A switch flipped in the United States after COVID. Social distrust is on the rise. The younger you are, the more likely you are to distrust those around you.
People distrust the government. They distrust the press. They distrust anyone and everyone in authority. Couple that with opinion-shaping tools like TikTok that seed earworms of doubt and misinformation, and we are at the point where people are destroying Flock cameras, with random strangers helpfully providing alibis.
For years, I got my hair cut at Westside Provisions, and Flock was a startup next door. I had no idea what it was. Then the camera poles started popping up in my area, and I learned. I was initially hesitant to think building a surveillance network like Flock was a good idea. But the data show Flock has been beneficial.
According to the conservative public policy think tank Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, this year Flock has helped prevent or solve 62 vehicle thefts, 31 shootings, 24 homicides, 27 thefts, 16 robberies, 17 hit-and-runs, 17 burglaries and 19 assaults.
Flock cameras have also aided in the rapid rescue of dozens of kidnapped kids and dozens of dementia patients who went missing.
Cities can solve crimes and punish abusive behavior
Credit: Erick Erickson
Credit: Erick Erickson
The original opposition to Flock came from the far left. The political left in the United States has rapidly shifted to be pro-criminal. In many progressive jurisdictions, progressives have gotten government to cancel contracts with ShotSpotter, an acoustic surveillance company that detects gunshots and locates the vicinity of the gunshot.
On July 4, 2026, 32-year-old Xavier Bautista died in a park in Cambridge, Massachusetts, after being shot. The shot went undetected, and he was not immediately found because the progressive city council had voted to turn off ShotSpotter. They believed the progressive argument that minorities were unfairly targeted.
Only after Bautista’s death did the city restore the technology. The progressives opposed to ShotSpotter led the opposition to Flock cameras — not over privacy concerns, but over the ability of Flock to rapidly help police track criminals.
Over time, and undoubtedly with the assist of TikTok and social media misinformation, a growing number of conservatives have joined the opposition. Instead of worrying about Flock making it easy to find criminals, conservatives worry about the Fourth Amendment and invasions of privacy. They do not seem to know that the Supreme Court has held there is no right to privacy driving on the highway. The local government could, itself, place its own cameras.
What makes Flock different from the police getting the surveillance footage from a local bank or fast food restaurant is Flock does not require a warrant. It exists to provide the footage for a fee. One cannot legally require a warrant to get Flock’s information, because Flock is glad to hand it over.
Flock itself installed the audit flags so the handful of police officers snooping on the data can be arrested. What legislatures should do, however, is provide mandatory minimum prison sentences for any officer who inappropriately accesses the system. Fines and restitution should be required of local governments that arrest or attempt to convict a person with Flock data if the data led to the wrong person.
Balance privacy concerns and protecting kids
Right now, your cellphone is transmitting your location to cell towers. The government can get a warrant and track you more precisely with that information than with Flock. The government can get warrants to access surveillance cameras at local businesses to solve crimes. They can couple that with the cellphone data to find a list of suspects and make arrests. Flock speeds up the process.
So far, there have been a few examples of Flock providing police information that led to the wrong person, but none of them have been tried or wrongfully convicted. However, there are ample examples of Flock causing the rapid rescue of kidnapped kids, missing adults and helping solve crimes. Talk to any law enforcement agency, and they have stories of Flock helping to stop bad guys.
Surely, there is some halfway between those concerned about privacy and the very real need to rescue children and arrest criminals.
The other day, in Covington, police responded to a shoplifting report at a local Walmart. The suspect was found at a gas station across the street. When a police officer approached her, she accelerated, dragged the officer until he fell off the car, and she kept going. Covington’s mayor tells me the police found the car rapidly because of Flock. A friend’s child was kidnapped last year. His daughter was recovered within two hours, unharmed, because of Flock.
Flock has a story to tell. It should tell the story. There should be a balance between privacy and security. I suspect if we had more trust in society, we would have less opposition to Flock. I would also note the loudest voices against Flock are the ones who want to abolish prisons.
I would prefer we rapidly round up the bad guys and put them in the prisons. So, I would prefer it if we do not scrap a tool that, just this year, rescued dozens of kids and helped police solve dozens of crimes.
Erick Erickson is host of the nationally syndicated “Erick Erickson Show,” heard noon-3 p.m. weekdays on WSB Radio. He is also a contributor to the AJC.
Send letters to the editor of 250 words or fewer with your name, city or town and contact information to letters@ajc.com.
About the Author
Keep Reading
The Latest
Featured
