Flock CEO claims microphones detect only gunshots despite website listing broader audio alerts

Flock CEO Garrett Langley stated during a stage interview at TechCrunch Disrupt that the company’s gunshot-detection microphones listen for “just gunshots,” a claim that directly contradicts information published on the firm’s own website. The company’s web pages describe a much broader scope of ambient audio collection, including alerts for car crashes, fireworks, and sideshows, which raises questions about the actual capabilities and privacy implications of the surveillance technology.

According to TechCrunch, Langley defended the Gunshot Detection product by arguing that critics misunderstand how the systems operate. He explained that the device provides earlier awareness of public safety events by listening across nearby neighborhoods. However, the company’s marketing materials state that the audio systems can pinpoint gunfire instantly while also detecting street takeovers to stop chaos before it escalates and identifying severe crashes in real time so help arrives faster.

Discrepancies in Product Capabilities

The divergence between Langley’s verbal statements and Flock’s written documentation highlights ongoing confusion regarding the product’s functionality. The website explicitly claims the ability to expand awareness beyond gunfire with specific alerts for car crashes, fireworks, and sideshows. Langley, speaking to TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos, insisted that most people do not call 911 when they hear a gunshot, which motivated the initial product design. He framed the technology as a tool for earlier awareness rather than comprehensive audio surveillance, despite the broader claims found online.

Flock announced the Gunshot Detection feature last year, but it faced immediate pushback from privacy groups and the public. In its initial announcement, Flock stated the technology would listen for sounds of “screaming.” Privacy organizations condemned the company for attempting to monitor human voices, prompting Flock to amend its website to refer to “sounds of human distress” instead. The company later confirmed it pulled the ability to detect distress altogether from customers who had tried the feature, acknowledging the controversy surrounding voice detection.

Public and Regulatory Scrutiny

Public opinion continues to shift against Flock and other license plate reading companies amid growing unease about mass surveillance. During Langley’s appearance at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco, protesters gathered outside the venue to voice their opposition to the company’s technology. The ACLU and other privacy advocates have mounted scrutiny of Flock, citing concerns about the misuse of its technology. Langley pushed back against what he described as misinformation, conceding that the company made mistakes but asserting that he is listening to customer feedback.

Langley noted that some customers requested alerts for abductions or harm in parking lots, leading the company to prototype and roll out such features to a few clients. However, significant concerns arose from this expansion, causing Flock to retreat from the distress detection capability. The CEO maintained that the idea seemed logical at the time, but the backlash demonstrated the sensitivity of ambient audio collection in public spaces.

What should you do?

Security and technology professionals should review vendor documentation carefully to identify discrepancies between marketing claims and technical specifications. Organizations deploying surveillance technology must assess whether ambient audio collection aligns with local privacy laws and community expectations. Monitoring public sentiment and advocacy group reports can provide early warning of reputational risks associated with controversial surveillance tools.

What to do and how to stay safe: Flock

• Audit current surveillance contracts to verify exactly what types of audio or data are being collected and stored by vendors.
• Review local ordinances and privacy regulations to ensure that ambient audio detection complies with legal requirements for public spaces.
• Monitor statements from privacy advocacy groups like the ACLU for updates on surveillance technology controversies and potential legislative changes.
• Request detailed technical specifications from vendors that explicitly list all detectable sound types, rather than relying on marketing summaries.

Step-by-step guide: Mobile Device Security: How to Protect Data Beyond Passwords

General security guidance from the Threat Times newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.

Frequently asked questions

Does Flock’s website claim its microphones detect more than gunshots?

Yes, Flock’s website states that its systems can detect car crashes, fireworks, sideshows, and street takeovers in addition to gunfire.

Did Flock previously attempt to detect human voices?

Yes, Flock initially announced it would listen for screaming, then changed the description to human distress, before removing the feature entirely due to privacy concerns.

Where did Garrett Langley make his comments about gunshot detection?

Langley made his comments onstage at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco, speaking to TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos.