In a Saturday interview with Fox News host Kayleigh McEnany, Garrett Langley, chief executive of Flock Safety, addressed growing concerns over the use of automated license‑plate readers, commonly known as Flock cameras, in neighborhoods nationwide. While law‑enforcement agencies in dozens of states rely on the technology to aid criminal investigations and locate missing persons, residents in several communities have voiced strong privacy worries.
Local backlash and national debate
Vandalism of camera poles, signs covering lenses, and public protests have been reported in locations ranging from St. Petersburg, Florida, to New York, Minnesota, California and Illinois. One Florida resident, Carl Gunn, expressed his unease, saying, “My biggest concern is I don’t want people to know where I go and when I go. That’s my business, not anyone else’s.” The controversy has also reached Capitol Hill, where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑VT) has introduced legislation to ban the technology outright, and Rep. Tim Burchett (R‑TN) has advocated cutting federal funding for local installations.
Langley’s call for compromise
Langley emphasized that the technology can be a vital tool for safety, noting that Flock cameras have assisted law‑enforcement in over a million investigations and helped locate more than 10,000 missing individuals. He argued that the conversation should not be framed as a choice between privacy or safety, but rather as a need for balanced compromise.
“When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley said. “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
Company steps toward accountability
Flock Safety’s website describes its tools as technology that helps communities deter crime, respond to emergencies, and investigate safety incidents while aiming to protect privacy. To address concerns, the company has introduced a seven‑day data‑retention limit and an audit assistance tool that detects abnormal behavior. Langley called on state regulators to focus on accountability rather than outright bans.
“Today, it is too often that in Flock and in other technologies, there’s no regulation. There’s no accountability, and we think that’s wrong,” he said. “We announced changes that required auditing, that required using our audit assistance tool, and we’re calling on state regulators to focus less on banning this type of technology and more on holding our law‑enforcement community accountable.”
What’s next?
The debate over automated license‑plate readers is likely to continue as more communities grapple with the trade‑off between public safety and individual privacy. Lawmakers, technology firms, and citizens will need to work together to develop standards that respect constitutional rights while supporting effective crime‑prevention efforts.
Original reporting: Fox News (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
