Article
Flock Safety Faces Privacy Backlash After Workers Call Police on People Filming in Public
The license-plate-camera company says it doesn’t object to public photography of its staff. But police calls over people recording its workers have handed critics a pointed question about who gets privacy in public. ATLANTA — Flock Safety, the rapidly expanding surveillance-technology company whose license-plate-reading cameras have become a fixture in communities across the United States, is facing renewed scrutiny over privacy after workers associated with the company called police on people photographing or recording them in public. The incidents have drawn particular attention because Flock’s chief executive, Garrett Langley, has publicly defended the company’s technology while acknowledging Americans’ concerns about privacy. “I value my privacy. My family values their privacy. My employees value their privacy,” Langley said during a Fox News interview in August. He argued that the debate should not be framed as a choice between privacy and public safety, calling instead for a “compromise” between the two, TechCrunch reported. That statement has resurfaced online alongside reports of confrontations involving people filming Flock employees and contractors. In one documented case in Milton, Georgia, an investigative reporter for Atlanta News First was recording a technician working on a Flock camera from a public street. The technician left the location, and the reporter followed several cars behind while attempting to document the technician’s next stop. The technician called 911, telling a dispatcher that he worked with Flock Safety and was being followed. Police subsequently stopped the reporter, who was ultimately allowed to leave, according to Atlanta News First. The episode was one of at least two documented cases this year in which people working for Flock contacted law enforcement over individuals recording them or the company’s equipment in public, according to InvestigateTV. Flock, however, disputes the suggestion circulating online that the company has broadly instructed the public to stop photographing its workers. “We do not object to members of the public or press photographing Flock cameras or personnel in public,” a company spokesperson told InvestigateTV. The company said employees and contractors may contact police when they believe they are being “threatened, harassed, followed” or otherwise face a safety concern. The distinction is significant. A viral post from Rawsalerts characterized the controversy as Flock asking members of the public to stop taking pictures of employees and threatening to call police against those who refuse. Available reporting supports the existence of police calls connected with public filming, but Flock’s stated policy is that public photography itself is not prohibited. A Growing National Privacy Fight The controversy comes at a difficult moment for Flock. The Atlanta-based company operates an extensive network of automated license plate readers capable of capturing vehicle information that can then be searched by participating law-enforcement agencies. Supporters say the technology can help investigators identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects and solve crimes more quickly. Civil-liberties advocates and some lawmakers have raised concerns about the scale of the network, how information can be shared between agencies and the potential for misuse. Those concerns have increasingly crossed traditional political lines. At a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Sept. 23, senators from both parties raised questions about automated license plate readers and AI-powered surveillance technology. Langley and executives from other surveillance companies declined invitations to testify at the hearing, according to Roll Call. Flock has also responded to criticism by announcing changes to its systems. Among them is a seven-day default data-retention period for new law-enforcement customers and additional account-security requirements, TechCrunch reported. Some governments have gone further. Florida’s Department of Transportation moved this month to end the use of license-plate readers on state highways, citing reports of misuse, privacy concerns and surveillance practices. Texas has also moved to restrict state funding for Flock cameras, according to TechCrunch. The debate leaves Flock confronting a particularly potent question about the technology it sells: How much privacy should people surrender in public in exchange for greater security? Langley has argued that the answer requires balancing both interests. But the incidents involving people recording Flock personnel have given critics a new way to challenge that position — by asking whether the people building surveillance systems are comfortable being subjected to public observation themselves. For Flock, that contradiction — whether perceived or real — is likely to remain at the center of a widening national debate over surveillance, policing and the boundaries of privacy in public spaces.