Flock Safety chief executive Garrett Langley has claimed that online opposition to his surveillance company is driven largely by Russian bots, according to leaked audio reported by 404 Media. His remarks came after US communities ended or declined to renew contracts for Flock's licence-plate cameras.
Langley made the comments at a private police conference on 25 October, 404 Media reported the following day. The publication said he offered no evidence for his claim that Russian bots were driving much of the online criticism.
The dispute comes as local officials weigh the cameras' potential value in criminal investigations against concerns about privacy, data sharing and misuse.
What Did Langley Say About the Backlash?
According to 404 Media, Langley told an audience of police chiefs that opposition to Flock was not real and suggested that people were being paid to criticise the company.
He also claimed that social media discussion about Flock had fallen sharply since July and alleged that a Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian data centre had contributed to a further decline. Those figures and the suggested connection have not been independently established by the sources reviewed for this article.
Langley also acknowledged that what he described as inauthentic activity had led to genuine opposition, according to the draft account of the recording. That characterisation requires confirmation against the full audio before publication.
Whatever the origin of individual online posts, the public debate has included residents, advocacy groups and elected officials. Several local governments have acted on concerns about the technology.
Which Communities Have Ended Flock Contracts?
In Virginia, Henrico County announced on 6 October that it was ending its Flock contract early over privacy concerns. The county had installed more than 120 automated licence-plate readers during a relationship with the company that began in November 2022, VPM News reported.
Four days later, Richmond Mayor Danny Avula said the city would not renew its Flock contract when it ends in July 2027. Avula cited Henrico's departure as one factor, saying the system would be less useful without links to neighbouring jurisdictions.
In Texas, Pflugerville's city council voted in August against continuing its arrangement with Flock. The city had discovered that law enforcement agencies outside its approved partners could access local camera data. Its previous contract had expired in July, and an extension was under discussion.
Privacy advocacy group Secure Justice had recorded 214 cities and counties that dropped Flock since 2021, Ars Technica reported in late August. The group later updated its August count to 93. Those figures describe the position at that time, not a confirmed nationwide total for October.
Flock told Ars in August that new city partnerships had outpaced nonrenewals by approximately 10 to one so far that year. The company did not disclose its precise number of new customers, and the ratio has not been independently verified.
Why Are Flock Cameras Controversial?
Flock's automated licence-plate readers record passing vehicles and details such as their plate numbers, locations and the time of capture. Police can search records during investigations, and data may be shared with other agencies.
Supporters say the technology can help police investigate crimes and locate stolen vehicles. Privacy advocates warn that a network of cameras can also reveal the movements of people who are not suspected of wrongdoing.
Investigations have documented alleged misuse and weaknesses in access controls. A Washington Post investigation reported cases in which former or suspended officers retained access to the network.
What Safeguards Has Flock Announced?
In August, Flock announced changes intended to strengthen privacy and oversight. These included a seven-day default and recommended retention period, mandatory auditing assistance, case codes for searches and stronger account security.
The company said existing customers would retain their current retention periods and that communities could choose the period they considered appropriate. It also announced a way to preserve specific data for active investigations beyond the recommended period.
For communities still using the cameras, the questions include who can search the records, which agencies can access them and how long the information should remain available.
