Flock says new features will improve privacy. Critics say they're just PR spin
The short version: Courier Georgia reports Flock's self-imposed 'privacy' tweaks are drawing skepticism from critics who say cosmetic policy changes don't fix the surveillance dragnet itself.
Our Take
Courier Georgia's report lands on a pattern we've seen play out over and over: Flock Safety gets caught in a privacy controversy, then rolls out a handful of self-authored policy tweaks and calls it reform. The company writing its own rulebook, marking its own homework, and asking the public to trust that this time the guardrails will hold is not oversight — it's a press release.
The real problem was never a missing checkbox in Flock's terms of service. It's the underlying architecture: thousands of always-on cameras logging every passing vehicle, feeding a nationwide database that local police, federal agencies, and anyone with the right access can query, often with little transparency and less accountability. No amount of internal policy language changes the fact that this system was built to track people at scale, by default, without a warrant. Software updates don't undo that design choice.
If you want to see how far this network already reaches into your own neighborhood, check our camera map. And if you think your city council or state legislature should be asking harder questions before signing another Flock contract, our take-action page has concrete next steps. Credit to Courier Georgia for pushing back on the spin instead of just repeating the company's talking points.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Courier Georgia, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.