08/27/2026
There’s a lot of conversation right now about Flock cameras, privacy, and how surveillance technology is being used in our communities.
We understand why people are asking questions, and we think many of those concerns are worth taking seriously.
A network of license plate readers on public streets collecting vehicle data across a community is naturally going to raise questions about privacy, access, retention, and how that information is being used. But every time we read these headlines, something bugs us: the debate lumps every single camera into one villain.
A city-wide network monitoring vehicles on public roads is one thing. A mobile surveillance unit sitting on a private construction lot, retail property, equipment yard, or parking lot to help stop theft, vandalism, and break-ins is a different animal entirely.
Funny thing: people get understandably uncomfortable with cameras tracking movement in public, but most of us carry a device every day that knows where we go, what we search, what apps we use, what we click, and a whole lot about our daily routines.
That doesn’t mean privacy concerns about public surveillance are wrong. It just shows that the conversation around tracking and privacy is a lot more complicated than “cameras are bad.”
Carrying a smartphone is a choice. A property owner choosing to secure a construction site or retail lot is also a choice. Neither is the same thing as building a broad surveillance network across public roads.
You can be against broad public surveillance of your daily movements and still believe a property owner has the right to protect their own site.
Those two positions were never in conflict.
Private site surveillance is built around a defined property and a defined purpose: protect assets, detect threats, document incidents, improve site awareness, and alert the people responsible for that property when something actually goes wrong.
With AI, that can mean identifying intrusion, loitering, vehicles, safety issues, and other activity that matters to the site without someone having to watch hours of footage.
That is very different from building a network designed to monitor movement across public roads.
Crime doesn't stop because privacy debates make the news. Job sites still get hit, parking lots still deal with theft, and businesses still need protection.
The question isn't whether we use cameras. It's where they are being used, what they are being used for, and who they are there to protect.
The Flock debate is worth having.
Just don't let it leave your site wide open while it plays out. We hear the concerns around privacy and data, and we believe those concerns matter.
At the same time, our mission is to help keep properties, businesses, and communities safer from theft, vandalism, and other threats.
Privacy and safety should not have to compete with each other. The goal should be using the right technology, in the right place, for the right reason.
