# Flock Safety Exposed: CEO Claims vs. Contracts, FBI Integration & CIA-Linked Investors
# Clearly Established — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIp9hDnQfQM

In my last video, I told you about Flock
Safety and the Norfolk case. Since then,
I've done a deep dive into the
contracts, the depositions, and the
CEO's own words. And what I found, his
story doesn't hold up.
All the data is owned by the city or
whoever's paying for the camera. So, if
it's if you added one in your
neighborhood, which you should, your
neighborhood owns that data. You control
who has access to it, who it's shared
with. So, some of our neighborhoods
share with local law authorities, some
don't. And I think if you look at a
place like Denver, all the data is owned
by Denver PD. We h I can't even access
to it. Even if in a life ordeath
emergency, you called and said, "Hey,
Garrett, we we really got to get to it."
Say, "I don't have the keys. It's
encrypted." Only Denver PD can unlock
that.
What? Like with a cloth or something?
Well, no.
I I don't know how it works digitally at
all.
I can't even access it. I don't have the
keys. It's encrypted. That sounds pretty
reassuring, right? The city owns
everything, so Flock can't touch it. But
here's what's on Flock's own website.
Simply visit the Flock Safety dashboard
to access footage. All customers should
have a username and password to access
the FlockSafety dashboard at
admin.flocksafety.com.
Notice that admin.focksafety.com.
The data lives on Flock servers.
Officers also testify under oath about
how they access the system. One
detective said, "It's a website we log
into. I could log into it on my phone if
I wanted." So, when the CEO says, "I
can't access it. I don't have the keys."
He's asking you to believe that Flock
has no access to the data hosted on
their own servers accessible through
their own website. And that's just the
beginning of the lies. But first, let's
update you on the Norfolk case. On
January 27, 2026, the court issued its
ruling, and I'm not going to sugarcoat
it. The Institute for Justice lost this
round, but it's not about the battles,
right? It's about the war. The court
granted summary judgement for the city
of Norfolk, which means that without a
trial, the court decided the city wins.
The judge essentially said that flock
cameras in Norfolk don't capture enough
data to constitute surveillance of the
whole of people's movements under the
Supreme Court carpenter case. As you see
there, the question is when? And the
answer according to the judge is not
today. So the court basically kicked the
can down the road. It acknowledged that
this could be surveillance that violates
the Fourth Amendment at some point, just
not with 172 cameras in Norfolk. But
here's the thing. While everyone's
debating whether Norfolk has enough
cameras to trigger constitutional
protections, I want to show you the
bigger picture. Who's really behind the
surveillance network? And why is a
private company plugged directly into
federal law enforcement databases? It's
a really unique business model. So, we
own all the equipment. We have the
obligation to make sure it works. And
that might seem like a counterintuitive
approach, but if you looked at, you
know, I I'll talk about Atlanta for a
second. There was a horrible hormone
homicide in our main park. There's
cameras everywhere in this park. None of
them were working. Not our cameras.
Yeah.
Why? Who's going to maintain them?
Things break. There's thunderstorms.
There's lightning. All these things can
happen. And so we have a service
responsibility of the city to make sure
that the cameras are always working and
all the data is owned by the city.
There's been a statement that uh ICE has
a backdoor into flock. That is
technically impossible. Technically
impossible by saying you're not here to
police the police. I think a lot of
people will understand that. But it also
is could be it could be seen as like an
easy washing of your hands, right?
You're you're you own the hardware. You
own the cameras. You're you're kind of
like a landlord. You know, you have some
tenants that might be doing some
nefarious things that may be violating
state law, Colorado law. How do you how
do you square that?
I'm I'm actually I think that's a great
analogy. If at any moment we believed
our customers were breaking the law, we
would call the appropriate authorities
because like as a as a company, we exist
to help law and order be delivered. Like
for me, a safe city is a thriving city.
a city that's unsafe, families
disappear, businesses disappear. Like it
it's chaos. And so we do think that's a
part of our job. But I think the nuance
that I'm trying to articulate is that
when there is state legislation,
we help our customers not break it.
