As the debate and concerns about privacy and abuse increase around the usage of Flock cameras across the country, the CEO of the company behind the technology sat down for a one-on-one interview with KPRC 2’s sister station, WDIV in Detroit.
Local communities debating Flock
Recommended Videos
Several Houston-area communities have been discussing putting the continued use of Flock cameras before the voters in the next election.
League City recently voted to place a proposition on the November ballot asking residents whether the city should continue using Flock Safety’s automated license-plate reader cameras.
A similar measure in Conroe recently failed to pass city council by one vote.
At the same time, several agencies have also announced they are either investigating or have disciplined officers for alleged misuse of the cameras.
The Harris County Sheriff’s Office says three deputies had access to the system suspended and they are reviewing their actions for potential misuses of the system.
Deer Park also said it disciplined an officer for alleged misuse.
In Pasadena, former Sgt. Michael Palitz surrendered his Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) peace officer license “in lieu of criminal prosecution.” This came after allegations by a Pasadena city council member that Palitz improperly used the department’s Flock Safety Camera license plate reader camera system to monitor a fellow officer.
The history of Flock
Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley answered multiple questions about the technology and the company, ranging from the history of the company, to what he thinks about regulations and data usage, to his thoughts on people who abuse the technology.
Langley says the idea for the company and Flock started nine years ago.
“I was sitting at my dining room table asking the question, why does crime exist? Why is it so hard to solve? And in my neighborhood in Atlanta, we were frustrated like crime was happening and it felt like the police couldn’t do anything,” he said.
He says it was an individual who oversaw his neighborhood that gave him the idea to create a license plate reader.
“And the individual who oversees our neighborhood said, ‘You know, if we had a license plate, we could catch these people.’ And they’re breaking into cars. They’re breaking into homes. And I said, ‘Really? Like a license plate?’ And I went to Georgia Tech and so I called two of my friends that I went to Georgia Tech with and said, ‘We got to build a camera that reads license plates.’ And so we did that. And about two months later, we had them over my neighborhood,” he said.
Houston-area connection to Flock’s spread
Now, Langley says, almost 7,000 police departments, tens of thousands of neighborhoods, and some of the world’s largest companies use Flock. He says it was originally meant to be used only in neighborhoods until a Houston-area city called and asked him a question.
“About six years ago, a small town in Texas called Jersey Village said ‘Well, wait a second. Our neighborhoods have this. Can we buy it for the major intersections of the city?’ And we said, ‘Sure, I guess.’”
On privacy
Langley was asked about the growing backlash over privacy concerns surrounding Flock cameras.
“I think you have to break it into two buckets. And there’s a part of the bucket which is real valid criticism and like really healthy debate of things like how much power should local law enforcement have? And I would say they should have enough power but no more than to do their job. But with that power should come real accountability and real guard rails,” he said. “And I think when people hear the facts, like I’ve never met anyone that doesn’t want to be safer. Maybe they exist. I just -- and I’ve traveled the country -- and I’ve not met that person yet. And I think those are really good conversations.”
He addressed what he said was misinformation about the technology.
“I was with an elected official earlier today in Michigan and she said, ‘You know, when did you guys add facial recognition?’ And I said, ‘Ma’am, we don’t do facial recognition.’ You [elected official] said, ‘But do you sell the data?’ We don’t sell the data. We don’t own the data. Our customers do. We don’t work with ICE. We, the customer chooses who to share the data with. And so, I’ve found that once people see the truth, they go, ‘This feels like a very good trade-off.’ Because at the end of the day, we have to find a society where safety and privacy can coexist.”
On data usage
Langley says Flock doesn’t own the data collected by its cameras, but the agencies using the cameras have access to that data and can share it with whatever entity they choose to share it with.
“The data is captured and stored within that local municipality, be it a county or a city and then they can choose who they share or who they do not share with. And then one layer deeper -- they can also select what types of crimes can be investigated using their cameras,” he said. “We, as a company, don’t tell police departments how to interact with federal authorities. There are policies, there are restrictions, there are internal rules for how task force operate and those are different city by city.”
On abuse and misuse and safeguards
Langley says they have worked to put safeguards in place that make abuse more difficult and easier to detect.
“When we started the company nine years ago, we knew abuse was possible. We didn’t know if it’d be prevalent or not. We knew it’s possible. So, we have an audit log. So, every single action taken in Flock is stored in that audit log. And in most places. . . it is both the city administrator, is the attorney, and the police chief that reviews that audit log,” he said.
He says in larger cities, it can be a challenge to read through an entire audit log, so they came up with a tool for that as well.
“We built a pattern recognition tool called audit assistance because we helped solve over a million crimes last year in Flock. We know what normal behavior looks like in a system. We also know what abnormal behavior looks like. And so we now flag that behavior for the administrator in real time. That individual can be locked out in real time. So when I look at this, you know, I say, look, abuse is horrible, but we as an industry can do better for communities to root these people out.”
He also believes there should be greater punishment for law enforcement officers caught misusing the cameras.
“I think one of the, one of the things that’s missing from most state regulations is a severe enough punishment for police abusing their power. To me, it’s not enough to simply be terminated from your job. If you’re stalking an ex-partner, if you’re looking up a criminal records of your daughter’s boyfriend, that should be a criminal offense,” he said.