Would You Give Up Privacy for Security? | Flock Cameras (Part 3)
The short version: AFA of Indiana's Part 3 breaks down the false 'privacy vs. security' trade-off, exposing security flaws and the real-world cost of Flock's error rate.
Our Take
AFA of Indiana keeps hammering on something we say constantly: the 'privacy for security' trade-off is a false choice sold to communities that never got to vote on it. This installment zeroes in on the security research tied to Benn Jordan and Jon Gaines (GainSec), work that's repeatedly shown Flock's infrastructure isn't the airtight vault the company markets it as. When a network built to track every car on every road has exploitable holes, that's not a hypothetical risk — it's a live one, and it's not just hackers who can walk through those doors. Government agencies and corporate partners with standing access are part of the threat model too.
The math on 'mostly accurate' is where this video really lands a punch. A 93% accuracy claim sounds fine until you multiply it across the billions of reads these systems rack up nationwide. That remaining sliver of error isn't abstract — it's the misread plate that sends police to the wrong driveway, the wrongful stop, the arrest that never should have happened. AFA of Indiana ties this to real cases, and that's the point: these aren't edge cases, they're baked into the system at scale.
This is exactly why we track where these cameras are going up. Check our camera map to see what's near you, and if your city is considering a Flock contract or already has one, head to our take-action page for ways to push back before more of these systems get bolted to your streets.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of AFA of Indiana, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.