That's very different than me
proactively doing something like, "Oh,
you search for the same person six
times. That looks suspicious." Like who
who am I to to tell really anyone what
suspicious is? That's not the job we
want.
So let's break down what the CEO Garrett
Langley claims in interviews.
All the data is owned by the city or
whoever is paying for the cameras. Well,
technically that should mean the
taxpayers, right? But we know that's not
true. Cities are constantly fighting any
foyer request to get that information.
And what else does he say? I can't even
access it. I don't have the keys. it's
encrypted. And then he compares himself,
obviously with the help of the
interviewer, to being a landlord with
tenants. He claims ICE having a back
door is technically impossible.
Sounds great. Now, let's look at what is
actually in the contracts.
I've reviewed contracts from Norfolk,
Virginia, and Houston, Texas, and I'm
going to assume that most cities are the
same, that these are form contracts that
Flock sends out, but you should foyer
your city's flock contract to be sure.
And here's what the actual legal
agreements say for the two I have. So, I
Let's start with the contracts between
the city of Houston and Flock Group. And
what's important here is that flock
group is identified as contractor or
flock. And that's important when we go
through the important components of this
contract. As you see, the contract is
signed by the mayor, the city secretary
as well as flock. And for definitions,
what what should be interested to note
is that there is a term for aggregated
data which means information that
relates to a group or category of
individuals that has been anonymized by
commercially available standards. So
what Flock is saying is, hey, we will
aggregate the data collected from the
cameras that we own, but we're
essentially renting out to you. So when
we go down further and we see the
section pertaining to access to data, it
says that the city shall to the extent
permitted by law allow contractor who we
know is flock to access and make copies
of documents in the possession or
control of the city or available to it
that are reasonably necessary for flock
to perform under this agreement. So
under exhibit C for the contract,
there's a section here for retained
rights or ownership which makes clear
that flock shall retain all right, title
and interest in and to flock
intellectual property and its components
and the city acknowledges that it
neither owns nor acquires any additional
rights. Now what's interesting there is
a provision here which says as between
flock and the city of Houston all right
and interest in the city data belong to
and are retained solely by the city but
it also says because if earlier in the
contract we saw that flock has every
right to obtain city data copy it etc.
They're representing that flock is not
going to share or sell to non city
endusers
or any other individuals. Not doesn't
say anything about companies any city
data unless it is solely for legitimate
law enforcement purposes unless approved
by the chief. So there's a lot of leeway
here, right? because it also says that
the city is granting to Flock a limited
revocable non-exclusive
royalty-free worldwide license to use
city data in solely for Flock's
performance of its obligations under the
agreement. So essentially, Flock has
complete control to use city data in a
manner it deems fit. What would be
necessary for Flock's performance of its
obligations under the agreement? Well,
if you go down to section 6.4, for
aggregated data. It says that flock has
the right to collect and analyze data
that does not refer to or identify city
or any individuals or deidentify such
data. So essentially it says we get to
aggregate data
and it says the city acknowledges that
flock will compile the data but it
doesn't say what flock is going to do
with the data. And here what's
interesting is this provision doesn't
say anything about that it won't share
the data. It just says that flock will
not sell the data. It doesn't prevent it
from sharing it though. And then there's
also a separate memorandum of
understanding between Houston Police
Department and Flock. What's interesting
about this is the Houston Police
Department has specific
responsibilities.
And one of those things includes that
flock retain all rights, title and
interest in and to flock services and
its components and any recording or data
provided by flock through the flock
services. So what's interesting is we
saw in the city contract it was a little
more fleshed out about what flock will
do. What we have here is is broad. It
says any recording or data provided by
Flock through the Flock services. And
this of course was signed directly
between the chief of police and Garrett
Langley, the CEO himself in 2020, which
actually predates the contract between
Houston and Flock. That was in 2022. So
now we're going to look at the contract
between Norfolk and Flock. And what's
interesting about this one is it it was
signed in 2023. So it was about a year
after the contract between Flock and
Houston. And you'll see it's a little
different, right? Flock here is not
referring to themselves as a contractor.
And it's also possible that's just how
contracts are written in Virginia. But
the contract is uh generally the same.
