Are surveillance cameras actually keeping us safe? Think again.
The short version: Winnebago Watch's deep dive into Flock's contracts and data practices shows the surveillance risk lives in the technology itself, not just who's behind the wheel.
Our Take
Winnebago Watch does something a lot of local coverage skips: they actually read the contracts. Their breakdown of Flock Safety's data handling and legal fine print lands on a point we keep hammering here — the danger isn't just a rogue cop or a bad actor misusing the system. It's baked into the architecture. A network of always-on cameras logging every plate, every vehicle, every pattern of movement creates a surveillance infrastructure that's vulnerable no matter who's holding the login credentials.
That distinction matters because most city council debates get stuck on "do we trust our police department." That's the wrong question. The right question is whether any department, any vendor, any future administration should have access to a searchable database of where everyone's been. Contracts can be renegotiated, policies can be quietly rewritten, and data-sharing agreements have a way of expanding long after the initial sales pitch about catching stolen cars. Once the cameras are up, the safeguards are only as strong as the next person willing to enforce them.
Check our map to see how far this has already spread near you, and if your town is debating a Flock contract, our take-action page has the questions worth asking before anyone signs.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Winnebago Watch, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.