Flock Safety: Privacy Debate Over Police Cameras Escalates

It’s odd how quickly well-intentioned security solutions can turn into a nightmare. Not long ago, Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley once again urged Americans to make “compromises” on privacy in the name of public safety. A noble plea? Perhaps. But the reality tells a different story: while Langley speaks of “only” 99.9% trustworthy police officers, scandals involving these very cameras and databases are piling up.
Consider the recent report from Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology: 69 law enforcement officers across the U.S. have allegedly misused license plate data for personal gain—from stalking ex-partners to selling information to criminals. Particularly egregious was the case in Michigan, where a sheriff’s department secretly listed journalists and activists for years. All of it enabled by technology Flock Safety has sold to over 1,500 police agencies since 2016. “It saves lives,” Langley insists. But at what cost?
The criticism is valid: the data—location histories, movement patterns, personal details—is often stored and shared without a warrant. With insurers, priv



ate companies, or anyone else. Flock claims it auto-deletes after 30 days, but experts like Hayley Tsukayama of the EFF aren’t buying it. “Thirty days is an eternity in surveillance,” she notes. While some states like California try to rein in the tech, much of the country remains a digital Wild West.
Backlash is growing. Portland has banned its use; activists in New York and Texas are pushing for similar rules. But on the federal level? Silence. A bill by Senator Ron Wyden has stalled for months, while lobbyists like Flock Safety continue to operate with few constraints. “Freedom or security”—an old debate now reshaped by AI and mass surveillance into something far more dangerous.
For me, this is a wake-up call. Where does legitimate law enforcement end and the surveillance state begin? When even journalists and bystanders end up in databases just because their cars pass by, it’s no longer a compromise—it’s a crisis. And the question isn’t whether it will escalate, but how long we’ll stand by as “security” morphs into pervasive monitoring.
What do you think? Where do you draw the line?