The only thing that I would say is
different is they are pretty clear about
how they define data and who owns the
data. So under definitions they say
agency data and it means data media and
content provided by agency through
services. For the avoidance of doubt the
agency data will include the footage. We
did not get this definition in the
Houston contract. And to be clear, the
government agency that's signing the
contract is in fact deemed as agency. So
the definition makes clear Norfolk owns
the footage. But what is that ownership
really mean? And you'll see what I'm
talking about when we get down to the
relevant section. So we'll start with
section 4.2 agency data. Again, they
make clear that all right, title, and
interest in the agency data belong to
and are retained solely by the agency.
But it gets a little confusing because
it then says that the agency hereby
grants to Flock a limited non-exclusive
royaltyfree worldwide license to use
agency data. And what do they end up
doing with it? Well, we know they
aggregate the data. They they have the
same provision here. But when they're
talking about aggregating the data, they
add an extra couple of terms. They say
it's non-exclusive,
perpetual. It means it lasts forever,
even outside or past his contract. It's
irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free,
fully paid license to use, reproduce,
modify, and distribute the agency data.
What's interesting is there's nothing in
here that limits how they would
distribute the data. And then when we
scroll down and we look at section 4.4,
it talks about aggregated data. It's
pretty similar to what we saw in
Houston. Basically, it acknowledges that
Flock has the right to collect and
analyze data. We also know from the
earlier provision, it has the right to
reproduce the data. And again, it just
clarifies that the agency grants Flock a
non-exclusive worldwide perpetual,
there's that word again, royalty-free
right and license during and after the
service term. and to distribute the data
to improve and enhance services for
other development, diagnostic and
corrective purposes, whatever that
should mean. Other flock offerings,
so if they have a relationship, for
example, with intelligence agencies,
could that be considered a flock
offering? Who knows? And crimerevention
efforts, that's pretty broad. disclose
the agency data both inclusive of any
footage to enable law enforcement
monitoring against law enforcement
hotless as well as provide footage
search access to law enforcement for
investigative purposes only. So what
Flock is saying here in this specific
agreement is that they have the right to
grant access to other law enforcement
agencies for quote investigative
purposes only or as we've seen above for
crimerevention efforts and there's
nothing that Norfolk can do about it.
Wait, I thought cities own the data. or
even if a city cancels, Flock gets to
keep a license to the data forever. Look
at this section. Flock may temporarily
suspend a city's access if Flock
reasonably determines there's a threat
or if the city uses the system for
fraudulent or illegal activities.
So, a private company can decide
unilaterally or on its own that a police
department is doing something wrong and
cut off their access to their own
surveillance data. What landlord can
lock you out of your apartment because
they don't like what you're doing
inside? In the Norfolk case, Flock's
corporate representative, so someone who
is essentially a mouthpiece for Flock,
testified under oath. And when asked if
Flock can share data with third parties,
here's what he said. Flock may access,
use, preserve, and or disclose agency
data to third parties if legally
required to do so, or if Flock has a
good faith belief that such access, use,
preservation, or disclosure is
reasonably necessary.
Good faith belief that it's reasonably
necessary. That's a lot of discretion
for a company that supposedly can't even
access the data. And when asked if Flock
monitors when police download data, the
corporate rep said, "I'm not sure." So,
the company that claims to enable
accountability and transparency, doesn't
even know if they track how police use
their system. Now, everything I just
showed you, the contracts, the
depositions, that's all been available
for a while. But what I'm about to show
you is fairly new. These are internal
emails that Flock sent to police
departments across the country in
December of 2025, just last month.
Remember how the CEO talked about
transparency and accountability? Hey, we
want to have better transparency with
how our law enforcement uses technology.
Remember those audit logs that track
every search?
And we also think about transparency. So
every single search inside of Flock is
audited, that that audit's stored in
perpetuity. So while the data gets
deleted at 30 days, that search history
gets stored forever.
Well, here's what's happening when that
transparency becomes inconvenient. This
email went out from Chris Cowwell,
Flock's senior vice president of
customer experience. The subject line,
what you need to know about recent
online disclosures. Here's the context.
