Maybe you’ve heard of the “horseshoe theory” coined back in the Dark Ages by a wise man who realized that all of his podcasts were starting to sound the same. The idea is that, at the extreme ends of the spectrum, the Right and the Left are pretty much indistinguishable.
Under this theory, whether they’re on the Right or the Left, political activists have a tendency to see politics in unambiguous terms, distrust authorities and elites, and have intense hostility towards those who hold other views.
Whatever you make of the theory itself, there’s no question that the Left and the Right are now finding a lot more common ground than usual. And that’s notable because, as they’ve openly admitted many times, the Left is committed to the destruction of Western civilization and the rule of law.
You’d think it would be very difficult for anyone to find agreement with these people. But increasingly, that’s not the case. Communists have found very unlikely allies in the conservative movement, on a handful of issues.
First, there was the AI data center debate, which we’ve discussed before. On both the Right and the Left, there’s a consensus that these data centers are going to poison the water, prevent anyone from sleeping, usher in the apocalypse, and take everyone’s job.
And while there are very real issues with data centers, the debate surrounding the issue has become a complete mess. Whenever there’s a bipartisan consensus, that’s the typical result. People tend to work themselves into hysterics when they’re in an echo chamber, because they just keep ratcheting up the paranoia and the panic.
The end result is that no one can have a serious discussion. Anyone who tries to provide a dissenting opinion gets shouted down. And perversely, that works for the benefit of the “bad guys” (or alleged “bad guys”). If you’re running a data center and you want to do something nefarious with it, it’s very good news if all your critics start sounding like lunatics. People who sound crazy are easy to discredit.
We’re seeing a similar trajectory play out with the debate over “Flock cameras,” which at this point, you’ve probably heard about. People are talking about Flock cameras on podcasts, local news reports, cable news, and social media. They’re talking about Flock cameras on Nextdoor.
In case you haven’t heard about them, Flock cameras are AI-enabled surveillance cameras that scan license plates and log other information about vehicles, which are then used by law enforcement to track people with outstanding warrants, Amber Alerts, missing persons, and so on.
There are now tens of thousands of these cameras all over the country. Soon there will be hundreds of thousands.
No matter who you ask about this, you’ll hear the same thing: These cameras are supposedly making “1984” real. They’re ushering in a vast surveillance state, in which no human connection or interaction is possible, and in which innocent people are stalked and harassed everywhere they go.
Most of the people making this argument are using their cellphones to do so, without a hint of irony. They’re logging onto social media platforms — which exist to sell your personal information — and complaining about the surveillance state.
They’re using cellular networks that are constantly surveilled by a major corporation (as well as the NSA). And after telling the NSA exactly where they are, and after informing Facebook and Nextdoor and Instagram of all their personal information, these people are alerting the public to the danger of the surveillance state — specifically, the danger posed by Flock cameras.
Now before we begin, I’m not a supporter of mass surveillance in general. Flock, as we’ll discuss, has a lot of problems. But these problems are not a license to lie about Flock, or any other company. They’re not an excuse to spread false information, or make posts that are deliberately misleading. And that’s what we’re seeing. It’s gone on far too long, and it needs to end.
For example, here’s a report from the official news channel of the Democrat Party, MS NOW, where every anchor is contractually obligated to look as much like Rachel Maddow as possible.
Watch:
No matter what you think about Flock cameras — even if you think they should all be banned immediately — there’s something you need to notice about segments like this. Every single “investigative segment” into Flock cameras does the same thing: They all brush past the idea that these cameras could possibly be useful in solving crime.
As you just heard, the guy in the town hall meeting implies that these cameras don’t stop crime at all. And the anchor barely mentions the idea that the cameras could be useful. He simply said that “supporters say” they solve crime, before immediately talking about the privacy issues.
This is a pretty obvious sign that you’re being manipulated. If we’re going to talk about the issues with Flock cameras — and we should talk about them, and we will — we have to tell the whole story. Not just part of it. Again, this is not going to be a pro-Flock discussion, but it’s also not going to be the same slop that insults your intelligence, which you’ve probably heard dozens of times now.
So let’s begin with a few real-life cases in which Flock cameras have been directly involved in criminal investigations. There’s no better way to learn what these cameras are capable of, and how they’re useful — or not useful, as the case may be.
