Headline: Flock CEO urges “compromise” as license‑plate camera backlash sparks bipartisan scrutiny and vandalism Flock Safety’s CEO Garrett Langley is urging Americans to seek “compromise” as the company faces mounting public pushback over its AI‑powered license‑plate cameras—devices that have been vandalized nationwide and drawn rare bipartisan criticism in Congress. “What we have to prioritize as a country is compromise,” Langley told Fox News in an interview aired Saturday, arguing that framing the debate as a binary choice between privacy and safety is “prioritizing the wrong thing.” He warned that an outright ban on the technology would be overbroad—“like banning vehicles,” he said—pointing instead to regulation and targeted reforms as the proper policy response. Lawmakers from across the political spectrum have zeroed in on Flock. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said he will introduce legislation to halt what he calls “AI mass surveillance,” tweeting that unchecked systems could steer society toward “totalitarianism.” House Republicans led by Rep. Tim Burchett have proposed a bill to bar federal agencies from buying Flock cameras, and Sen. Josh Hawley (R‑Mo.) has opened a Senate inquiry into the company. Vandalism of Flock cameras has proliferated in recent months as local opponents seek to disable the devices in public spaces. Two recent investigations have intensified scrutiny. The Washington Post reported on August 19 that at least 69 police officials have been accused, charged or convicted of misusing Flock or similar license‑plate readers. In 15 of those cases, the misuse was first exposed not by police audits but by victims, activists or journalists. Reporters also identified three additional officers by analyzing public search logs: one Indianapolis officer ran 3,759 searches over ten months—about a dozen searches per day—often targeting vehicles connected to his wife and acquaintances. Several departments told the Post they do not regularly audit officer searches; two officers have since been disciplined. In response to those problems, Flock announced shortly before the Post story that it will require all law‑enforcement customers to enable “Audit Assistance,” a tool that flags abnormal search patterns, by the end of the year. The feature was optional since April; roughly one‑third of the company’s estimated 7,000 agency customers had activated it as of the announcement. A separate WIRED investigation, published the same day as the Post piece, reported Flock developed an AI capability that can identify drivers from movement patterns alone—without a license plate or name to initiate a search. Langley did not dispute the reporting, calling AI “incredibly powerful, but also a very dangerous tool,” and arguing that any deployment in public safety should include independent attestation. “When you call 911, it has to work. There's no space for hallucination,” he said. Langley suggested two concrete fixes for regulators: tightening data‑retention rules and increasing accountability for officers who abuse the system. Flock has already shortened its own data‑retention recommendation to seven days—a change from earlier guidance—against the strictest state regulatory cap of 21 days. On officer misuse, Langley said discipline and auditing are essential: “The person who wants a bad cop gone first is a good cop, and 99.9% of cops are good,” he said. Flock defends the public‑safety value of its cameras. The company’s Impact Census—a survey of nearly 700 agencies that Flock acknowledges is an early methodology open to critique—says its systems supported more than one million criminal investigations last year and helped locate over 10,000 missing people. Flock additionally estimates its technology contributed to roughly 20% of cleared cases in jurisdictions where its cameras are deployed. As lawmakers consider bills and inquiries and public acts of vandalism persist, the debate around Flock crystallizes larger tensions about surveillance, public safety and the limits of AI in civic life. Regulators now face pressure to reconcile demonstrable law‑enforcement benefits with demands for stricter data limits, independent audits, and safeguards against misuse. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news