They pushed back on Flock AI surveillance. Now their votes are being overturned.

People who oppose AI-powered mass surveillance are what the CEO of Flock, Garrett Langley, calls terrorists. And then unfortunately there's terroristic organizations like D Flock, whose primary motivation is chaos. Flock is a $7.5 billion mass surveillance company that spreads through securing local government contracts now in over 5,000 communities and has more than 20 billion vehicle tracking plate scans every month. A lot of these contracts are secured without public input. And I get why people wouldn't want these cameras, but Garrett says opposition, organized opposition, is terrorism. That's why we have democracy instead. That's why we have a democratically elected process, right? Like I I we're not forcing Flock on anyone. That's interesting, Garrett, because towns that voted to end their partnership with Flock still have cameras running. Here's an example unfolding right now. After massive public opposition to surveillance, the Cleveland Public Safety Commission voted not to renew their contract with Flock. Yay, democratically elected processes, but wait, what's this? The cameras are still running. They're holding a revote. I am frustrated that despite a three-to-one vote against renewing the city's Flock contract two weeks ago, Flock is for some reason getting a do-over. Residents say that after the original vote to end the contract, the city council president, mayor, and police chief pushed for reversing course, resulting in a revote that now has advanced the contract despite public opposition. The next step is a full council vote on July 15th, less than a week after the revote. This leaves residents with very little time to fight back and keeping the cameras on is one thing. Another is a community celebrating a win they fought for only to be told it didn't hold weeks later. I've never seen an instance where there was a a revote on something that has already been heard. It felt like people were able to gather and make sure their voices were heard and instead of listening to residents, they gave uh the agencies that stand to benefit from this uh another shot at at convincing city council. So, people showed up to local government meetings, said they don't want a Flock contract. The local government voted not to renew the contract. Then that decision was reversed and through all of it the Flock cameras remained on anyway. That's why we have a democratically elected process, right? Like I I we're not forcing Flock on anyone. Any update on this, Garrett?