We’ll start with a murder that took place on April 13, 2024, at Wilbur Young Park in Blue Springs, Missouri. There was a fist fight, and then a shooting around 10:30 pm. Dozens of shell casings were discovered at the scene, and authorities determined that at least three people had fired shots. Three people were hit, and two were killed.
The first thing the police did was check the city-owned cameras that were nearby. These are “dumb cameras” that aren’t connected to Flock’s system. The cameras revealed that a man — later identified as Marquis Earl-Lee Savannah — raced to a car shortly after the shooting.
But the footage was grainy. It didn’t capture the car’s license plate. All the camera showed was that the car was a Chevy Cruze, with a specific color and configuration. That information, ordinarily, wouldn’t narrow down the search very much.
Then the authorities turned to the city’s Flock cameras, which work differently. They aren’t simply license plate readers. Flock cameras track dozens of individual characteristics of cars — from color to bumper stickers to dents.
This is one of the core features of the product, which they call “Freeform.” A police officer can type into Flock’s system that he’s looking for a gray pickup truck with tinted windows and a bumper sticker that says “No Border Wall,” and the system will find it. They can use AI in ways that would’ve been unthinkable just ten years ago, to sift through thousands of videos and identify a precise match.
Flock’s relevant patent specifically covers a “System and method for object based query of video content captured by a dynamic surveillance network,” which allows them to parse videos “for content” and keep it “in a database in connection with data that identifies the content (object class, aspects of the object, confidence scores, time and location data, etc.).”
As reported by Footnote 4A, “The patent family extends to neural networks trained to identify clothing, estimate height and weight, and classify other physical characteristics of individuals — stored, by design, in searchable databases. That is an index. It is being built continuously, by design, and is queryable by any user Flock decides gets a search box.”
All this to say, even without a license plate, Flock cameras can track down a specific Chevy Cruze. And that’s exactly what happened in this case.
This is from the local Fox affiliate:
According to court documents, a sergeant used the Flock camera system to identify the sedan shown on the park camera as a specific color, year, make, and model bearing a specific license plate. Two days later, another sergeant “received a Flock hit on the Chevy Cruz.” The patrol sergeant then responded to the area to look for it, spotted it at a car wash nearby and took the driver into custody. Flowers said the department has had the network for about a year. “It’s super helpful. We use it constantly during our investigations,” Flowers said. Investigators can also track a vehicle back in time for up to 30 days with a hot spot map showing areas where it appears frequently. Authorities said this can be used to determine where a suspect may live.
This kind of investigation happens all the time with Flock. Here’s another example. In the summer of 2024, at the Cherry Creek Shopping Center in Denver, a gang of South American thieves stole more than $12 million in jewelry. According to the authorities, four people traveled from California to Denver in a dark-colored pickup truck without any license plates. They were dressed like construction workers, with hard hats, masks, gloves, and reflective vests.
They arrived at the mall around 8 pm, at which point they began cutting through a wall from a shop next to the jewelry store, before breaking into display cases and store safes. They were in the store for a total of eight hours, and about three hours into the theft, they tripped an alarm.
But when mall security looked at the cameras, they assumed it was related to a construction job. The gang went all over the country carrying out similar heists, as far away as New Jersey. They were proving extremely difficult to catch because, again, their truck didn’t have a license plate, and the criminals were all wearing masks. Once they were gone, police had no description to work with.
The investigation only turned a corner once the authorities began using Flock cameras.
This is from CBS News:
Shortly after the [Denver] heist, investigators fed information about the truck into a database belonging to Flock systems, the company that has installed license plate reader cameras in Colorado and across the country. As it turns out, the system does more than help track vehicles through their license plates. “It’s essentially machine learning technology, a kind of artificial intelligence,” said Holly Beilin, a spokesperson for Flock Safety. By inputting the type of vehicle, body style, color, and a number of other characteristics of the truck into the Flock system, it told investigators that the precise truck had been seen by another camera on Interstate 70 in Glenwood Springs, headed toward Denver, before the heist. At that time, the truck displayed California license plates.
So that was a major break in the case. The Flock cameras tracked the pickup truck a long way back, based on its physical characteristics. With the help of Flock’s patented AI, in this case, the authorities learned that the truck involved in the jewelry heist was displaying a California plate at one point along Interstate 70.
Meanwhile, the authorities obtained a search warrant for the cellphone tower at the shopping center. They found that a phone belonging to an illegal alien named Gustavo Salas-Ortega was active at the mall during the heist. By itself, that’s not a smoking gun, because there are plenty of reasons why someone might be around a mall late at night.
