Trust Must Be Earned

And AI is NOT earning it.

It all started with a simple question intended to help resolve a scheduling conflict. "Is the 'Autumn in the Mountains Car Show' always on the last weekend of September?" This info is not directly on the organizer's web site, but past event dates could be manually searched to see if history supports the assertion. But manually? Isn't that what AI-powered smart Giggles are for? And so it was Giggled, and Gemini responded.

And Gemini is wrong, at least in the particulars. 

History indeed indicates the event is not always held on the last weekend in September and isn't consistently even the fourth Saturday. Fair enough. Top level answer is correct if you can trust AI. But can you? Well, AI suggests the answer is no, in the very answer given above. The event was held on 9/26/26, but this past Saturday is not the "second-to-last" Saturday (whatever that really means), and is, in fact, the fourth and last Saturday of September 2026. It must take a silicon based mind to think that is "second-to-last."

So...do you trust AI? Do you trust AI to be the ubiquitous, all seeing, all knowing overlord of your, and your family's, life? If so, you are either a city bureaucrat, or an elected official who enjoys private (not secret...no, no, not secret) get-togethers with corporate bigwigs. Otherwise, asking simple questions, either of these folks, or AI itself, will destroy any trust you may have had. Wouldn't it? Hasn't it?

So why have we allowed these folks to replace organic intelligence with the artificial variety, especially in the domain of public safety? If, in your opinion, this is the wrong decision, you may want to consider replacing these folks who clearly disagree.

Flock? Or Glock?

There are probably no other issues today with more words spinning around them. And so little hard data. 

Starting with Flock, we have few words that do not come directly or indirectly from Flock, and, as expected, the tale these words tell is how wonderful their system is. How many bad guys have been apprehended by cops using their technology. No hard data. No idea where they got their numbers. No methodology. Not traceability. But lots of words. With a very limited shelf life, because Flock have had their site and its history removed from the internet Wayback Machine so you can't see them contradict themselves. This is the kind of opacity usually reserved for government. 

Nonetheless Flock's story is the one we have. So what are they saying? Used a million times in 2025 by 700 police departments and involved in 20% of case closures. Oh, and they've done a jam up job tracking down stolen vehicles. 

The story around guns has many, many more voices, and at least as many more statistics. It is no surprise that data are cherry-picked to support a particular conclusion, so the ranges vary widely. The ranges for what, you may ask? The number of crimes averted, prevented, avoided, etc., because the intended victim had a firearm---the defensive use of a weapon. The base data are very hard to come by because many jurisdictions do not collect data on potential crimes averted. But there are a variety of studies, some relying on estimates, unofficial reporting (media articles), and in one case polling of convicted felons regarding their aversion to armed prospective victims. No one references the Kennesaw gun ordinance. 

So what do they say? Some research, based on public surveys, indicated that hundreds of thousands, up to as many as 1.6 million, crimes are deterred by the presence of a firearm. Due to the high number, these groups are commonly categorized as 2nd Amendment zealots. On the opposite side, groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, offer a much lower estimate, approximately 70,000 effective defensive gun uses per year. While the variance is huge the words matter. One group may consider showing (brandishing) a firearm is an effective deterrent while another may only consider defensive use that results in official reports. 

So where does this get you?

Well, Flock claim their technology was involved in closing about 200,000 open cases in 2025. Bad guys caught. Taking the most anti-gun report, defensive firearms avert 70,000 crimes per year. Bad thing prevented. Therein lies the key difference, why this is comparing road apples to apples. Law enforcement doesn't prevent crime, and that is Flock's customer base. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Police presence, in decline, is at best a few degrees of separation from crime prevention and if you hear that claptrap from city hall, point out that cops are rarely seen in the wild and Dunwoody's city manager has decided to either not equip patrol cars with cruise lights or has ordered cops not to use them. If police presence is a deterrent, why would you not want them prominently visible? On the other hand you have an actual, proven deterrent. 

Flock, or Glock? Which would you choose? That is exactly the problem: you only get a choice in one of the two, as the other is being forced upon you. Remember one thing: they are not mutually exclusive. Your choice.

What A Brand

Honestly, you have to admire Flock's brand. It is everywhere. Everyone recognizes them when they might never notice competitor cameras. Yes, Flock has competitors. But that branding isn't flawless and recent company missteps have tarnished the brand causing what may be irreparable damage.

From the outset "mistakes were indeed made." One is the camera itself.

In retrospect, getting your inspiration from Darth Vader's helmet might have been suboptimal.

