Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization” (2025) [video]
The CEO of Flock Safety, a company deploying pervasive AI-powered license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, sparked outrage by labeling the activist group 'Deflock' a 'terrorist organization.' This bold claim, equating peaceful anti-surveillance efforts to violent extremism, ignited intense debate on HN about corporate power, privacy in public spaces, and the shifting definitions of activism and terrorism in the digital age. Critics highlighted Flock's own controversial data-sharing practices and the profound implications of ubiquitous surveillance for civil liberties.
The Lowdown
In a recent Forbes interview, Garrett Langley, the CEO of Flock Safety, controversially described the activist group 'Deflock' as a 'terrorist organization,' drawing parallels to Antifa. Flock Safety provides AI-powered license plate recognition cameras to law enforcement agencies, aiming to enhance public safety through widespread surveillance.
- Langley stated that Deflock's primary motivation is 'chaos,' contrasting them with groups like the ACLU and EFF, whose legal and advocacy efforts he respects.
- Deflock actively campaigns against the deployment of Flock cameras, often by mapping their locations and encouraging communities to reject or remove the systems through lawful means, including FOIA requests.
- The CEO asserted that Flock cameras are not forced upon communities, but rather adopted by elected officials responding to a public desire for safety.
- The interview highlights a fundamental clash between a company advocating for extensive surveillance technology and an activist group fighting for privacy and against what they perceive as an encroaching surveillance state.
Langley's strong rhetoric against Deflock underscores the escalating tensions between privacy advocates and companies profiting from surveillance technologies, prompting significant backlash and further scrutiny of Flock's operations.
The Gossip
Labeling Lowdown
Users lambasted the CEO's inflammatory language, particularly his comparison of Deflock to Antifa and his definition of 'terrorist.' Many highlighted the irony and hypocrisy, questioning if simply opposing corporate surveillance now constitutes terrorism, and noting the shifting meaning of the term. Commenters pointed out the stark contrast between Flock's broad definition of 'law and order' and the rights of citizens to protest intrusive technologies.
Dubious Data Deeds & Dissent
Commenters raised serious concerns about Flock's operational transparency and data sharing practices, citing instances where cities like Mountain View disabled systems due to unauthorized data access and sharing with other agencies without explicit permission. The CEO's praise for legal challenges while using 'terrorist' for non-violent activism was seen as hypocritical, further fueled by Flock's significant VC funding enabling "lawfare" against less resourced opponents. Critics also pointed to a prior, heavily criticized study by Flock claiming high crime-solving rates.
Surveillance Scale & Societal Stakes
The discussion delved into the fundamental nature of surveillance, debating whether ubiquitous ALPRs fundamentally alter the expectation of privacy in public spaces. Many argued that while individual observation might be permissible, algorithmic aggregation and storage of movement data by companies like Flock represents a new, invasive form of 'stalking' that wasn't conceived by constitutional framers. Examples of cities trying to remove Flock cameras, only to face resistance from the company actively reinstalling or reactivating them, underscored the power imbalance and the challenge of democratic control over such pervasive technologies.