But in this case, the information was damning because the same cellphone also pinged the tower along Interstate 70, at the precise moment the Flock cameras were capturing the pickup truck.
In other words, because of the Flock cameras (in conjunction with the cellphone data), authorities developed probable cause that Gustavo Salas-Ortega was involved in the robbery. He wasn’t simply at the mall during the robbery. He was also driving a truck that arrived right before the robbery carrying construction workers, and left once the robbery was concluded.
Again, whatever you think of Flock cameras or the privacy implications, in these cases, the Flock cameras were clearly useful. There’s just no getting around that. It’s a good thing — unambiguously — for murderers and illegal alien jewelry thieves to be in prison. We need to remove these people from society, and the cameras allow the authorities to do that.
There’s a reason no one on MS NOW, or your favorite conspiracy podcast, wants to talk about these cases. It’s a lot easier to get clicks by telling people that “Big Brother” is watching them, and that they need to panic and riot in the streets. But the reality is a lot more complicated.
There are plenty of other cases I could discuss. Just a couple of weeks ago, in Porter County, Indiana, a Flock camera alerted police to a stolen U-Haul on the highway.
They pulled it over, arrested the driver, and returned the vehicle. Again, it’s clearly a positive outcome. Last year, Flock cameras tracked down a man who shot a police officer in Oklahoma. The cameras traced his vehicle to New Mexico. The cameras identified his license plate in a Walmart parking lot. Police swarmed the area. The guy shot himself. This is clearly a violent and dangerous person, and because of these cameras, the police got to him before he could shoot anyone else.
Then there was the carjacking that took place a couple of months ago in Oakland County Michigan, in which a man shot a woman in a mall parking lot and took her car. The police department used Flock cameras to find the car and arrest the carjacker in a little over an hour. There was also the 60-year-old man in Indiana who was arrested near a park for sexual battery on a juvenile, after Flock cameras found his car.
Here’s another example, from Iowa a few months ago:
Watch:
And here’s one more. This is from the Brown University mass shooting that you probably remember, from the end of last year. A random homeless guy reported a suspicious vehicle on Reddit, and told police that it was probably related to the shooting. They tracked the car retroactively, and learned that it had been spotted 14 times by Flock cameras in the two weeks before the shooting.
Watch:
We could spend the next few weeks discussing similar cases, but you get the point. These are verifiable, true stories in which Flock cameras clearly assisted the authorities in tracking some very dangerous people. These cameras have saved lives as a result. There’s no question about it.
By itself, of course, that doesn’t mean the cameras are automatically a net positive. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about the privacy implications. But if we’re going to have an honest discussion about these cameras, we have to talk about the benefits clearly being realized because of these cameras. You can’t weigh the pros and cons of the cameras, and you can’t discuss the trade-offs, if you simply refuse to discuss these stories.
If you ignore all of this evidence, and simply conclude that anyone who supports Flock cameras must be a “corporate shill” or a “fed,” then you’re not worth taking seriously. I could just as easily say that you’re on the side of the foreign invaders and their leftist NGO allies, who despise Flock cameras because they’re being used to enforce immigration law. That’s what they’re really upset about, if we’re being honest.
The people who enforced COVID lockdowns don’t actually care about your “privacy.” Their sole objective — for some time now — has been to flood this country with criminals, particularly foreign criminals, in order to enact demographic replacement. They’ve turned California into a colony of Mexico that will never again elect another Republican, and they want to do the same thing to the rest of the country. Flock cameras stand in their way, which is why they oppose Flock cameras. It’s that simple.
Let’s refer back to that MS NOW segment. They brought out two guests — both of them opposed to Flock — and both of them spent the entire time talking about ICE and immigration enforcement. One of them is literally an immigration reporter. The other is some kid who’s concerned about “illegal deportations,” by which he means, “deportations.” Of course, all deportations are illegal to these people.
This is not an accident. This is their entire focus. The kid’s not worried about Flock cameras somehow being used to frame him for a crime, or record him in his home, or any of the horror stories you might hear about. He’s concerned that Flock cameras will be used to identify and deport Democratic Party voters. That’s where the Left’s opposition to Flock comes from. It’s similar to why they hate Ring cameras. It’s why they elect DAs who open the prisons. They want criminals to get away with crimes. It’s no more complicated than that.
