Flock Exposed - The CEO in His Own Words
Garrett Langley co-founded Flock Safety in 2017 and remains its CEO. As the company's public face, his own statements - and the times his company has had to walk them back - tell their own story about Flock's credibility. This page collects his most consequential quotes, apologies, and contradictions, alongside cases where Flock executives and representatives were caught telling city councils something the technology's own capabilities disproved.
Calling Critics "Terrorists"
In 2025, Langley called people who track and oppose Flock's camera network "terrorists," and described the volunteer-run Deflock camera-mapping project as a "terroristic organization."
Source: Forbes, reported by Gizmodo, "Flock's CEO Is Sorry for Calling Privacy Activists 'Terrorists'"
After backlash, Langley walked the comment back: "My comments were a mistake and I apologize."
Source: Forbes, reported by Gizmodo, "Flock's CEO Is Sorry for Calling Privacy Activists 'Terrorists'"
"Prioritizing the Wrong Thing": The Fox News Backlash
In mid-August 2026, Langley appeared on Fox News' "Saturday in America" and was asked whether Flock's cameras risked ushering in a surveillance state. He rejected the framing: "When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise. How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?"
Source: TechCrunch, "Flock CEO calls for 'compromise' as surveillance company faces growing backlash"
The clip went viral, and within a day had gathered thousands of critical replies online, many pointing out that Flock's cameras log the movements of millions of drivers who never agreed to be tracked. In the backlash, people began posting what they said was Langley's home address, some pairing it with images from Google Street View - prompting the observation that his call for "compromise" did not seem to extend to his own privacy.
Source: IBTimes UK, "Flock CEO Says Americans Must 'Compromise' on Privacy; Then His Own Home Address Leaked Online"
"We're Not Big Brother": Responding to the Police Abuse Scandal
After a Washington Post investigation found at least 46 to 50 cases of police officers accused of misusing Flock's camera network - including allegations that officers used it to stalk wives, girlfriends, and ex-partners - Langley called the outcry the result of "some misunderstanding," insisting "we're not Big Brother."
Source: Futurism, "Embattled Flock CEO Begs for 'Compromise' As Backlash Spills Over"
After listening to one alleged victim describe her experience, Langley told CBS News: "I apologize. It kills me that she went through that." In the same interview he added, "I don't think that Flock created police abuse. I think we're the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it." Asked whether he took responsibility soon enough, he said hindsight is "a brutal tool" - "Hindsight tends to be very clear."
Source: CBS News, "Flock CEO apologizes for cases where surveillance technology was abused as company rolls out changes"
In response to the scandal, Flock announced it would shorten its default data retention window from 30 days to 7. The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the reforms "too little, too late," and noted the retention change is really just a setting Flock controls: "towns can likely easily flip the switch to longer retention periods." The ACLU similarly found the changes were "merely retreads of previous inadequate safety measures," and noted the shorter default could simply be overridden by the customer.
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Too Little, Too Late: Flock Admits Their Technology Needs Reforms"; Futurism, "Embattled Flock CEO Begs for 'Compromise' As Backlash Spills Over"
Apologizing for the Jewish Community Center Demo
In April 2026, 404 Media reported that Flock representatives had conducted sales demos using live video from a Jewish Community Center in Dunwoody, Georgia - including camera feeds of a children's gymnastics room, a playground, a school, and a pool. Langley formally apologized to the community center, acknowledging "poor judgment," while the company simultaneously stated: "Claims of inappropriate conduct by our employees are false."
Source: Wikipedia, Flock Safety entry, citing 404 Media reporting
"We Clearly Communicated Poorly": A Pattern of Corrected Statements
The ACLU published a piece titled "Flock Safety Credibility Lost as it Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police Departments, and Public Across the Country." In it, Flock's own CEO is quoted acknowledging the company's pattern of misstatements: "We clearly communicated poorly," admitting that Flock's "public statements inadvertently provided inaccurate information."
Source: American Civil Liberties Union, "Flock Safety Credibility Lost as it Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police Departments, and Public Across the Country"
The Two-Factor Authentication Contradiction
On August 13, 2026, Flock published a blog post announcing: "At the beginning of this month, we also made multi-factor authentication (MFA) mandatory for anyone logging into Flock, increasing our security standards for all customers." Just five days earlier, Flock's own Director of Government Affairs, Kevin Kane, had given sworn testimony to the West Virginia Legislature's Joint Standing Committee on Government Organization that two-factor authentication had been required "for a long time" - a direct contradiction West Virginia lawmakers formally raised with Langley in writing.
