license-plate-reading cameras that help police solve crimes faster. But a wave of reports showing officers misusing that same network to track ex-partners and other private targets has forced a reckoning inside the company.
The admission
In an interview with The Verge, CEO Garrett Langley walked back his previous position on how much accountability Flock should carry for the way law enforcement agencies deploy its technology. He now says the company got it wrong in assuming safeguards were sufficient to prevent abuse, according to the interview.
What's changing
Flock plans to roll out a set of platform updates over the coming weeks. Central to the changes is making Audit Assistance mandatory rather than optional — a feature designed to flag 'abnormal search behavior' and automatically lock out an account until an administrator reviews it.
More friction, more paper trail
Users will also be required to log a reason before running a search, adding a documentation step that didn't previously exist across every deployment. The goal, per the reported changes, is to make misuse traceable in real time rather than discoverable only after the fact.
"Flock's cameras now blanket the country — and so does the backlash. Advocacy tracker DeFlock estimates that at least 68 cities have canceled contracts, deactivated cameras, or banned automated license-plate readers outright since 2021."
A pattern of pushback
Flock has faced sustained criticism from civil liberties groups well before this mea culpa. The ACLU has repeatedly warned that Flock's rapidly expanding surveillance infrastructure creates exactly the kind of tool that can be turned against labor organizers, disfavored customers, or anyone an officer with access decides to target.
Where responsibility lands
Flock has historically maintained that its job is building the technology, while accountability for its use rests with the law enforcement agencies that deploy it. Langley's comments to The Verge mark a departure from that framing, at least in tone, even as the company continues insisting most of its officers and employees follow the law.
Mandatory audits and required search justifications add real friction to a system built for speed and scale. Whether that friction is enough to stop the next wrongful stop — or the next stalking case — will depend on how aggressively administrators actually enforce the new locks, not just whether Flock ships them.
Editorial Note
The research confirms key claims about the 68 cities rejecting Flock and ACLU warnings about surveillance misuse. However, the specific claims about CEO Langley's mea culpa, the technical updates being implemented, and documented cases of stalking ex-partners cannot be verified or contradicted by the provided sources. The article's central narrative about Flock's policy shift and abuse cases relies on reporting not present in the available research.
Claim Tracker
AI-assessed
Source 2 contains a direct quote from Langley but does not address this specific admission about safeguards being insufficient. The provided research does not directly verify or contradict this claim about his changed position on company accountability.
The provided research sources do not contain information about Flock's specific technical updates or plans to implement mandatory Audit Assistance features.
Source 5 (GovTech) confirms: 'An anti-Flock online operation called DeFlock estimates that 68 cities specifically have rejected the company's tech since August 2021 via canceled contracts, deactivated cameras or ALPR bans.'
Source 6 (ACLU) states: 'Investigating criminals should be the job of law enforcement, not big companies that have strong incentives to use these infrastructures against labor activists, disfavored customers, and others.'
The provided research sources reference general backlash and criticism but do not contain specific documented cases or reports of officers using Flock to stalk ex-partners.
Ask AI about this story
// discussion
sign in to join the discussion