Flock CEO Claims Its Microphones Detect 'Just Gunshots.' The Website Disagrees

Flock CEO Garrett Langley said on stage at TechCrunch Disrupt that his company's audio-collection microphones detect "just gunshots." Flock's own website says the same systems detect fireworks, sideshows, car crashes, and what the company calls "disruptive community events."

The contradiction sits at the center of a growing credibility problem for one of the largest surveillance vendors in the United States. Langley's remarks came during an on-stage interview with TechCrunch editor-in-chief Connie Loizos, held while protesters gathered outside the San Francisco venue to oppose Flock's role in mass surveillance.

The product in question is called Gunshot Detection. Flock announced it last year. The feature listens for gunshots and other ambient audio across nearby neighborhoods to provide what the company calls "earlier awareness" of potential public safety events.

Langley defended the product and pushed back against critics. He argued that many of them misunderstand how Flock's technology actually works.

What Did Langley Actually Say?

Langley framed the product as a response to a concrete gap in emergency response.

"Most people don't call 911 when they hear a gunshot, and so that's why we built the product," Langley told Loizos.

He then described how the system's scope expanded beyond gunfire at customers' request. "And then some of our customers said, 'Oh, we have these in parking lots. It would be great if we could get alerted if someone was being abducted, if someone was being harmed.'"

Langley said the request seemed logical. Flock prototyped the capability and rolled it out to a couple of customers. Some people then raised significant concerns. Langley conceded the company made mistakes but said he was listening to his customers.

"There's only a couple customers that were prototyping it with us, and we said, 'OK, great, it's just going to do gunshots, plain and simple.' If a gun goes off, we'll notify, and if not, that's all it's going to listen to," said Langley.

When asked directly about the contradiction between his remarks and the company's marketing materials — which state the audio systems can detect more than gunshots — Langley gave a two-word answer: "It's just gunshots."

That answer does not survive contact with Flock's own documentation. The takeaway: the CEO's framing and the company's published claims do not match, and the company's explanation for the gap leaves room for doubt.

What Does Flock's Website Say?

Flock's website describes capabilities well beyond gunfire. The company says its audio systems can pinpoint gunfire instantly while also being able to "detect street takeovers early to stop chaos before it escalates" and "identify severe crashes in real time so help arrives faster." It also says they can "expand awareness beyond gunfire with alerts for car crashes, fireworks, and sideshows."

The FAQ section goes further. It states: "In addition to gunshots, Flock Gunshot and Audio Detection can detect fireworks, sideshows, and other disruptive community events." The same section says the company's "detection library is continually expanding to include emerging threats that are relevant" to customers' specific needs.

That last sentence deserves scrutiny. A detection library that "continually expanding" — in the company's own words — is the opposite of a system limited to "just gunshots." The word "disruptive" is also undefined, which leaves the boundary of what counts as a detectable event to Flock and its customers.

Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel offered a reconciling account when reached by TechCrunch. "Flock's gunshot detection technology is primarily used to detect gunfire but is also capable of detecting fireworks, sideshows, and potential car crashes. CEO Garrett Langley's remarks were intended to emphasize that Flock's Audio Detection technology is not designed to monitor conversations or analyze speech and does not currently detect human screaming or distress."

Note the word "currently." The spokesperson's statement rules out screaming and distress detection today, while confirming fireworks, sideshows, and crash detection. The website's language about an expanding detection library suggests the feature set is not fixed. In plain words: the company's own marketing, FAQ, and spokesperson all confirm the CEO's on-stage claim was inaccurate.

What Is the History Behind the 'Screaming' Controversy?

This is not the first time Flock's audio ambitions have collided with public pressure. When Flock announced Gunshot Detection last year, the company said the technology would listen out for sounds of "screaming." Privacy groups condemned the company for listening for human voices.

Flock responded by amending its website. The word "screaming" became "sounds of human distress." Flock later said it pulled the ability to detect "distress" altogether from the customers who had tried it.

The sequence matters for anyone weighing Langley's current assurances. The company first proposed listening for human voices, rebranded the capability under softer language after criticism, then withdrew it entirely. The claim that the system now detects "just gunshots" follows that same pattern of retreat — except this time the website contradicts the retreat in real time.

Langley also disclosed the scale of the deployment. He said the number of Flock's microphones is comparable to ShotSpotter, a competing gunshot detection system. Per reporting by Wired, ShotSpotter had roughly 25,000 microphones as of 2024.

That figure gives the stakes context: tens of thousands of networked microphones listening to public spaces, deployed by a company whose public statements about what those microphones capture have shifted repeatedly. In plain words: this is a mass-deployment audio surveillance network, and its scope is described differently by its CEO, its website, and its spokesperson.

Why Does This Matter Beyond One Company?

The timing of Langley's remarks is unflattering. Public opinion continues to shift against Flock and other license plate reading companies amid growing unease about mass surveillance. That sentiment was visible in San Francisco, where protesters gathered outside the venue as Langley took the stage.

The scrutiny is not limited to street protests. The ACLU and other privacy advocates have raised concerns about misuse of Flock's technology, and some members of the public have gone as far as destroying the company's surveillance cameras.

Commercial relationships are also fraying. Texas and Florida have moved to end their relationships with Flock. Amazon's Ring has ended its partnership with the company.

Those decisions by two large states and one of the biggest consumer technology companies in the country signal that Flock's problems extend beyond activist criticism to its revenue base. A vendor whose public claims shift under pressure faces a harder sell to governments weighing contract renewals.

What Should Watchers Take From the Discrepancy?

Langley accused his critics of spreading misinformation about how his products work. Yet the sharpest challenge to his on-stage claim came from Flock's own materials, not from activists. When a CEO says "It's just gunshots" while his company's FAQ advertises detection of fireworks, sideshows, crashes, and an expanding library of "emerging threats," the misinformation question cuts in an uncomfortable direction for the company.

The spokesperson's clarification — that the system "is not designed to monitor conversations or analyze speech" — addresses a fear Flock itself created last year by advertising screaming detection. It does not address why the website still markets capabilities the CEO denies.

With a detection library the company says is expanding, a customer base that has already pushed it toward broader audio monitoring once, and mounting political and commercial pressure, the definition of what these microphones listen for will likely keep moving. Whether Flock's public statements can keep up with its own product roadmap is the question its remaining government customers will now have to weigh.

By James Calloway