Garrett Langley, CEO of Flock Safety, thinks the real issue behind the wave of negative reactions to his company’s ubiquitous cameras isn’t privacy, surveillance, or misuse of data. It’s the online narrative.
“Much of the problem that I’m facing right now is this newer landscape where social media is so interwoven with politics and is so rife with misinformation,” he said Wednesday at TechCrunch Disrupt, which runs through Thursday at Moscone West. “And I’m not the only company that experiences this.”
In a roughly 30-minute interview with Connie Loizos, TechCrunch’s editor-in-chief, Langley answered questions about AI, surveillance, and his company’s rocky year. Addressing criticism of Flock, he wove in positive instances in which the technology was used to solve crimes. Attendees chuckled at a couple of Langley’s anecdotes. But before his talk, anti-Flock activists held a protest outside.
The company has contracts with thousands of U.S. cities to supply its license-plate-reading cameras for use by law enforcement agencies. There has been growing backlash against the technology over the past year, with critics alleging that the cameras are placed in communities without the consent of the public and without proper privacy protections.
Kara Starkey, left, wears a headpiece in the shape of a surveillance camera paired with a Handmaid’s Tale costume during an anti-Flock protest outside of the TechCrunch Disrupt. | Source: Natallie Rocha/The Standard
There have been instances when the cameras have been hacked (opens in new tab), as well as lawsuits about Flock invading privacy and its misuse by law enforcement agencies. Last year, a Texas sheriff’s office allegedly used the Flock database in an investigation (opens in new tab)into a woman who had an abortion. A San Jose police officer was fired (opens in new tab)for allegedly using the Flock camera system to share information with a relative who was a suspect in a domestic violence case.
Langley said Flock has not canceled any contracts. He added that the option is not off the table for drastic cases, saying, “If a customer knowingly broke the law, we would fire them.”
“If you believe — like we do at Flock — that we are very net positive for society, should we be taking our product away?” he said.
Flock does not have federal contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection and said it ended trial projects (opens in new tab)with federal agencies in August 2025. However, there have been instances, including in California (opens in new tab), in which immigration officials have gained access to Flock data through state and local agencies.
Langley said he feels his company has to control the narrative so potential customers don’t get spooked. He said a councilperson in Illinois told him he’d canceled the city’s Flock contract because he disagreed with “facial recognition.” Langley said he replied, “Great, we don’t do that.” A few audience members laughed softly.
“I think that is really the big opportunity for us as a business is to figure out how do we better control our story and make sure elected officials who are making pretty critical decisions” have access to this technology he said.
In the Bay, the hundreds of devices are a hot-button issue. Cameras in Oakland have been covered in paint (opens in new tab), and industrious teenage activists formed DeFlock SF, a grassroots campaign (opens in new tab) to map the cameras and call on the city to cancel its Flock contract.
Langley said Flock reevaluated its processes in August and made changes, including advising customers to reduce their data storage time from 30 days to seven. When pressed on what kind of responsibility his company has in how the technology is deployed, he deferred to public officials.
“I think Mayor Lurie is a good example of a Democratic leader who’s leaning into the policy debate and providing his opinion as the person who is in charge of San Francisco,” he said.
Outside the Moscone Center, an hour before Langley was set to take the stage, about 20 protesters held signs that said “Flock out,” some wearing homemade masks that looked like Flock cameras while clips from “1984″ played.
Anti-Flock protestors made a display of surveillance cameras outside of TechCrunch Disrupt. | Source: Natallie Rocha/The Standard
“We don’t think that surveillance equals safety,” said Ashley Ortiz, 33, a Sunnyvale resident who helped organize the protest. Ortiz, who works as a nanny, started speaking out against Flock in March and showing up to City Council meetings as a member of the local activist group The Wolves (opens in new tab).
Another protester, Kara Starkey, was dressed in a red dress from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” but with a cardboard camera head.
“We didn’t consent,” said Starkey, a psychotherapist from Santa Clara. “It’s basically a surveillance state we didn’t ask for.”
Flock is based in Atlanta, but its roots are in the Bay Area. The company was part of Y Combinator’s summer 2017 cohort (opens in new tab).
A September 2025 Standard investigation found that San Francisco’s Flock license-plate database had been accessed 1.6 million times by out-of-state agencies, likely illegally. The San Francisco Police Department came out with its own internal audit, confirming that local camera data had been searched on behalf of outside agencies.
Flock has about 6,000 clients across the United States; about 60% are law enforcement agencies and 40% are enterprise customers, Langley confirmed onstage. It has about 1,500 employees, according to PitchBook, though it announced this month that it will lay off about 18% of its workforce, according to Reuters (opens in new tab).
Langley said Flock made a mistake in piloting an audio detection system to capture the sound of gunshots and “human distress.” He said the company rolled back (opens in new tab) the feature, which was tested in a few markets (opens in new tab), amid backlash over concerns that it could lead to police being deployed to nonviolent situations.
One attendee, a Bay Area adviser who asked to remain anonymous as he works with Flock and other startup founders, said Langley should take more accountability. “He needs to be very risk-averse,” the attendee said. “I think he needs to run it almost like a healthcare company.”
Flock is valued at $8.4 billion, according to PitchBook, which tracks private companies. Flock has raised a total of $1.2 billion since 2017 and is backed by major investors such as Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund.
Semafor reported (opens in new tab) last month that Flock was considering selling to another company. Langley said Wednesday that he “has no desire to sell.”
Loizos asked Langley if the backlash against Flock, including death threats to his employees (opens in new tab), was worth it.
He said the short answer is yes, because compared with friends who are working on “dopey companies” selling enterprise software, what he’s doing matters. “Clearly we’ve made our fair share of mistakes,” he said, adding, “I think it’s worth it. It’s definitely not easy everyday.”
“One of the unfortunate consequences of building a consequential company is, this is the price you pay. I think it’s worth it, because there’s millions and millions of people who have a better life today because Flock exists.”