So if you’re on the Right — if you want to preserve Western civilization — you’re making common cause with these people. That doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong. But it should give you some pause. It should make you scrutinize, very carefully, why you oppose Flock cameras, and what you know about them. So let’s do that.
The arguments against Flock cameras break down into two categories: hypothetical problems, and actual problems (meaning, cases where Flock has been misused, beyond any doubt). Professor Wilfred Reilly offers this example of a hypothetical problem with Flock cameras:
It just objectively is bad that, if you scuffle with a bum for 45 seconds to protect your girl, make out with that same lady against the wall outside a nightclub, or drive 25 miles over the speed limit anywhere…a robot can fly to your house and charge you with two A Misdemeanors. This is especially the case given that (1) only taxpayers with addresses can get targeted in this fashion and (2) this will immediately get political in both directions.
This is a scenario that has never taken place. As far as I know, nothing like this has ever occurred. And for good measure, we’ll include the Free Beacon’s Peter Hasson’s reply to that post:
I’m sorry but the Flock discussions are so deranged. Flock is basically a tool to make it easier to catch gang bangers after drive by shootings — why libs hate it! — and you have people on the right making up fake scenarios and then getting mad about them. Very stupid own goals!
As you’d imagine, Peter was dogpiled for that post. It’s not an easy position to stake out. A lot of people replied to him by making the argument that, under a future Democrat administration, you could imagine Reilly’s scenario happening for real. During the next fake pandemic, you could easily picture Gavin Newsom’s administration shutting down the roads, and arresting any homeowner in a right-wing neighborhood who ventures outside. And just as easily, you could imagine Gavin Newsom’s administration allowing foreigners and felons like George Floyd to roam the streets with total impunity.
This is the “anarcho-tyranny” objection to Flock cameras, which Mike Cernovich has made very forcefully. The idea is that, if the rule of law existed in this country, then Flock cameras would be fine. But we all saw how the FBI ruthlessly hunted down January 6 grandmothers, while, at the same time, they ignored BLM rioters who committed murder and destroyed small businesses all over the country.
We all saw how the “public health experts” said we couldn’t protest the lockdowns because it was too dangerous, but at the same time, BLM had every right to terrorize entire neighborhoods because “white supremacy” was supposedly an even bigger problem than COVID.
So what guarantees do we have that Flock cameras won’t be used in the exact same way, to punish the enemies of the Democrat Party? The answer, of course, is that we have no guarantees whatsoever. It’s conceivable that, if communists take control of the government, they’ll use these cameras to crack down on free expression. They’ll track us everywhere we go. They’ll make sure we aren’t going to any “unapproved gatherings” or visiting any “enemies of the state.” They’ll make “1984” real, and we’ll all have to endure another 50 years of listening to clichéd references to that particular book.
As alarming as this hypothetical is, we have to keep a few things in mind. First of all, AI-powered devices are already tracking us everywhere we go. They’re called cellphones. And unlike Flock cameras — which mainly track vehicles — cellphones are usually in your pocket. They log every single one of your movements, going back years. And I’m not just talking about Google services like Google Maps, which record your location in the background. I’m talking about the cellphone signal itself, even when the phone isn’t being used.
Just to give you an idea of how precise this tracking is, remember the lunatic who ambushed those firefighters in Idaho last summer? He lit a brush fire on the west slope of Canfield Mountain, and then when the firefighters showed up, he retreated to the woods and opened fire.
The SWAT team had no idea where the shooter was. So they spent several hours slowly driving up to the scene of the shooting in an armored Bearcat, trying to find where the sniper had gone. They didn’t want to get out and look because they were worried they’d get shot. They sent up thermal drones, but they weren’t returning any heat signature.
So what did they do? They got a court order requiring the cellphone company to provide information about any cellphones in the area. And while they had a tentative match with someone in the woods, the data wasn’t specific enough to pinpoint the suspect’s exact location. So the FBI flew a helicopter overhead, equipped with “Digital Receiver Technology.” This is basically a “cell site simulator.” It mimics a cell tower, and cellphones automatically attempt to connect to it. That’s how they located the precise location of the shooter, with a margin of error of just a few inches.
In other words, if you have a cellphone, then you can’t hide from anyone. Google, Apple, and the cellphone carriers already know everything about you. They’re all selling that information. And even if they weren’t, the FBI has equipment that can locate precisely where your cellphone is, at any moment in time.
