Garrett Langley, founder and CEO of Flock Safety, defended his company’s license plate surveillance technology at TechCrunch Disrupt 2026 in San Francisco this week, arguing that law enforcement should not abandon technological advances because of concerns about potential misuse or imperfect results.

Langley’s defense comes as Flock Safety faces growing national opposition, including canceled contracts and layoffs, amid concerns about the expansion of surveillance cameras used by police departments and local governments.

Speaking during a panel interview, Langley rejected calls to halt the technology’s development, arguing that its ability to help solve crimes outweighs the risks associated with its use.

“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,” Langley said.

He compared the cameras to driverless cars, arguing that emerging technologies should be judged by whether they improve on existing systems rather than whether they operate without mistakes. Langley maintained that a single accident involving an autonomous vehicle should lead to efforts to improve safety rather than an outright ban.

“Technology, at its core, in its definition, is just doing things better. It’s not doing things perfect,” he said.

Langley also addressed concerns that police departments could misuse the cameras or collect information in ways that infringe on privacy. He said Flock attempts to leave policy decisions to the local governments and law enforcement agencies that purchase its products rather than imposing its own rules on them.

“We don’t want to tell city leaders how to do their job,” Langley said, adding that the company provides recommendations and default settings while seeking to minimize mandatory policies and features.

He argued that safeguards against abuse could be implemented without undermining police operations or interfering with the legal system. Critics, however, have raised concerns about how surveillance data is accessed, shared and retained, particularly when the technology expands beyond the communities where it is installed.

Langley also pushed back against expectations that Flock’s technology should be flawless, saying that judging new systems against perfection ignores the limitations of existing alternatives.

He acknowledged that his company has made mistakes but argued that its technology has delivered meaningful benefits to the public.

A central part of Langley’s defense was the difficulty police departments face in maintaining adequate staffing. He said law enforcement employment has declined over the past decade, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving departments with fewer personnel to investigate crimes and respond to public safety concerns.

“If you look at where policing has gone over the last decade, but particularly post-COVID, law enforcement employment is declining rapidly,” Langley said. Pointing to San Francisco, he added that the city has hundreds of vacant police positions that may never be filled.

Langley contended that surveillance technology can help departments operate more effectively despite those staffing challenges, giving investigators additional tools to identify vehicles connected to criminal activity.

He also acknowledged the controversy surrounding his company, saying that operating a business with significant public safety implications inevitably brings criticism.

“I think one of the unfortunate consequences of building a consequential company is this is the price you pay, and I think it’s worth it because there’s millions and millions of people who have a better life today because [of] Flock,” he said.

Langley added that critics who oppose the technology could eventually find themselves relying on it after becoming victims of crime.

The debate surrounding Flock Safety reflects a broader dispute over how communities should balance public safety, police effectiveness and individual privacy. While Langley argues that license plate cameras give law enforcement a valuable investigative tool at a time of staffing shortages, the growing backlash highlights demands for stronger oversight of surveillance systems and clearer limits on how their data can be used.