Flock CEO defends surveillance at Disrupt while his website contradicts his audio claims

The contradiction at the center of the interview

Flock Safety co-founder and CEO Garrett Langley used an on-stage interview at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco to push back against mounting criticism of his company's surveillance products. But according to TechCrunch, one of his central claims — that the company's audio sensors detect "just gunshots" — sits awkwardly against Flock's own marketing materials.

As TechCrunch reports, the website for the company's Gunshot Detection product says the audio systems can locate gunfire as it happens while also flagging street takeovers early, identifying severe crashes in real time and sending alerts for car crashes, fireworks and sideshows. An FAQ section adds that the "detection library is continually expanding" to include emerging threats relevant to customers. Asked about the gap between those descriptions and his remarks, Langley replied: "It's just gunshots."

Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel, contacted by TechCrunch after the interview, offered a middle position: the technology is primarily used to detect gunfire but is also capable of detecting fireworks, sideshows and potential car crashes. The spokesperson said the CEO's point was that the product is not designed to monitor conversations or analyze speech, and does not currently detect human screaming or distress.

From 'screaming' to 'human distress' to neither

The audio product, announced last year, drew criticism from the start. According to TechCrunch, Flock initially said the technology would listen for sounds of "screaming." After privacy groups objected to microphones tuned to human voices, the company reworded its site to "sounds of human distress" and later said it had removed distress detection altogether for the small number of customers testing it.

On stage, Langley framed the walk-back as responsiveness: customers with parking-lot deployments had asked for alerts when someone was being abducted or harmed, Flock prototyped the capability, and when concerns followed, the company decided the system would handle gunshots and nothing else. Langley also told TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos that Flock now has a microphone fleet comparable to ShotSpotter, which had roughly 25,000 microphones as of 2024 according to Wired.

'We shouldn't pause progress'

In the wider interview, Langley cast Flock's nationwide deployment as a form of inevitable progress. "If we want to live in a society where, if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, we shouldn't pause progress," he said. He compared criticism of Flock to reacting to a single driverless car accident, arguing one failure shouldn't sink a technology that is safer overall — though TechCrunch notes that autonomous vehicle makers do pause their fleets and apply fixes after crashes.

Pressed on how Flock would curb abuse of its systems, Langley said there is "a way to do that" without disrupting police work or the legal system, but did not spell out what that would involve. He also said the company deliberately avoids imposing its own rules on customers: "We don't want to tell city leaders how to do their job," explaining that Flock offers recommendations and defaults while minimizing mandated features, functions and policies.

Langley attributed some contract cancellations to misinformation, pointing to a customer who left because they believed the cameras perform facial recognition. As TechCrunch notes, Flock cameras do not have facial recognition, though they can detect and track people. He positioned the technology as a substitute for shrinking police staffing, citing rapidly declining law enforcement employment and hundreds of open positions in San Francisco that may never be filled. Conceding that Flock is "far from perfect," he framed the backlash as the cost of building a consequential company, arguing that millions of people are better off because of Flock and that critics "might be a victim" one day.

Growing pressure on the business

The appearance came amid intensifying headwinds. Per TechCrunch, Texas and Florida have moved to end their relationships with Flock, Amazon's Ring has ended its partnership with the company, the ACLU is among its critics, and some people have destroyed its cameras outright. The company has also seen cancelled contracts and layoffs, and protesters gathered outside the San Francisco venue as Langley spoke.

Why it matters

A chief executive publicly understating what a surveillance product can do — while his own company's website describes broader capabilities and a spokesperson confirms them — goes beyond a branding slip. Cities sign contracts based on documented capabilities, and contradictions like this feed the very confusion Langley blames for cancellations. His stated preference for defaults over mandates also leaves governance to individual customers, meaning safeguards could vary city by city. With a microphone fleet he says is comparable to ShotSpotter's scale and a detection library the company says keeps expanding, the episode crystallizes the central question: whether mass surveillance should spread first and be regulated later, or the other way around.