So if you’re opposed to Flock cameras, then you’ve got to get rid of your cellphone too. There’s no getting around it. But even if you successfully lobby to get Flock cameras banned nationwide, and even if you throw away your phone, you’re still going to be tracked by cameras 99% of the time.
First of all, pretty much every residential neighborhood is now flooded with Ring cameras. If you go for a walk in a typical suburb, there’s a very good chance that Ring cameras can easily piece together your entire route. Many of these cameras have enough range to see the street, so they can track vehicles as well.
Now, it’s true that Ring cameras are technically more decentralized than Flock cameras, since Flock cameras are leased to law enforcement agencies but owned and maintained by Flock, while Ring cameras are owned by millions of individual homeowners and business owners. But in practice, it’s not much of a distinction.
Ring, like Flock, maintains all of the footage on its servers. During an investigation, police can easily obtain a search warrant for all of that footage, without asking individual homeowners.
So if you want to ban Flock cameras, then to achieve any kind of meaningful result, you really have to ban Ring cameras too. And that would obviously be a disaster, for about a dozen reasons.
First of all, people have the right to install cameras on their own property if they want to. That’s their right.
Secondly, Ring cameras capture all kinds of criminal activity every day. If you’ve ever used the Ring app, you know that people are constantly posting videos of crimes (They’re also posting thousands of comments about missing dogs and lost mail, which you need to filter out before you go insane).
Third, as the journalist Cam Higby pointed out, once you start banning private people from using cameras, you’re basically making it illegal to be a journalist as well. Cam Higby has shot some extremely important footage over the past few years. We’ve featured his coverage many times. He’s one of the few people who’s willing to risk his life to cover Antifa violence, for example. But if we’re going to ban “private surveillance,” then we have to ban journalists like Cam Higby too.
Of course, none of the opponents of Flock will go that far. When you drill down, they’ll say that they’re really opposed to Flock because there are specific, concrete issues with this specific surveillance system, not cameras in general. That’s where the actual debate lies. So let’s focus on that debate, as opposed to the hypotheticals and the grand, sweeping paranoia about a surveillance state.
The first substantive argument against Flock — one you may have seen — is that they’ve supposedly spied on children. Here’s one viral post, for example, that has millions of views:
A Flock vice president logged into the Dunwoody PD’s Flock system and looked at a camera in the children’s gymnastics room of a private community center here in Dunwoody. He did not look at any other cameras in the entire 400-camera network that day.
The way that’s written, it obviously sounds like the Flock vice president is a pervert who belongs in prison. And indeed you’ll find thousands of comments accusing the VP, by name, of being a pedophile.
What this post omits is that, according to Flock, the vice president was running a sales demo of the system when he pulled up the feed. He wasn’t specifically trying to pull up the gymnastics center for the purpose of looking at children. Instead, they say, he was trying to demonstrate how the system’s safeguards work.
For example, if you try to search for “Star of David” so that you can round up all the Jews, it will deny the request. If you try to enter someone’s specific name, it will deny that request too. It’s only supposed to pull up videos that match general descriptions, like “black pickup truck,” for example.
Is Flock’s story true? We don’t know. But it’s also true that we have no actual evidence that Flock’s VP is a pedophile. The VP knows that all of these searches are stored, which is how they were eventually released to the public. So it certainly would be odd for him to pull up this footage one day, knowing that anyone could submit a records request and discover the search. If you’re going to accuse a man of one of the most serious crimes imaginable, you need more evidence.
But even assuming their story is true — Does that mean Flock bears no responsibility here? Of course not. They’ve admitted this was wrong, and that Flock cameras installed in sensitive locations shouldn’t be a part of any sales demos. The only reason Flock should’ve been looking at this gymnastics center is if there was an emergency and someone was trying to harm these children. (Like what happened at that Taylor Swift dance studio in the UK, when the foreigner whose family was imported from Rwanda massacred several children).
The guy looks like he’s been struck by lightning every day of his life. These people exist, and Flock is supposed to assist in tracking them. That was their deal with the gymnastics center when they installed this equipment. And they broke the deal by accessing the footage for no reason.
But this is the perfect illustration of what I’m talking about: By making this about pedophilia, critics of Flock are discrediting themselves for no reason. There’s no evidence that Flock’s vice president is a pervert. But that’s the claim that Flock’s detractors are making, with total confidence. Instead of focusing on the actual issue, they’re making things up. It’s counterproductive. It’s also extremely dumb. And we see it all the time.
