It seems like Flock cameras, those AI-powered license plate readers and surveillance devices, are becoming quite the target for some people. I mean, who would've thought? These cameras, deployed across the country to, supposedly, fight crime, are instead facing a coordinated (or perhaps uncoordinated?) wave of vandalism.

For example, Louisville police are so concerned about the destruction of these cameras that they're keeping their locations secret. Can you imagine? Imagine if we kept the location of every security camera as if it were a missile launch site. That sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie.

Nationwide Trend

Brian Merchant, over at Blood in the Machine, has been tracking this trend, and it's pretty widespread. From La Mesa, California, where cameras were smashed and sabotaged, to Eugene and Springfield, Oregon, where six cameras were cut down with a cheeky note left behind, it's clear that some folks are not happy with Flock's presence. It really is like a plot from one of the most famous distopias.

I mean, I can understand the frustration. We are living in a era where surveillance is the bread and butter of big corporations and governments.

And then there's the case of Jefferey S. Sovern in Suffolk, Virginia, who allegedly disassembled 13 cameras using vice grips. He even started a GoFundMe, stating his actions were a "catalyst in a bigger movement to roll-back intrusive surveillance." You've got to admire the guy's dedication, even if his methods are, well, destructive.

It's not just a few isolated incidents either. Police in Lisbon, Connecticut, and the Sheriff’s department in Greenview, Illinois, have also reported destroyed Flock cameras. This all points to a growing unease with the proliferation of surveillance tech in our communities.

Flock's Vision and the Backlash

Flock's CEO, Garrett Langley, seems to genuinely believe his technology can eliminate crime in America. That's a pretty bold claim, right? It reminds me of that old saying, "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Is mass surveillance really the answer, or are we sacrificing privacy and freedom for a false sense of security?

Let's not forget the Ring debacle. Remember that Super Bowl commercial where Ring and Flock teamed up to find lost pets? The backlash was swift and fierce, and the partnership quickly dissolved. It seems people aren't so keen on the idea of mass surveillance, even if it means finding Fluffy.

Flock's response? They say they "respect and value concerns" and are "regularly on the ground in communities." That's a nice sentiment, but actions speak louder than words. Maybe instead of just saying they're listening, they should actually address the concerns people have about privacy and the potential for misuse of their technology.

It's a complex issue with no easy answers. I think we need to have a serious conversation about the role of surveillance in our society and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. What do you think?