Privacy for Me, But Not for Thee: The Hypocrisy at the Heart of Flock Safety

Garrett Langley, co-founder and CEO of Flock Safety, established an advanced surveillance company that utilizes automated license plate recognition systems to enable law enforcement agencies to track vehicles within residential neighborhoods. Langley has long championed this technology as a vital tool for public safety, arguing that society must accept a certain degree of privacy compromise in exchange for enhanced security.

However, when it comes to the privacy of individual homes, the narrative shifts dramatically.

Following Langley’s public advocacy for balancing privacy and security, allegedly leaked information regarding his home address began circulating online. Reports also indicate that his residence had been obscured on Google Maps. While this address has not been independently verified 4and the information should be treated with caution it raises a troubling question: How much privacy are ordinary individuals expected to surrender, while the very people who build and maintain surveillance systems take pains to protect their own privacy?

This is not merely a theoretical question.Flock’s technology has been deployed on thousands of law enforcement devices, creating a massive, searchable record of vehicle movements. 

The company claims its system aids in solving crimes and protecting communities; however, documented cases reveal that some police officers have misused the technology to track current or former partners, relatives, or other individuals for personal reasons. 

This is the inherent risk in creating a system capable of tracking people's whereabouts: even if the technology is designed for legitimate law enforcement purposes, the information could constitute a gross violation of privacy if misused.

Flock responded to the criticism by bolstering security measures and shortening data retention periods. Lawmakers also began questioning how the company’s nationwide network operates and what constitutes an appropriate data retention period.

Yet, more critical questions remain. Privacy should not be sacrificed simply because surveillance technology makes it possible. If privacy matters for corporate executives subject to surveillance, it must be equally important when they are ordinary citizens.

The core issue is not whether society must choose between privacy and security, but whether the public should bear almost the entire burden of that choice.

This is a double standard that demands accountability.