Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley defended the expansion of surveillance technology at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco on Wednesday, arguing that its potential to help solve crimes should not be overshadowed by concerns about its shortcomings.
“If we want to live in a society where, if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, we shouldn’t pause progress,” Langley said during the panel, according to TechCrunch.
His remarks come as the company faces growing scrutiny over its license plate-reading cameras and other surveillance products.
Some communities have cancelled or declined to renew contracts, citing concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of surveillance data, while Flock has also announced workforce cuts amid the broader backlash.
Langley defended the company by citing conversations with police chiefs and local officials, along with examples of crimes he said its technology had helped solve.
READ: Flock offers buyouts to workers as company faces backlash (September 25, 2026)
However, he offered few specific proposals during the discussion for addressing concerns about surveillance abuse and corporate accountability.
Flock’s cameras can capture license plate information and help authorities identify vehicles connected to investigations.
The company’s systems do not use facial recognition, Langley said in addressing a customer’s concerns, but they can detect and track people.
The distinction has not eliminated broader questions about how surveillance data is accessed, shared and used. Critics argue that the technology can expose people to intrusive monitoring, particularly when law enforcement agencies use information beyond their immediate jurisdictions.
Langley maintained that technological progress should not be halted because systems are imperfect he also compared surveillance technology with driverless cars, arguing that problems should lead to improvements rather than an outright rejection of the technology.
He also said Flock does not want to dictate how police departments and city governments perform their duties. The company can offer recommendations and default settings, he said, but intends to minimize mandatory features and policies.
Langley acknowledged that Flock was not perfect and said he had made mistakes. He argued that technology is often judged against an ideal standard instead of being compared with existing alternatives.
He also pointed to staffing shortages in law enforcement, citing San Francisco as an example of a city with hundreds of unfilled police positions.
READ: Senator Josh Hawley opens investigation into Flocks automated surveillance cameras (August 27, 2026)
He suggested that technology could help departments maintain their capacity to investigate crimes despite staffing challenges.
However, when questioned about preventing the misuse of surveillance systems, Langley did not detail specific safeguards that Flock could introduce without affecting police operations.
The company has faced criticism over how law enforcement personnel use its systems. TechCrunch reported that officers in several cases had faced disciplinary or legal consequences after allegedly abusing access to license plate data, including for personal surveillance.
Langley argued that Flock’s technology had improved the lives of millions of people and argued that its benefits justified the mistakes made along the way.
The discussion underscored the continuing debate over surveillance technology about how to balance its potential role in criminal investigations with privacy protections, responsible data access and clear accountability when systems are misused.