admin
Garrett Langley, the CEO of Flock Safety, made the blunt case on Fox News that too many Americans are fretting about abstract privacy talking points while ignoring the very real threat of violent crime in their neighborhoods. In an interview with Kayleigh McEnany he pushed back hard against privacy alarmism and argued that public safety must come first when technology helps catch killers and kidnappers. Langley’s defense of the company’s license-plate reader cameras is exactly the kind of unapologetic common-sense stance our leaders should be taking.
Across the country, however, a coordinated backlash led by civil liberties groups and coastal elites is trying to kneecap a tool that local police say actually helps solve crimes. City councils and activists in multiple municipalities have moved to restrict or cancel Flock contracts amid a torrent of media-driven outrage, demonstrating how fear of surveillance rhetoric is now trumping public safety in far too many places. This growing resistance is bipartisan in scope and growing faster than defenders of law and order can keep up.
The ACLU and other advocacy groups have predictably framed Flock as a civil liberties bogeyman, pointing to lawsuits and alleged misuse to alarm the public. Those organizations have published detailed critiques and legal actions questioning data-sharing practices and long-term retention, and they’ve used isolated incidents to argue for blanket bans. Conservatives should acknowledge legitimate concerns about oversight, but we must also be honest about the political theater: these groups are weaponizing worst-case hypotheticals to gut real-world tools that catch criminals.
Meanwhile, local police departments and Flock itself offer a very different record — one filled with solved homicides, arrested shoplifters, and found missing children. Flock’s own case logs and city statements detail hundreds of investigations where license-plate recognition produced actionable leads and rapid arrests, and the company points to partnerships with thousands of communities as proof that the tech is making streets safer. Those outcomes matter to the victims and families who expect their leaders to do everything possible to bring perpetrators to justice.
Yes, there have been controversies and mistakes, and some municipalities have paused or pulled Flock systems in response to political pressure or new laws — but tossing out a tool after a few headline-friendly incidents is a reckless surrender to crime. Law enforcement leaders in cities that kept the cameras credit them with solving violent cases and recovering missing people, while other jurisdictions that canceled contracts have publicly wrestled with rising crime and frustrated residents. We can demand transparency and proper safeguards without kneecapping the very instruments that deter and solve violent crime.
The real choice facing lawmakers isn’t between privacy and liberty but between safety and chaos, and conservatives should fight to keep the scales tilted toward protecting communities. Let oversight laws ensure responsible use, require strict controls on data access, and penalize bad actors — but do not let activist posturing strip police of tools that demonstrably help them keep neighborhoods safe. If America values law and order, our response should be careful reform, not reflexive repeal.
