The CEO of Flock, a US surveillance firm, has admitted that the company took too long to act over police abuse of its technology. Garrett Langley, the founder and chief executive, acknowledged the delay in implementing safeguards to prevent misuse of the company’s cameras, license plate readers, and drones.
Flock’s technology has been used by police to track romantic partners, stalk strangers, and even monitor a woman who had an abortion. The company is now rolling out new measures, including reducing the data retention period from 30 days to seven and automatically flagging abnormal searches.
Surveillance Firm Overhauls Policies
Langley’s admission comes amid a growing public backlash against the company, with at least 50 cities cutting ties with Flock this year. However, the company claims to be gaining new customers, with a 7:1 ratio of new customers to lost customers. Flock’s technology has also been used to find stolen cars and missing people, but its misuse by police has sparked widespread concern.
Langley has come to agree with civil liberties groups that police should need an active case number to search Flock’s data. The company’s new changes include an audit feature that automatically creates a record of searches, which can help identify and prevent abuse.
Despite the changes, critics argue that Flock’s updates are “piecemeal, voluntary, and reversible” and do not go far enough to protect people’s privacy. Cooper Quintin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says that invasive searches like automated license plate reader database queries must require a judicial warrant.
Implications and Reactions
Langley’s admission and the company’s new measures are seen as a response to the growing public concern about surveillance and police abuse of technology. The incident highlights the need for stronger regulations and oversight of surveillance firms like Flock. As the US grapples with issues of privacy and policing, Flock’s case serves as a reminder of the importance of holding companies accountable for their role in law enforcement.
The lack of comprehensive laws governing the collection, use, and sale of personal data in the US has contributed to the controversy surrounding Flock. As the company navigates the backlash, it must balance its mission to provide surveillance technology with the need to protect people’s privacy and prevent abuse.
