Flock Safety is facing a growing backlash over its automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems, with hundreds of cities, counties, and other local governments canceling contracts and a Senate inquiry putting the company’s technology under sharper scrutiny. Musician and investigative journalist Benn Jordan, who recently testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, says the argument should reach beyond one company: the deeper problem is a surveillance system built through the overlapping interests of private vendors, government, and law enforcement.
Jordan’s testimony came before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, at a hearing focused on Flock and other ALPR systems. The scrutiny follows months of criticism and bipartisan pushback. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley is investigating Flock, and Reuters reported last week that the company plans to cut about 18 percent of its workforce. That’s a lot of turbulence for a business selling technology whose public pitch depends on confidence and trust.
In a conversation with The Verge’s Nilay Patel, Jordan described how his work shifted from a long career in experimental music to investigating Flock’s cameras and the software behind them. He has become a prominent voice in the debate, using videos and collaboration with researchers, civil rights groups, and journalists to scrutinize surveillance technology.
But Jordan’s position, as presented in the interview, is not simply that Flock should be driven out of business. He says he does not hate the company and argues that its handling of critics has been a major public-relations failure. That response, he suggests, helped make Flock an obvious target while competitors such as Axon and Motorola build similar networks. Singling out one brand may be satisfying; it does not make the broader infrastructure disappear.
Jordan says he now communicates directly with Flock, including CEO Garrett Langley, and reports security vulnerabilities when he finds them. He describes that contact as an attempt to work toward practical solutions to surveillance overreach, rather than a campaign to destroy one company. The distinction matters: finding and disclosing security problems can help address specific risks, while the larger questions about who can access surveillance networks—and under what rules—remain political and institutional.
Those questions sit at the heart of the backlash. The interview’s framing points to concern about police access to networks of cameras, limited public transparency, and the absence of meaningful public consent. The source does not establish that every department or system uses the technology in the same way, or that every allegation of misuse is proven. But it does highlight the accountability problem: communities can find themselves debating surveillance infrastructure after it has already been installed, rather than deciding in advance whether they want it.
Flock’s critics have helped force that debate into public view. Yet replacing one vendor, or canceling some contracts, would not by itself settle what rules should govern ALPR systems across the industry. Jordan’s central challenge is less convenient than picking a corporate villain: scrutinize the relationships and access policies that let surveillance networks expand with little public oversight. The cameras may have a company logo. The accountability gap belongs to a much larger system.
Sources: Glitch Please! and The Verge — “Benn Jordan on Flock, privacy, and the new surveillance backlash” — https://www.theverge.com/podcast/1011170/benn-jordan-flock-cameras-alpr-ai-surveillance-privacy — Source article and interview with Benn Jordan by Nilay Patel
Generated by AI
