Flock moves to tighten access to police data after CEO admits company “got this one wrong”
Safety is changing how police use its tracking tools after reports that officers around the U.S. misused the data to stalk ex-romantic partners and
Flock Safety is changing how police use its tracking tools after reports that officers around the U.S. misused the data to stalk ex-romantic partners and other people. The move marks a sharp turn for a company that has sold itself as a crime-fighting platform and now faces growing backlash over privacy and accountability.
CEO Garrett Langley has issued a mea culpa. In an interview with The Verge, he said he had changed his view on how much responsibility Flock bears for the way law enforcement uses its technology. “We got this one wrong,” he said.
New controls, less room for abuse
Over the coming weeks, Flock will begin rolling out policy changes meant to close off some of the easiest paths to misuse. One feature, Audit Assistance, will no longer be optional. It flags “abnormal search behavior” and immediately locks out suspicious users until an administrator reviews the activity.
That matters. A lot.
The company also plans to require all users to enter case codes before they run searches, a step meant to curb personal or nefarious queries. Administrators can override that requirement in emergencies, such as missing-child cases, but those searches will be automatically flagged for review.
A shift in responsibility
The changes signal a break from Flock’s earlier stance. The company had largely pushed oversight of its technology to lawmakers, saying they were the ones responsible for setting the rules. Now it is moving to build more guardrails into the product itself.
That shift comes as surveillance tech companies face rising scrutiny worldwide over how police, and sometimes other authorities, use license plate readers and camera networks. Critics say such systems can drift from targeted crime-fighting into broader tracking of ordinary people. Flock has tried to counter that criticism by stressing transparency and public safety, and its executives have rejected claims that the company is building a “Big Brother” system or steering communities toward a dystopian future.
For Flock, the problem is no longer abstract. The company is reacting to reports that some officers used its tools to monitor people they should not have been watching at all. And now it is putting the fix in software and policy, not just in speeches.
Langley’s position is clear. The company, he said, misjudged the issue. “We got this one wrong.”