Journalists and civil liberties
organizations have filed foyer requests
for flock audit logs. These logs
revealed embarrassing things like
searches for women who had an abortion,
ICE related queries, searches with no
legitimate law enforcement purpose. A
website started aggregating this
publicly released data. So what was
Flock's response to this transparency?
Did they embrace it? Did they say this
is accountability working as intended?
No, of course not.
There's an organization called Dlock,
who are semi- wellknown now, I guess, if
you're interested in this stuff. Um, who
take a fairly aggressive approach in
terms of counting the number of cameras
and having a Discord channel where they
talk about potential, you know,
activities to to move against flock and
and stop it expanding. What do you think
of that organization and the way they go
about their business?
Yeah, so I mean, I think there's really
two groups of activists. uh you've got
organizations like the ACLU and the EFF
who take an above board approach to
fight for their point of view and
thankfully we live in a beautifully
democratic capitalistic country where we
can fight in court and I have a lot of
respect for those groups because they
have reasonable debates and we we follow
the law and then unfortunately there's
terroristic organizations like DOC
terroristic organizations
like DOC
they're changing the system to hide the
data. It's right in front of us. Let me
read you exactly what they're doing.
Quote, "Network audits will no longer
include officer name, specific plates
searched, vehicle fingerprint, and open
text search reason to protect active
investigations and ensure officer
safety." And let's talk about vehicle
fingerprint real quick. If you're not
familiar, Flock has essentially said
they can distinguish between vehicles
without regard to license plates. Does
it have bumper stickers, aftermarket
parts, specific placement and
registration stickers?
Both the Falcon [music]
SR and LR apply Flock's proprietary
vehicle fingerprint [music] technology.
And so Flock calls this ability a
vehicle fingerprint. So back to the
Flock's email. Let that sink in. The
audit logs, the thing that's supposed to
provide accountability, will no longer
show what was searched or why. No more
seeing searches like had an abortion,
search for female. No more seeing the
open text reasons that revealed
discriminatory or inappropriate
searches. For example, in the Norfolk
case, we have testimony from Lieutenant
Derek Vernon. He was specifically asked
whether he was aware of any misuse. Do
you know if someone else identified
misuse in the system? His response was
yes. So what was going on here? Well, he
was contacted by an executive at a
different department who wanted him to
query or do an audit of an officer's use
of the system because there was a
complaint and it was found that the
officer had misused the system. How so?
Well, he searched the system to locate a
vehicle in response to a stolen cat, but
in another jurisdiction. When asked what
about that was identified as being a
misuse of the system, he was not
working. He does not work in that
jurisdiction. And so, he used our access
to flock to search for that vehicle.
Do you know how this situation was
covered? Like, how was it discovered?
Well, it was discovered during the
complaint that the person made against
the officer. This is significant for
several reasons. First, they only found
out about it because of an outside
complaint, not through an audit or some
kind of internal oversight. And worse,
the officer was never actually
disciplined. They never actually
uncovered any kind of misuse through any
kind of audit. Matter of fact, Norfolk
did not even download any of their audit
files until February 2025, and that was
only so they could respond to Discovery
in this lawsuit. So, we have this
surveillance system that can track your
movements across the country. But
apparently, nobody's tracking whether
these officers face any consequences for
misusing it. This change comes after the
public started seeing how the system was
actually being used. It's damage control
disguised as a feature update. The email
also tells departments to shift from
nationwide lookup to statewide lookup.
Remember what the CEO said? Cities have
total control. But here, Flock is
telling agencies to restrict their
sharing. Flock is making that decision,
not the cities.
This is the landlord who supposedly
can't access anything, who can't control
anything. But when transparency reveals
how the tenants are behaving, the
landlord decided to turn off the
security cameras in the hallway. Now, I
want to talk about something that should
alarm every American. This is directly
from Flock's website. Our cameras have
an integration with the FBI, NCIC, a
database of known wanted vehicles. That
means when a camera detects a wanted
car, an alert automatically will go to
local law enforcement.
