American citizens are not choosing to be surveilled via Flock.

That is a decision that is being made by billionaires like Paul Graham who fund and profit from it, and authoritarian individuals at police departments and governments who get influenced by the perceived convenience of warrant and subpoena-free surveillance.

I carry a cell phone... and thankfully the Supreme Court has agreed that my location data that comes off of it is protected from warrantless search.

The heart of your argument is that people shouldn't do anything new unless they accept all of the downsides as-is... but that's a moronic argument. Society is built by people doing new things _but also_ working to come up with new agreements on how to manage the side effects of those new things. This is normal and natural.

What's wild is your decision to mock people who want to preserve liberty while advancing technology.

How is your location data protected? They may not be able to force a company to hand it over without a warrant… but they can just buy it.