Flock Safety and Due Process Concerns

Our Take

Jeff Kellick's latest video, tied to his Consequential Actions podcast, makes a point we hammer on constantly: the sheer scale of Flock Safety's network turns ordinary driving into a permanent, searchable record. He's right to frame this as a due-process problem, not just a privacy inconvenience. When a private citizen logs someone's comings and goings without consent, we call it stalking. When a patchwork of local police departments do it and then pool the data into a searchable national index, we're told to call it "public safety." The double standard doesn't hold up.

What makes Kellick's framing useful is the emphasis on process, not just tech. The cameras themselves are only half the story — the real danger is that this data crosses jurisdictional lines with no warrant, no judicial oversight, and often no public notice that it's even happening. Local officials frequently can't say who else is querying their system or why. That's not a minor bureaucratic gap; it's the erosion of the Fourth Amendment by a thousand ALPR cuts, one contract at a time.

If this video has you wondering whether your own street is feeding this dragnet, check our camera map to see what's already been documented near you, and head to our take-action page for concrete steps to push back at the city-council level before the next camera goes up.