Three Questions for Flock

We have the right to ask questions about how, when, and why we are being surveilled. I have three.

Last Friday, I attended the City Club of Cleveland’s forum, “Flock and the Future of AI-Powered Surveillance.” I thought it was an important event to attend, and an opportunity to speak directly to the people behind this technology, not because I wanted a justification, but because I struggle with understanding the need. Why do we need this mechanism of surveillance in our society, a society marketed a self-image built explicitly around the principles of freedom and self-determination?

I wanted someone to give me hard data to justify the need for this surveillance. I wanted an explanation as to why we need to accept this, when none of us have actually asked for it. Like, no one asked for this.

Most law enforcement officers I’ve spoken with feel like it’s a tool that has suddenly appeared, and which carries an underlying pressure to be utilized. Some feel the obligation to use it, but often the use of these cameras is pushed in connection to the subscription fee. Law enforcement officers feel pressure from their leadership, who constantly remind them, every time a report is submitted that doesn’t include a Flock reference code, “We’re paying for it, use it.”

This is one of the most common professional management class (PMC) toxicities: the idea that if you don’t use something, and therefore stop paying for it, the money for that item or service won’t get renewed in your next budget.

This is the mindset of PMC culture that companies like Flock build their sales team around. It was this attitude that oozed from every statement made at the City Club by Joshua Thomas, Chief Communications Officer of Flock Safety.

This is the mentality of the system that propagated companies like Flock in 2026 America. It’s almost so predictable that it’s become boring.

Watch Reel: Carl Setzer, City Club of Cleveland forum July 10, 2026

You want to know how Palantir has succeeded in the Pentagon? This exact same type of institutional creep. One or two wins inevitably create a lethargic dependence on services that may or may not ever really provide any value. We keep using it, because we were already using it. Not using it would disrupt our annual accounting spreadsheets.

Flock is now running the same scam—I mean “growth strategy”—on law enforcement departments nationwide.

The casual exaggerations of statistics like violent crime rates were made by Mr. Thomas with such confidence that, to those of us in the audience, it was obvious this wasn’t the first time he’d given the same, smooth talking points to concerned citizens and frightened elected officials.

I wish I could have said more to Mr. Thomas last Friday, but forums like this are not meant to be a one-on-one conversation. They are for communities to present a diverse array of questions that represent their collective anxiety and concern.

I will write more and speak more on surveillance, but at its core, the people trying to market these technologies must always be able to tell us, with no smarm, no “jokes,” and no ooze:

How does your company make its money?

Why do you need all of this information?

Why is any of this necessary?