U.S. Rep. Keith Self (R-TX-3) issued a sharp public rebuke on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, declaring that the Fourth Amendment “is not up for ‘compromise'” after Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley suggested Americans must find a middle ground between privacy and security. Self’s post, published to X at 2:31 p.m., invoked the Founding Fathers and quoted Benjamin Franklin directly, framing the debate over automated license plate readers as a fight over whether constitutional rights can be bartered away in the name of corporate profit and public safety.
Self’s full statement read: “The Fourth Amendment is not up for ‘compromise.’ Our Founders did not risk their lives so a CEO could trade our rights for profit and perceived ‘safety.’ ‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.’ — Benjamin Franklin”
The post came in direct response to remarks Langley made during a Fox News interview with host Kayleigh McEnany, in which he argued that Americans are pushing back against neighborhood surveillance cameras amid vandalism and protests over privacy fears. Speaking on “Saturday in America,” Langley argued the technology is vital for safety and called for compromise, telling Fox News, “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise.” He added, “How do we have our safety, and how do we balance privacy?”
Self is not new to this fight. In July 2026, he introduced the Protecting Rights in Video and Equipment Acquired Discovery (PRIVACY) Act, legislation co-sponsored by Reps. Eli Crane (R-AZ) and Andrew Clyde (R-GA) that would require federal law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing or querying surveillance data collected by state and local systems, including automated license plate readers such as Flock cameras. The bill would also cap data retention at 30 days unless the material serves as evidence for prosecution or a court orders an extension, and would create a federal registry of surveillance technologies while barring the use of federal funds to purchase or install them, with limited exceptions.
In the official press release announcing the bill, Self stated: “Americans’ Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their privacy does not disappear just because of new technology or artificial intelligence.” He continued, “Americans have a constitutional right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and our government is supposed to get a warrant before invading that privacy. This bill simply restores that protection.”
The scale of the surveillance network Self is targeting is significant. Over 6,000 communities in 49 states have installed more than 120,000 Flock, Axon and other manufacturers’ cameras lining roadways and city parks, tracking Americans more than a billion times a day. The average American driver has their vehicle surveilled six to eight times a day, with AI systems used to determine driving habits and track movements, all without a warrant, allowing large nationwide databases to track Americans even when they are not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Self’s original cosponsors echoed his concerns in the same release. Rep. Crane said state and local surveillance systems now allow federal agencies to use collected data to bypass warrant requirements and core privacy protections, calling the PRIVACY Act a tool to “counter these Orwellian tendencies” by closing loopholes and limiting the retention of unrelated data. Rep. Clyde argued that “the mass surveillance state has drastically expanded and evolved,” and that “the American people’s Fourth Amendment rights have not changed and are not a suggestion; they are law,” specifically citing devices like Flock cameras as part of what he called a “dangerous web of warrantless surveillance.”
Flock Safety has publicly responded to Self’s legislation. A company spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation that “Flock strongly supports” legislation establishing guardrails on license plate reader use, adding that such frameworks should uphold law enforcement’s ability to protect public safety while stating, “We believe public safety, privacy, and Fourth Amendment rights can and must coexist. More than 40 courts across the country have considered LPRs in the context of the Fourth Amendment and ruled overwhelmingly that the use of these tools in public spaces does not require a warrant.”
Self is far from alone in pushing back on Langley’s comments this week. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) posted his own rebuke following the Fox News interview, writing that “Flock CEO @glangley wants you to ‘compromise’ away your 4th Amendment rights. Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at this suggestion.” Langley responded directly to Paul on X, stating: “Senator – that was not my comment. We believe in the constitution at Flock. I hope you can agree that Americans deserve to be safe.
The controversy has intensified amid mounting evidence of misuse of Flock’s technology by law enforcement. According to reporting cited in coverage of the company’s response, the Washington Post identified 46 cases in which police officers have been accused of using Flock technology for unauthorized purposes, including to stalk their wives, girlfriends, or exes. Langley addressed the reporting directly in a separate interview with CBS News, telling the outlet “I apologize. It kills me that she went through that,” after hearing an account from one alleged victim, while maintaining “I don’t think that Flock created police abuse. I think we’re the first company to ever shine a light on it and build the tools to find it.”
Flock has made some adjustments in response to the sustained criticism. The company reduced its default data retention period from 30 days to seven days and now requires that a case code be entered before officers can access stored data, though both safeguards can reportedly be overridden through a setting called “Evidence Mode,” which allows police to retain data for longer periods. In response to those changes, the American Civil Liberties Union said, “While Flock has not shortened the default retention period to the ACLU’s recommended 48 hours, its proposal may be a step in the right direction. Whether this is a real change or just another Flock PR move, however, will depend on how its ‘Evidence Mode’ operates.”
The pushback against Flock has drawn bipartisan attention on Capitol Hill beyond Self’s bill. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed banning the technology outright, while Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) has pushed to cut federal funding for local installations. Separately, three House Republicans introduced a bill that would prohibit the federal government from purchasing automated surveillance systems that use facial recognition, biometric IDs, or license plate recognition, explicitly naming Flock Safety cameras in the bill’s text.
Public backlash has also taken a physical form in recent weeks. Protests against the cameras have spread to multiple states, including a demonstration in Boston, Massachusetts on August 19, 2026, where members of the Muslim Justice League and other activists marched toward Flock Safety’s offices amid what has become a broader wave of camera vandalism nationwide.
Flock’s rapid growth has made it one of the largest privately operated surveillance networks in the country, with more than 80,000 cameras deployed across over 5,000 U.S. communities. Privacy advocates and civil liberties groups warn the system enables warrantless mass surveillance, citing concerns over data retention, potential police misuse, and the sharing of data with federal agencies, with one senior ACLU attorney stating that Flock “is building the infrastructure for mass location tracking that the Supreme Court has already warned violates a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has separately flagged concerns about Flock data being used for immigration enforcement purposes. In past commentary, the organization quoted Langley’s own past response when asked whether Flock’s technology could be used for immigration purposes: “Yes, if it was legal in a state, we would not be in a position to stop them,” adding, “We give our customers the tools to decide and let them go from there.” The ACLU has also pointed to a Virginia lawsuit claiming that license plate readers of a certain density violate the Fourth Amendment by routinely tracking people not suspected of any wrongdoing.
Self’s PRIVACY Act remains pending before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as of this writing. The measure’s fate, alongside competing proposals from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, is expected to shape how far federal regulators go in either restricting or codifying the use of automated surveillance technology across the country in the months ahead.