Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock Safety, told a private session of police chiefs at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference that public opposition to his company was not genuine, attributing the criticism largely to anonymous accounts and Russian-linked bots, according to leaked audio obtained by 404 Media. No independent evidence supports those claims.
The stakes are not abstract. Flock operates roughly 80,000 cameras across the country, and law-enforcement customers can query that data across participating jurisdictions without obtaining a warrant.
What the CEO Told the Room
Langley’s claims about the opposition remain unverified and contradict documented evidence of real-world backlash.
According to 404 Media, Langley reportedly linked a decline in online criticism of Flock to a Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian data center, presenting the attack as evidence that bot activity had been disrupted. That account reflects Langley’s interpretation, not an established fact.
He also said his wife had advised him never to apologize, acknowledged making mistakes, and expressed reluctance to conduct further media interviews, according to the same reporting.
Protests, community contract cancellations, and legislative proposals targeting Flock’s technology preceded and followed the conference. The scale and authenticity of that opposition exists independently of Langley’s characterization of it.
The Searches That Started It
Documented incidents involving abortion investigations and ICE searches drove the controversy that Langley dismissed as artificial.
404 Media reported that local police officers conducted Flock searches on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Officers used local agencies as intermediaries, despite the absence of a direct ICE-Flock agreement.
Separately, a Texas officer searched more than 83,000 cameras while looking for a woman who had self-managed an abortion. The Electronic Frontier Foundation characterized the incident as a clear example of a nationwide ALPR network being used to investigate abortion-related activity, a concern echoed by researchers who have documented how a surveillance app can be weaponized against targeted individuals.
Records later indicated the search used language explicitly referencing abortion. Officers also discussed a possible death investigation, contradicting public explanations that the search was a welfare check.
After that reporting emerged and state-level restrictions passed, Flock restricted camera access in California, Illinois, and Virginia.
A National Database, No Warrant Required
The architecture of Flock’s network means a search by one department can reach cameras operated by departments in other states, with no judicial oversight required.
Flock customers can query data from cameras operated by other participating departments anywhere in the network, without obtaining a warrant. Searches can trace a vehicle’s movements across time and geography, drawing on data contributed by departments the searching officer has never worked with, though results depend on camera coverage, agency participation, and applicable retention periods.
Supporters argue the network has genuine crime-solving value and helps locate missing persons. Critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue it converts routine travel into a retained, searchable movement record , a dynamic similar to platforms found to be secretly tracking users without meaningful oversight. Limited public visibility into how searches are initiated or reviewed remains limited.
Legislative proposals and local contract debates about warrant requirements and interstate data sharing are ongoing. Communities and lawmakers evaluating these contracts will draw their own conclusions about whether a company running 80,000 cameras on public roads treats accountability as a real obligation.
