Flock Safety CEO Apologizes to Camera Critics

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley has apologized for calling opponents of the company “terrorists,” marking a rare public retreat for a business that sells police departments a nationwide network of license-plate recognition cameras.

In comments to Forbes, Langley acknowledged that he had gone too far and said critics have “real and valid concerns” about Flock’s business. He also signaled that the company is willing to discuss how its cameras should operate in cities where residents increasingly view them not as a targeted police tool, but as infrastructure for constant surveillance.

Flock Safety cameras and the privacy dispute

Flock Safety operates a large camera network used by police departments across multiple US states. The company says it does not track specific people, but independent demonstrations and residents' complaints have not persuaded everyone.

The activist group Deflock maintains a public map of Flock cameras and similar systems. According to its data, more than 115,000 cameras have been identified across the United States. The map has helped turn Deflock from a narrow campaign into a prominent public project, showing how quickly these networks are being integrated into urban environments.

Flock’s systems read vehicle license plates and help police identify cars connected to investigations. Supporters describe that as a faster way to locate vehicles linked to crimes. Critics see a system that makes routine monitoring part of everyday city life and can reveal patterns of movement across a community.

Recommended reading

7-Zip 26.02 Patches XZ Code-Execution Flaw

Immigration policy adds another layer to the dispute. Activists worry that data from these systems could benefit not only local police but also federal agencies. Flock denies that concern, but amid aggressive raids and arrests associated with ICE, the company’s assurances are being viewed with increased skepticism.

Pressure from activists, cities and Tucker Carlson

Langley’s change in tone follows pressure from several directions. Activists have published camera maps, videos showing cameras being damaged have circulated on social media, and some cities have reconsidered their contracts with Flock.

In Los Angeles, police did not renew the company’s three-year contract after it expired. For the urban surveillance market, that was a notable signal that opposition can affect deployments as well as public perception.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson added another complication. He revisited Langley’s earlier remarks and mocked the idea that mapping cameras should be treated as a threat. Flock consequently found itself under scrutiny not only from civil-rights advocates, but also from right-wing commentators who are often more supportive of policing technologies.

That combination leaves the company defending its products on two fronts: proving that its cameras help police without intruding into private life, while responding to direct resistance through damaged equipment, canceled contracts and public reputational attacks. Langley’s apology suggests the dispute is no longer limited to one inflammatory remark. It is becoming a broader argument over the rules governing surveillance networks in American cities—and whether Flock can convince residents that its cameras will not turn every neighborhood into a zone of permanent monitoring.