Langley made the remarks on Wednesday during a panel at the technology conference, where he framed Flock's devices as an inevitable advance that requires Americans to give up some privacy in exchange for a safer society.
"If we want to live in a society where, if you commit a crime, you have a higher probability of being held accountable, we shouldn't pause progress," he said.
The comments come as Flock faces a national backlash that has already led to cancelled contracts and staff cuts, according to TechCrunch. Langley largely sidestepped direct questions about the criticism, responding instead with anecdotes from police chiefs and city leaders and stories of crimes he said Flock had helped solve.
He compared the technology to driverless cars, arguing that one accident should not shut down a system that is safer overall. "Driverless cars, I think, are definitively safer than human drivers. And when there's one accident, I don't think the answer is to shut down driverless cars," he said.
The comparison drew a distinction noted by TechCrunch: driverless car makers pause their fleets and apply fixes after crashes, while Langley suggested responsibility for how Flock's cameras are used rests with others.
"We don't want to tell city leaders how to do their job," he said. "We will provide recommendations, we'll provide defaults, but we're going to minimize the number of mandated features, functions, and policies."
Langley also blamed misinformation for some lost business, citing a customer who ended a contract believing the cameras performed facial recognition. Flock cameras do not have facial recognition, the company says, but they can detect and track people.
He acknowledged Flock is "far from perfect" and admonished critics who expect any technology to be flawless.