Flock boss admits surveillance firm took too long to act over police abuse

Langley said that, with clearly visible cameras in cities and neighbourhoods, the public increasingly, external sees the firm as an outlet for their growing concerns about privacy and technology, external.

“Because you can see our cameras, it’s easier to get mad,” Langley said.

In the US, there is no comprehensive law protecting or governing the collection, use or sale of people’s personal data.

Langley mentioned a woman he recently met in Cleveland who was vociferously against Flock in her community. When he asked her why she disliked the technology so much, she told him it was ultimately a tool for police to “abuse their power.”

It turned out that police “kind of feel the same way” as her, Langley said.

Conversations he had with police would often turn to officers saying of their colleagues ‘we knew that person was not good. We had no way to prove it’.

That resulted in the new audit feature for Flock, which was released as an option earlier this year.

It automatically creates an audit log of searches being done on Flock, and flags unusual search behaviour.

Most police customers turned on the feature when it became an option. Misuse proved so rampant that Langley decided Flock needed to make the audit feature standard.

Officers who abuse their position are “horrible”, Langley said, adding that they should be punished with more than just dismissal.

“If anyone is going to be the one that spearheads getting rid of abusive cops? Sign me up,” Langley said. “We trust these individuals with deadly weapons.

“I think a camera is very far from a deadly weapon, but I would say it’s a very powerful tool. We should hold it incredibly accountable.”