In today’s world, we’re constantly told that new technologies exist to make us safer. Yet for many ordinary people, these tools can feel less like protection and more like digital traps set by powerful institutions—traps that ensnare without clear accountability or sufficient oversight.
Take Flock Safety, a company providing license plate readers that are used by law enforcement across the U.S. This technology, intended to help solve crimes, has ironically led to real harm for everyday folks. One journalist described being tracked continuously for days, culminating in a police ambush on him and his wife. This isn’t an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern: millions of false positives and mistakes occur monthly. Beyond the errors, there’s the troubling misuse of the technology itself.
In an exclusive interview with The Drive, Flock Safety’s founder and CEO Garrett Langley acknowledged that "the abuse is a problem." He said, "We need to continue to get that down to zero. Any level of abuse is unacceptable." Yet despite this recognition, Langley offered little clarity on concrete steps moving forward, leaving consumers wondering what real protections are in place.
Interestingly, Langley admitted that for years, Flock did not require municipalities using their system to implement multi-factor authentication (MFA), a basic security measure that significantly reduces unauthorized access risks. Without it, unauthorized parties could more easily access sensitive data—and tracing who viewed what was difficult or impossible. Although MFA is now mandated, this upgrade barely scratches the surface of deeper systemic issues.
Langley also pointed to the auditing capabilities Flock’s platform provides, claiming it flags "pretty weird" behavior, which supposedly drives investigations. However, he noted that such auditing and accountability features are rare in law enforcement technology overall, highlighting a troubling gap in regulation and oversight. He expressed hope that states would require other systems to have similar safeguards but stopped short of offering a clear plan for how Flock itself will enforce stricter controls.
What’s more, Langley defended the platform by emphasizing that over a million cases were solved using Flock’s technology last year, framing the instances of abuse as "incredibly low relative to that." But for those caught in the crosshairs—wrongly targeted or surveilled—the damage is real and often irreversible. The fact that only a fraction of law enforcement systems have auditing and abnormal behavior detection, combined with scant regulatory oversight, paints a concerning picture of a surveillance landscape where ordinary people are increasingly boxed in by expanding digital nets.
While it’s heartening that companies like Flock recognize the abuse problem, acknowledgment alone does little without transparency and robust safeguards. Ordinary citizens are left to grapple with the consequences of corporate decisions and law enforcement policies that often prioritize data over dignity.
For those interested in the ongoing conversation about surveillance technology’s societal impact, the full interview with Garrett Langley on The Drivecast offers deeper insights into these thorny issues. But make no mistake: the reality on the ground is frustrating and all too human—an unsettling reminder that convenience and safety often come at the expense of privacy and trust.