Another argument you’ll hear — which is a better argument — is that Flock’s tracking is so pervasive, and so extensive, that it’s the equivalent of a specific police officer following you around all day when you’re in your car. This is the kind of surveillance that, under our existing law, may be a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights.
It’s true that anyone — including police officers — has the constitutional right to observe you in public. You don’t have any expectation of privacy when you’re driving in your car. People are free to observe you on the roads. But it’s also true that, if someone follows you around all the time, everywhere you go, then they’re crossing a line into stalking and harassment.
And the argument is that, by tracking people for hundreds of miles, Flock cameras are basically acting as “stalkers.” They’re the equivalent of police officers who are harassing you.
You could think of a few ways to address this concern. One solution would be to prevent anyone at Flock (or a local police department) from viewing any footage without explicit authorization from a court. That’s already the expectation, but it’s often violated. Flock footage is routinely being accessed without any justification.
Watch:
and:
These are cases you’ll hear about a lot when you’re listening to the anti-Flock side of the argument. They’ll point to the fact that the technology has been abused. And there are many more cases like this. Here’s CBS Atlanta with a recap:
Cherokee County: Three sheriff’s employees — including a lieutenant and sergeant — were arrested after investigators alleged they improperly searched the county’s license plate reader database. Albany: Five former Albany police officers were arrested after a Georgia Bureau of Investigation probe found they allegedly used Flock data for unauthorized purposes following an internal audit. Greene County: A sheriff’s deputy was arrested and fired after investigators said an audit showed she used the Flock system for personal reasons. Fayetteville: Three police officers were fired this week after investigators said they searched license plates belonging to themselves, family members and acquaintances without a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Meanwhile, Reason put out the following video where a sassy reporter outlines a few more egregious cases.
Watch:
These are all legitimate examples of problems with the implementation of Flock cameras. Some cops are misusing them for personal reasons. The cameras also apparently have some technical vulnerabilities, although it’s worth pointing out that no one has actually “hacked” these cameras in real life as far as we know (outside of proof-of-concept tests).
There have been situations where police department passwords have been compromised, or where camera feeds have been broadcast online by mistake. But it looks like these issues were patched.
In any event, it’s true that Flock cameras have been abused. The problem is, if you banned every technology that was abused, you wouldn’t have any technology left. There have been cases where bad actors purchased data from wireless carriers, which they obtained via web portals operated by third-party brokers that didn’t run any legal checks. That doesn’t mean we should ban cellphones. It means we should punish the brokers who are selling the data.
Along the same lines, when Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA was secretly collecting phone data from millions of Verizon users with secret warrants, no one suggested that we should ban Verizon, or cellphones. And for good reason: Cellphones do a lot more good than harm.
The fact that bad actors can hijack our cellphone data doesn’t mean we should revert to the Stone Age. It means that, to the best of our ability, we need to recognize that some degree of surveillance is an inevitable byproduct of the age we’re living in.
The only practical safeguard against the abuse of that surveillance is to elect people who won’t abuse it, and to punish those who will. End the anarcho-tyranny.
That’s not the most dramatic or compelling solution, but it’s the only one with any chance of success. It’s the only choice we have. We can’t align with communists, for any reason, on any issue. We can’t repeat the talking points from activists on MS NOW, who are lying to your face in order to subvert ICE and assist illegal aliens in avoiding detection.
As unpopular as it may be to say, with or without Flock, mass surveillance is already here. It’s been here for a long time. You have already made yourself one hundred percent trackable and traceable with the cell phone you’re using right now.
And while that may sound ominous, and it is, the truth is, there are a few things even worse than mass surveillance. Mass demographic replacement is one of them. Don’t let your concerns about mass surveillance — which are totally legitimate — turn you into an unwitting supporter of mass demographic replacement. That’s where the Flock debate is heading. Whether or not you’re a fan of Flock cameras, that’s the unavoidable reality of the current debate.
Yes, if you say that out loud, you’ll be called a shill and a fed and a fascist. But one thing you won’t be, is an accomplice to the largest foreign invasion this country has ever seen.
You’ll be one of the few people who’s not giving the communists exactly what they want right now.
And whether you support Flock or not, that’s a pretty good place to be.
.png)
.png)
