The idea that these are needed, and deployed to address a crime problem is false. For example, Irvine, CA has been one of the safest large cites in the US for decades.

Why did they need flock?

Because the residents of Irvine want it to be even safer? Automobile thefts still happen there, crime isn't zero. Who are you to say "stop complaining about your car break-in, it's worse in other cities".

Reliable studies have shown that increasing the severity of punishment doesn't deter crime, but increasing the chance of being caught does. Cameras directly address the later. You'd have to be a total idiot to steal a car these days.

> For example, Irvine, CA has been one of the safest large cites in the US for decades. Why did they need flock?

Uhh, because getting safer is still better? Why the hell does the relative ranking matter?