NCIC, the National Crime Information
Center, this is the FBI's central
criminal database. It's the lifeline of
law enforcement. It contains records on
wanted persons, stolen vehicles, missing
persons, gang members, terrorists, and
according to their website, it contains
millions of active records and averages
millions of transactions each day with
the millisecond response time. Access is
supposed to be restricted to law
enforcement agencies. in very limited
cases, private contractors who are
performing specific data processing
services for those agencies and under
very strict agreements. But Flock,
they're not processing data. Their
cameras are automatically querying NCIC
in real time across 6,000 plus cities
simultaneously. That's not a support
function. That's direct integration with
federal law enforcement infrastructure.
Their marketing materials are bragging
about it. They're CJIS compliant. That's
the Criminal Justice Information
Services run by the FBI. Think about
what this means. A private company
valued at $7.5 billion with venture
capital investors tied to intelligence
agencies has direct integration with the
FBI's criminal database. And when their
cameras scan your license plate, that
data is being checked against federal
law enforcement records in real time.
Can you name another private company
with this level of integration into
NCIC? Because I can't. This isn't a
landlord. This is a private extension of
federal law enforcement. Probably
because constitutional limits don't
apply to private companies. So, let me
ask a question. How many government
fingers are in flock safety?
CIA. They gather intelligence on
America's foreign enemies, ideally
preventing wars before they even start.
They can't spy on American citizens and
they can't conduct operations here on US
soil. Problem is, it'll probably make
their job a whole lot easier if they
could. So, what do they do? They could
find a startup company, fund that
company, and then teach them how to make
tools [music] that support the CIA's
mission, and then have that company use
those tools on their behalf. And that's
exactly what they do. Now, the CIA knows
you can't exactly [music] go around
funding private corporate spy agencies.
It's a bad look. So, what they did in
1999 is started a venture capital firm
called NQL. And its sole mission was
investing [music] in tech startups whose
innovations could enhance national
security. And one of those startups they
found was Palunteer. [music] After the
September 11th attacks, the United
States government began expanding
surveillance both at home and abroad.
This was, of course, a boon for the
defense industry at large.
Simultaneously, the Silicon Valley tech
industry was growing fast and making
people in a once obscure industry very
very rich very very quickly. Like the
founders and executives at PayPal
[music] known as the PayPal mafia, Elon
Musk, Reed Hoffman, the LinkedIn guy,
and Peter Teal. When PayPal was sold,
Teal had millions of dollars burning a
hole in his pocket and an idea. PayPal
had developed systems for detecting
fraud and crimes on the platform. What
if they could use similar thinking to
analyze the world at large? So Teal
pulled from his network to build out a
new company. One of the first hires was
Teal's Stanford Law School roommate,
Alex Karp. They named the company
Palunteer after the Palunteeri from
J.R.R. Token's [music] Lord of the
Rings. In Lord of the Rings, a palunteer
stone is a magical object that allows
its users to predict the future or to
see what's going on in a remote
location. It was originally created by
the elves. It was meant to be used for
good purposes. It is potentially very
dangerous technology. It's very
powerful.
Long have you hunted me.
So that's Middle Earth. But what does
Palunteer do in a regular Earth? And
what we do is we use what legal scholars
call predicate based assert. So we would
look at you and then we would go out and
say, "Oh, there's lots of different
things in your life that may be
indicative of someone being someone
involved in bad behavior." Put simpler,
they make software that makes it easier
for their customers to collect and
analyze data and then act on that
analysis with and without AI. By 2013,
10 years after their founding,
Palanteer's client list included the
FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Marines, the
Air Force, Special Operations Command,
[music] and more. Flock has raised
almost a billion dollars. And let me
tell you about some of their investors
in case you already weren't aware. Let's
start with the Founders Fund led by
Peter Teal, the guy who co-founded
Palunteer, which was funded by Inqell,
the CIA's venture capital arm, the same
CIA that can't legally spy on American
citizens on American soil. Trey Stevens,
a Founders Fund partner. He helped build
Anderil, a defense contractor selling
autonomous surveillance technology to
the US military. He also sat on Trump's
defense transition team. Andre and
Horwitz. They have an entire fund called
American Dynamism dedicated to defense
policing and border security startups.
They actively lobby in Washington DC.
Maretch Capital co-founded by Paul
Madera, a former US Air Force fighter
pilot and Pentagon liaison who still
sits on the board of the Air Force
Academy Foundation. So in case you're
not seeing it, let me draw this
connection for you. The CIA creates
INQEL. Inqel funds Palunteer.
