A lie predicated on a technicality
The short version: Technocracy Dissident argues Flock's 'no tracking, just data' defense is a semantic dodge once thousands of cameras are stitched together into location profiles.
Our Take
Technocracy Dissident lays out a simple but devastating point: Flock Safety and its police partners insist each camera only takes a single photo, so it's not 'tracking.' But string together thousands of those single photos across a city or state, timestamped and searchable, and you get exactly what private investigator licensing laws define as surveillance — a record of someone's movements, habits, associations, and routines. Calling that 'not tracking' is a technicality, not a fact.
This distinction matters because it's the legal hinge the whole industry leans on. If a single camera isn't surveillance, then no individual department has to answer for building a de facto dragnet — even though the network effect is the entire point of the product. The video's citation of statutes that define investigative licensing around 'movements, whereabouts, affiliations, and associations' is worth sitting with: that's a near-verbatim description of what an ALPR network produces at scale.
We keep hammering this because the public debate often gets stuck on individual cameras instead of the aggregated picture they create together. Go see how many of these nodes are already stitched together near you on the map, and if you want to push back on your local council or police department, our take-action page has the tools to start.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Technocracy Dissident, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.