Source: West Virginia House of Delegates letter to Garrett Langley, August 14, 2026
The ICE and CBP Access Denial
Langley's "Setting the Record Straight" post, published in 2025, assured readers that federal access to local Flock networks was "a local decision." A January 2026 Flock blog post went further, stating flatly: "ICE does not have direct access to Flock cameras, systems, or data." That same post listed a Customs and Border Protection "pilot" program running from May 9, 2025 to August 24, 2025 that, in Flock's own words, "effectively enabled" prospective federal customers to test the system.
Source: Footnote4a, "The Platform: Flock Safety Is Running on Promises, Not Policy" and "These Are Just False"
The Nova "Dark Web Data" Dispute
Flock publicly stated, in a post titled "Correcting the Record," that its Nova people-search product "will not supply dark web data," and that the company had made a "policy decision" not to use data sourced from known data breaches. But independent security researcher analysis of the actual Nova codebase found what it called a "fully wired Dark Data search pipeline" containing fields for Social Security numbers, credit cards, and crypto wallets - findings the researcher said "appears to conflict with Flock Safety's public statement."
Source: Nexanet.ai, "License Plate Reader Company Flock Said It Does Not Use Dark Web Data. My Analysis of Their Code Tells a Different Story"
404 Media separately reported on audio from a Flock all-hands meeting in which a Flock executive admitted the company had internally discussed using dark web data to "solve some really heinous crimes," including child exploitation cases, before deciding against it - confirming the capability had been seriously considered and built out, not merely rumored.
Source: 404 Media, "Flock Decides Not to Use Hacked Data in People Search Tool"
Oshkosh, Wisconsin: Caught Lying About Heat-Map Tracking
On April 21, 2026, during a contract renewal discussion, an Oshkosh, Wisconsin council member asked a Flock representative directly: "Does the system create a heat map of a vehicle's movement using multiple aggregated images?" The representative said no. The council voted 5-2 to renew the contract that night.
Source: State of Surveillance, "30+ Cities Have Canceled Flock Safety Contracts"; WBAY, "Oshkosh council rescinds Flock camera contract after 'false statements'"
The very next morning, Oshkosh Police Chief Dean Smith learned that answer was false - he had personally seen heat maps the system generated, and a Flock employee later confirmed on the record that the system can "average out where a vehicle travels most on a day-to-day basis" and display it on a map. Chief Smith called an emergency meeting and told the council: "Because of this misrepresentation, I can no longer recommend Flock." The council voted 7-0 to rescind the contract less than 24 hours after approving it.
Source: State of Surveillance, "30+ Cities Have Canceled Flock Safety Contracts"; American Civil Liberties Union, "Flock Safety Credibility Lost as it Repeatedly Lies to City Councils, Police Departments, and Public Across the Country"
Executives Contradicting Each Other on Tracking
Independent surveillance-industry publication IPVM documented a separate incident in which two Flock executives contradicted each other on video about whether the system tracks individuals. IPVM's analysis, titled "Flock Tracks You: Execs Contradiction Reveals Reality," found that placed side by side, the two executives' own statements dismantle the company's public tracking denial. Separately, Flock's own Chief Legal Officer stated in a company video that license plates "are required specifically to correlate to ownership of that vehicle" - confirming that a plate read is, by design, a record tied to a specific person, not just a car.
Source: IPVM, "Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed"
The Immigration Enforcement Deflection
Asked about immigration enforcement use of Flock's network, Langley told IPVM: "They're gonna enforce immigration no matter what Flock does" - a statement critics point to as an admission that Flock builds and sells the infrastructure without taking responsibility for how it gets used. The same IPVM investigation found a Flock sales representative had contradicted official company policy on record, telling an undercover caller that the company had maintained partnerships with private investigators.
Source: IPVM, "Flock CEO: 'They're Gonna Enforce Immigration No Matter What Flock Does'"
Questions to Ask Your Town
Has anyone from Flock or our police department told our council a specific capability - like movement tracking, heat mapping, or federal data access - does not exist, without independently verifying that claim first?
If Flock later "clarifies" or "corrects" a public statement, has our town gone back and reviewed whether our original approval was based on the earlier, inaccurate version?
Does our contract or use policy rely on a retention period, access restriction, or security setting that Flock could change with a simple software update, without our council's knowledge?
Has our town asked Flock, in writing, whether ICE, CBP, or another federal agency has ever had any form of access - direct, indirect, or through a pilot program - to our local camera data?
This page will be updated as more factual sources become available.