Palunteer's co-founder leads Founders
Fund. Founders Fund invests in Flock
Safety. And now Flock Safety has direct
integration with FBI databases and
surveillance infrastructure in 6,000
plus American cities. We continue to
advance our mission of becoming the US
government's central operating system as
we extend our footprint across defense,
healthcare, and civilian agencies. the
government's operating system. They want
everything to funnel through Palunteer.
Palanteer already has contracts with the
IRS going through taxpayer data to save
auditors time by finding the easiest
audits to pursue. That's all of your
financial information. and they have
multiple contracts with the Department
of Health and Human Services, including
nearly $100 million to support HHS's
core administrative data and
applications to manage, ingest, and
access data securely across business
domains. HHS's core responsibility is
Medicare and Medicaid. That's control
over millions of Americans health
records and their access to healthcare.
Palanteer's stated mission is to become
the US government's central operating
system. Congressional testimony revealed
they're consolidating 314 different
points of data about every American
citizen into a single database.
Many of you, I'm sure, have heard of
Palunteer, which is a uh a large data
company. In March, uh Donald Trump
issued an executive order uh that would
increase the sharing of all unclassified
data between and among federal agencies.
It directed agency heads to authorize
and facilitate both the intra and inter
agency sharing and consolidation of
unclassified agency records. Now, a New
York Times report uh in May outlined in
great detail how the president has
employed Palunteer to carry out this
executive order uh essentially to merge
all data from all different executive
branch agencies into one single
database.
Now, it's unclear who would control that
database, who would have access to it,
what searches would be done. Uh, and
there seemed to be no guard rails about
that. Another New York Times article
says that this database would have 314
different points of data about every
American. Literally, every American. 314
various categories of data will be
consolidated into one database by a
private company, Palunteer. Here we just
have every American's data put into
a one database with no guidelines, no
restrictions. We don't know what
Palanteer is doing. It essentially
creates a one-stop shop for all
Americans data. this collection of data,
this opportunity for the government to
spy on its citizens. And I'm not even
talking about breaking laws under the
tax code and sharing tax information
with immigration
um enforcement agencies. Uh I'm not even
talking about sharing uh you know tax
the tax information or social security
administration information. This is just
every piece of data that is out there in
the government's control consolidated
with one uh one private company and one
database. If you are truly worried about
government surveillance, why are we not
doing any oversight of Palunteer, its
contracts with the government, its
consolidation of all Americans personal
information into one database and the
cyber security risks. And I really hope
in all seriousness that you will do
oversight over that if you do truly care
about government surveillance of
citizens. And I yield back. So how much
government data is in the hands of
entities like Flock and Palanteer?
Probably all of it. But hey, it's for
our safety, right? There's a quote
attributed to Benjamin Franklin that
feels more relevant today than ever.
They who can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety. And
that's exactly the trade we're being
asked to make. Give us your location
data. Give us all your data, your travel
patterns, who you associate with, where
you go to church, which protests you
attend, which clinics you visit, and
we'll keep you safe. We're not just
talking about surveillance anymore.
We're talking about algorithmic control
of the American life. And it's powered
by the most comprehensive database human
behavior ever assembled. So, in the end,
the CIA got exactly what they wanted.
They can't spy on Americans, but they
don't have to. Palanteer does it for
them. Then they sell that intelligence
back [music] to every single government
agency that wants it. The restrictions
on domestic surveillance didn't
disappear. It just got [music]
privatized. The CIA can't legally spy in
American citizens on American soil. So,
what do they do? They invest in
Palunteer. Palunteer becomes the
government's central operating system.
They integrate data from IRS, Medicare,
Medicaid, law enforcement, and now Flock
funded by the same networks. They are
building the ground level data
collection infrastructure across the
country and world. And it's likely that
Flock is feeding data into Palunteer. We
are in a surveillance state with
plausible deniability.
