Flock CEO tells Americans to ‘compromise’ their privacy, says surveillance critics prioritizing ‘the wrong thing’

Flock cameras have become a hot-button political issue over the last year. Regular Americans are increasingly vocal that they didn’t consent to thousands of AI-powered surveillance cameras arriving in their communities.

Their manufacturer, Flock Safety, insists the cameras are a crucial law-enforcement tool, but critics contend they’re a breach of your privacy and are an arm of a growing surveillance state. Now. Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley has explained to America that you should “compromise” your privacy.

In a recent interview with Fox News, Langley said people are getting it all wrong: “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?”

“The risk of misuse is too great”

This statement is unlikely to calm down the debate, particularly after a recent Washington Post expose that detailed multiple cases of cops using Flock cameras to stalk their wives, girlfriends or exes.

Langley was asked about this and argued that without Flock cameras, we might never have realized that cops are abusing Flock cameras: “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.”

But anger is steadily building, bolstered by individuals who’ve taken it upon themselves to either block or even destroy Flock cameras in their communities. That anger is now being reflected in local government, and just yesterday the city of Tempe, Arizona confirmed that it’s ending its contract with Flock and removing the cameras:

Tempe Mayor Corey Woods explained that “These cameras have helped police officers do their jobs, and we don’t discount that. But the risk of misuse is too great. We have to be able to provide public safety in a way that maintains the trust of our community. For Tempe, that means taking these cameras down.” That was echoed by Councilmember Bobby Nicholls, who said, “Any law enforcement tool used by the City must not pose a risk of infringing on residents’ civil liberties.”

“Does it ever feel like you’re in a cage being watched?”

For once, both sides of the political aisle have objected to Flock. Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed criticized his opponent Mike Rogers for supporting the “ mass proliferation of Flock cameras, any and everywhere, watching your every move to collect information without you even noticing.”

Republicans also aren’t happy, with House Republicans introducing a bill that calls out Flock Safety cameras by name and seeks to “prohibit Federal agencies from purchasing or accessing automated surveillance systems that identify, track, or record individuals, and for other purposes.”

Flock cameras are going to be a hot-button issue in the November midterms, so expect canny politicians to seize upon widespread public disquiet to secure votes. As for Langley, he says he welcomes government regulation, and wants states to legislate that misusing Flock data is a crime.