Investigating Flock: America's Mass Surveillance Company

Summary

Journalist Tommy G and researcher Ben Jordan investigate Flock Safety, a company that supplies automated license-plate readers and other surveillance technology to police departments and communities. The video says Flock has installed more than 100,000 cameras across the United States.

The reporters frame the issue as a trade-off: the technology may help locate missing people or solve crimes, but widespread, routine tracking could enable abuse and expand beyond its original purpose.

Arguments in Favor

Police officials interviewed say Flock cameras extend coverage in places officers cannot easily patrol, including rural areas, and have helped with serious crimes and missing-person cases. One police chief says the system makes his city safer and performs work that would otherwise require many officers.

Supporters argue that license plates are visible in public and that the cameras are comparable to other public-facing cameras.

Concerns Raised

The video presents examples of officers allegedly using license-plate databases to stalk former partners or a woman they encountered while working security. It also recounts cases in which mistaken camera alerts reportedly led to wrongful detention, armed encounters, or harassment.

The presenters argue that tracking everyone—not only people suspected of crimes—creates risks to privacy and civil rights, especially if data is shared broadly or used beyond local crime investigations. They cite federal immigration agents’ use of a competing system in Minneapolis as an example of how surveillance tools may be used in enforcement operations.

Access, Oversight, and Security

The video raises questions about access to surveillance systems and the oversight of their use. A whistleblower from Dunwoody, Georgia, alleges that Flock employees viewed private camera feeds—including footage of children at a daycare or gymnastics facility—during a sales demonstration. The video says the city disputed the existence of the cited demo agreement and that records of the viewings were later unavailable.

A college student says microphones installed on his campus were initially described as gunshot detectors, then allegedly updated to listen for voices. Jordan and others also raise security concerns about the cameras and the handling of vulnerability reports.

The presenters note that reliable, nationwide, peer-reviewed evidence on whether license-plate readers reduce crime is lacking.

Cost and Accountability

One interviewee estimates that a camera costs about $3,500 annually. The video questions whether public money might be better spent on other policing or community programs.

The presenters argue that cities may approve deployments without meaningful public input, leaving taxpayers to fund both the systems and potential legal costs if they are misused.

Reporting on Flock Safety

To investigate the company, Tommy G and Jordan try to locate Flock’s offices and drone facility, film employees and vehicles, and ask staff for interviews. They describe the company’s addresses and facilities as difficult to identify and contrast its privacy protections for its own operations with the surveillance technology it provides.

A Flock representative declines to arrange an interview, saying the company wants to assess whether the coverage will be fair and expressing concern about the reporters’ presence at its sites. The reporters say they were later blocked in by police at a facility after a Flock employee called authorities. They dispute that they had done anything wrong and later criticize Smyrna Police for delays and problems responding to their public-records request. These events are presented from the reporters’ perspective.

Overall Perspective

The video does not argue that surveillance cameras have no legitimate uses. It emphasizes that their usefulness must be weighed against the potential for misuse, inaccurate alerts, broad data sharing, inadequate oversight, and the gradual expansion of surveillance powers.

Presenters and Contributors

Tommy G, Ben Jordan, Isaac, Andrew, Jason (the Dunwoody whistleblower), Officer Toombs, and interviewed police officials, including an Indiana police chief, a Dane County sheriff, and a veteran Georgia officer. Flock employee James Boyce and a Flock public-relations representative also appear.