We're just a private company. We just
provide cameras. The cities own the
data. Except they don't. And the same
venture capital networks connected to
intelligence agencies are funding all of
it. This isn't about catching car
thieves. This is about building
infrastructure for total surveillance
and making you pay for it with your tax
dollars while telling you it's for your
safety. And remember all those
documented cases of federal access. In
Illinois, a DE agent used a local
officer's flock login. In Denver, over
1,400 searches were flagged. ICE
immigration. In Richmond, an ATF agent
access city flock data without
authorization.
Border Patrol had accessed over 80,000
cameras nationwide.
So, is it a back door? Maybe not
technically, but the front door is wide
open. And Flock isn't stopping at
license plates. Here's what's already in
their pipeline. The audio gunshot
detection raving cameras with always on
highowered microphones. Flock Safety has
recently quietly rolled out a new
feature that turns their gunshot
detection microphones into constant
human conversation surveillance. They've
released something called the Raven
System. These are high-powered
microphones that originally were
supposed to detect gunshots and alert
the police. However, in October of this
past year, Flock announced something
called distress detection. Their
microphones can now listen for sounds of
human distress, like screaming or
wailing, and automatically alert the
cops. These also aren't regular
microphones. They're described as
high-powered microphones parked above
densely populated city streets. And that
means that they can pick up
conversations from far away, even in
noisy environments. Unlike a camera that
just shows you walking by, audio
captures everything. The actual words
you're saying and the emotion in your
voice. Your voice gives away much more
than people think. Voice data can expose
your age, gender, health conditions,
personality traits, and emotional
states. AI drones.
the ring partnership. I want to say that
today it's just license plates and maybe
tomorrow it's your face, your voice,
your associations and predictions about
what you might do in the future, but I
fear we may already be there. So the CEO
says the cities own the data. Contracts
say Flock retains rights and gets a
perpetual license. He says he can't
access it, but the data lives on Flock
servers at admin.flocksafety.com.
He touts transparency,
but when transparency became
inconvenient, they changed the audit
logs to hide search details. And we're
led to believe that they're just a
private company, but then they have
direct integration with FBI NCIC, which
is unprecedented for a surveillance
vendor. And their investors include
venture capital networks tied directly
to CIA funded companies. I reached out
to the CEO for comment after all of
this. I haven't heard back. The Norfolk
case may have been a setback, but the
fight isn't over. This case will likely
be appealed to the Fourth Circuit and to
the Supreme Court eventually when it's
probably too late. So, what can you do?
Well, first go to deflock me,
deflock.mme, and find out if flock
cameras are in your city. Report them.
Check out have I been flocked.com to see
if there's any public data available on
your license plate. Foyer your police
department now before the audit log
changes take effect. request the flock
contract,
camera locations, search policies, and
the full audit logs with search reasons.
And your voice does matter,
but that's why we have a democratically
elected process, right? Like I I we're
not forcing flock on anyone.
There are some, you know, quite a number
of local counselors and um people in
local government who have
tried to stop flock going up and
sometimes lost, sometimes won. What do
you say to to you know people who who
have been elected who are trying to to
stop this happening? Are they are they
just in the wrong or
No, I think everyone's entitled to their
own opinion. I think like that's the one
of the cool things about this country is
no one elected me the police chief of
America. I'm the CEO of Flock and so I'm
going to build technology that I think
will help communities solve crime, will
help build thriving communities, but
it's up to those elected officials to
vote and decide as a group what's right
for their community. Attend city council
meetings, run for city council, ask
questions, demand transparency. This has
actually worked to get cities to reject
flock contracts or terminate their
relationships with flock altogether.
Flock can't make money and generate
money if they don't have customers.
Support organizations like the Institute
for Justice, the EFF, and the ACLU.
Benjamin Franklin understood that
liberty and safety aren't opposites to
be balanced. He understood that giving
up liberty for safety means you end up
with neither. The question isn't whether
this surveillance network will be
misused. It already has been. The
question is whether we're going to do
something about it before it's too late.
I'm Brandon Greyel. This is clearly
established. If you found this video
valuable, subscribe and share it. Matter
of fact, Flock probably ignores me
because they don't think this video or
anybody else who talks about it, it will
really make a difference. But if you
share it, you spread the word, you get
involved in local politics, you can
actually make a difference. Stay
informed, stay vigilant, and thanks for
watching.