Flock CEO Claims They've Been Thinking About Privacy for Nine Years (Public Report)Javascript is disabled. Enable javascript to view IPVM.<br>Contact us at info@ipvm.com for help.

Flock CEO Claims They've Been Thinking About Privacy for Nine Years<br>IT

IPVM Team<br>•Published Jul 30, 2026 17:29 PM

PUBLIC - This article does not require an IPVM subscription. Feel free to share.

Flock is in the middle of its deepest public crisis, facing contract cancellations in dozens of cities, an Illinois state finding that it violated privacy law, class-action lawsuits, and congressional scrutiny. Its homepage now leads with "Privacy first." Against that backdrop, CEO Garrett Langley posted a video this week claiming Flock has been thinking about privacy for nine years.

In the YouTube Short, Langley cites two specific features as evidence of that nine-year commitment: an audit log requiring officers to state a reason for each search, and a 30-day default data retention period. The claim deserves scrutiny on two counts: whether those features constitute genuine privacy protections, and whether Flock's actual track record supports the narrative.

Executive Summary

Langley's two cited features, audit logs and 30-day retention, are accountability tools, not privacy ones. Neither prevents tracking, restricts who is captured, nor gives individuals any control over their data. The core privacy mechanism Flock's critics have consistently demanded, the ability to opt out of being tracked altogether, is absent from Langley's list and from the product. The nine-year framing is further undercut by Flock's own history: crime elimination, not privacy, was the company's dominant public message for most of its existence, and its substantive privacy changes have come reactively, under legal and political pressure.

The Video

Langley posted the short on July 29, 2026. The full statement on privacy reads:

We've been thinking about privacy for the last 9 years. How do we continue to build more privacy into our product? We start with an audit log. We added auto assistance. We started with a 30-day retention.

Audit Logs Are Accountability, Not Privacy

An audit log records what an officer searched, when, and why. That is a transparency and accountability mechanism: it creates a record after the fact. It does not prevent any person's vehicle from being captured and logged. It does not restrict who can be tracked. It gives the public no control over whether their movements are recorded.

Documented abuses and violations have occurred even with audit logs in place. Flock has acknowledged the limits of its own audit controls. IPVM previously reported that Flock coordinated with the FBI to obscure officer usernames from future audit logs, directly undermining the accountability function Langley now leads with.

What Privacy Actually Requires

The privacy protections that advocates, legislators, and litigants have consistently demanded go well beyond anything in Langley's list. Among the measures that would constitute meaningful privacy commitments:

Opt-out: A mechanism by which a member of the general public can prevent their vehicle's movements from being captured and stored at all. No such mechanism exists for law enforcement Flock cameras.

Warrant requirements: Judicial approval before officers access historical location data. Flock has actively opposed this.

Use restrictions: Limiting ALPR searches to specific crime categories such as felonies and stolen vehicles, rather than allowing unrestricted queries.

No cross-jurisdictional or federal data sharing: Flock violated Illinois state law by sharing plate data with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a finding made by the Illinois Secretary of State, and restricted data sharing only after that violation was documented.

Flock Once Understood Opt-Out Mattered

Ironically, the strongest evidence that Flock has been thinking about privacy comes from roughly seven years ago, not from anything Langley cited. Its early blog post, "How the SafeList Solves Privacy Concerns in a Neighborhood," describes a feature letting residents register their vehicles to be excluded from neighborhood camera footage. Flock understood then that privacy meant giving people a way out.

It never followed through. Extending opt-out to the national law enforcement network would undermine the network's core value to police: the more vehicles excluded, the less useful the system becomes for tracking suspects. Flock has never put that on the table, and is still not putting it on the table now. The SafeList is the exception that confirms the rule — Flock knew what genuine privacy required, and chose not to apply it where it counts.

The Track Record Does Not Support Nine Years

Flock's dominant public message for most of its existence was not privacy. It was crime elimination. "Eliminate crime in your community" was the company's homepage headline until mid-2025. As recently as July 2024, Langley predicted Flock would have...