Flock doesn’t defend anyone from anything, it’s just surveillance technology. The defending is done by other people, who may or may not use the surveillance for good.

Historically, surveillance is used for good and evil. Certainly, Nazi Germany would have killed many more Jews if flock had existed during that time. Their surveillance was pretty primitive by modern standards, and they still managed to track, identify, and execute millions of Jewish people.

Ultimately, we have to take a step back and analyze if our incentives and systems are designed such that surveillance is used for good, and evil use is deterred. And, regardless of political affiliation, the answer to that analysis should be a resounding no.

Do we keep our officials and law enforcement officers accountable? When surveillance is misused, does anyone even know, let alone prosecute? How difficult is it to misuse surveillance? How much transparency is built-in to how the surveillance is used? These are the questions we should be asking.

>Flock doesn’t defend anyone from anything

Flock has caught criminals and has prevented further crimes from happening. This is something that cannot be denied. The existence of Flock has defended people, and it has provided value to society. Saying that Flock is a just technology company and police officers are just humans. That trivializes what these entities are doing in society.

>Nazi Germany would have killed many more Jews if flock had existed during that time.

Or they could have more efficiently got the Jews out of the Germany before things got to the point where things got more extreme. This could have resulted in fewer Jews dying.

>Do we keep our officials and law enforcement officers accountable?

I think AI will be a major boon to being able to audit such queries for irregularities. The fact you can have a relatively impartial system able to highlight things makes it harder to cover up things.