By The Chronicle Staff

Automated license plate readers have become an increasingly common tool for police departments across the country, but growing concerns about privacy and alleged misuse are putting one of the industry's largest companies under new scrutiny.

Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley is calling for a "compromise" between privacy and public safety as opposition grows to his company's network of cameras, drones and license plate recognition technology.

Flock cameras are typically positioned along roadways and automatically photograph vehicles as they pass.

The systems can record license plates and other identifying characteristics of vehicles, allowing law enforcement agencies to search the database during investigations.

Supporters say the technology can help police quickly locate stolen vehicles, identify suspects and develop leads in cases that otherwise could take considerably more manpower to investigate.

Flock says its technology has assisted in solving more than 1 million crimes and helped locate approximately 10,000 missing people nationwide.

But the same technology that makes the cameras useful to investigators has also raised a fundamental question: How much information should the government be able to collect about the everyday movements of people who aren't suspected of committing a crime?

That debate has intensified following reports of alleged misuse by law enforcement officers.

The Washington Post recently identified 46 cases in which police officers were accused of improperly using Flock technology, including instances involving officers allegedly searching for or tracking wives, girlfriends or former partners.

Langley has publicly apologized for instances in which the company's technology was abused and says Flock is making changes intended to prevent misuse.

Among those changes is a reduction in the company's default data-retention period. Flock says license plate data is now deleted after seven days by default, down from the previous 30-day period. The company has also introduced additional auditing tools intended to identify questionable searches.

One of those tools, called Audit Assistance, is being made mandatory for customers by the end of the year. Flock says the system is designed to help agencies identify potentially improper use of its network.

Still, critics argue technological safeguards aren't enough.

Opposition to Flock has begun crossing traditional political lines.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, has proposed legislation that would prohibit the technology, while Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee has pushed to prevent federal funding from being used for local Flock installations.

Communities have also started reconsidering their relationships with the company. At least 56 cities reportedly rejected or canceled Flock contracts during 2026, according to The Guardian.

In some cities, opposition has gone beyond city council meetings.

Flock cameras have been vandalized or destroyed in several communities. In Houston, for example, cameras have been cut down as protests over surveillance have intensified.

Langley argues that eliminating the technology altogether isn't the answer.

During a recent television interview, the Flock CEO said the national conversation shouldn't focus exclusively on either privacy or safety. Instead, he believes policymakers need to establish rules that protect individual privacy while still allowing law enforcement to use technology that can help investigate crimes.

That may ultimately become the central issue surrounding automated license plate readers.

Unlike a traditional police camera that simply records video, a network of license plate readers can potentially create a searchable history showing where vehicles have traveled. When cameras from multiple communities share information, that network can become considerably more powerful.

For investigators searching for a stolen vehicle or missing child, that capability can be extremely valuable.

For privacy advocates, the same capability creates concern about building a system capable of tracking the movements of millions of ordinary Americans.

The controversy is becoming even more significant as artificial intelligence makes surveillance systems increasingly capable of analyzing enormous amounts of information. Flock has found itself near the center of a broader national discussion about how quickly surveillance technology should be allowed to expand and what safeguards should accompany it.

The debate isn't necessarily about whether technology can help police solve crimes. Evidence suggests license plate readers can provide useful investigative leads.

The harder question is who should be allowed to search the information, how long it should be stored, when a search should require a warrant and what happens when someone abuses access.

Those questions are increasingly moving from technology circles into city halls, state legislatures and Congress.

Flock Safety's cameras may have started as another tool for law enforcement.

They are quickly becoming part of a much larger national debate over where public safety ends and personal privacy begins. ■