Then there was some foot-shooting going on. Flock's training materials for PoPo (police and politicians) emphasizing how best to market and justify extensive government surveillance became public. Looked a lot like propaganda though it could be viewed as smarmy marketing. "Own the narrative, or someone else will." Sounds like an effort to drown out the public's questioning voices. Vox Populi is never good. For business. Or for politics. 

Then came their "deplorable" moment when a top Flock executive declared that opposition, particularly DeFlock, were terrorists. Not very diplomatic and it doesn't look like it is working any better for Flock that "deplorables" did for Hillary. 

A goose and gander situation surfaced recently when a Flock employee servicing equipment in the field, and hence in public, took umbrage at an ordinary citizen putting them on video. Police arrived, as it now seems that Flock is their new master, though it isn't clear how Flock can do deep surveillance of someone in public, the same someone who cannot take a video of a Flocker, in the very same public arena. 

Only time will tell if Flock have something up their sleeves or under a table that allows them adequate control over their customers such that they can weather what they certainly hope is a passing storm. The concern, regardless of where you stand, is whether or not this will become a political "single issue" for a significant portion of the electorate. Then the current crop o' clowns will either react or they will be replaced by folks who represent the will of the people. While those people of will may not have a constitutional right to privacy in public spaces, by the same token the government has no constitutional mandate for suspicionless, pervasive surveillance of we the people. 

It Isn't What They Say

They call them "Automated License Plate Readers," but that is hardly even the tip of the iceberg. These systems also track vehicles by color, body style, and even bumper stickers. A license plate is merely an afterthought. In fact, cops, from the comfort of their Aerons can search for, and track, a car by description alone. 

Apparently that is not enough.

These devices now include "SignalTrace," a technology that tracks phones, smart watches, health rings, AirTags, and yes, even automobile electronics. They have your phone, your location and the time you were there. No car. No license plate. But hey, you're in public and that makes you fair game, but just for a moment consider that law enforcement needs a warrant to obtain location tracking information from your cell provider. 

Apparently that is not enough.

Bring on the drones. These can indeed track and follow cars, but they can do with people what they do with cars. They can find and track individuals based on a description. "Find the Black dude wearing a gray hoodie." Things like that. But trust them, Flock says they are not using facial recognition. You believe that, don't you?

Apparently that is not enough.

They are now mining internet data, scraping social media platforms and even suggesting they'll mine the dark web. To be fair, Flock have said they decided not to do the dark web thing. You believe that, don't you? So now the cops can enter your license plate and get an entire workup on you. 

Apparently that is not enough.

Enter AI. Now they are able to track multiple vehicles, determine how often, and where these particular vehicles congregate. How useful is that? It gets better, or if you ask an aficionado, more useful. Now these systems determine that some behaviors are suspicious, identify the usual suspects and alert the po-po. That's right, a corporation's AI is issuing BOLOs to cops, and they're getting paid to do it. So who, exactly, is in charge these days?

When will enough be enough? Will it ever be too much?

Gandering At The Geese

Flock has the city's politicos and bureaucratic money sponges in a snit. And it is delicious. 

The stated reason they're all up in arms is that Flock may, or may not, leverage the Flock system to Flock's benefit and they may have, or may not have, updated their agreements. Happens all the time to you doesn't it? 

Mother Mayor has been in attack mode, moaning that we (the city's money sponges and politicos) need control of our data. WTF? Just throw that out there and expect it to magically become fact? Your data? Yours? Really? What, are they your license plates? No. No they are not. Do you pay for these plates? No. No you don't. Do you sell (rent) these to citizens? Again. No. Are the Flock LPRs restricted to residents of Dunwoody, as in, your constituency? No. Not at all. Not even part of anyone's original intentions. Plus, Flock can track your constituents in other jurisdictions if they are Flock customers. And finally, is Flock providing you the service you asked for, contracted for, and are paying for? Yes. Yes they are. 

So what is really your problem? After all you are getting what you're paying for: Law Enforcement as a Service. This provides political cover for the fact that you have no intention of deploying police officers in our community to keep our streets safe. "Let Flock do that. We rent technology to handle that." Truly a farce multiplier. 

Are you pissed that Flock are leveraging their system, a vast majority of which is not on poles in your right of way, to their benefit, potentially to their financial benefit, but also to the benefit of additional law enforcement missions? Are you that firmly against law enforcement? Are you picking and choosing? Do you have the integrity, the courage, to say out loud that you are against immigration enforcement and intend to do whatever you can to impeded federal law enforcement? Are you so dogmatically tied to a political party, a political movement, that impeding the FBI's ability to apprehend criminals on their Most Wanted List is acceptable collateral damage?

Or is it money? Do you resent that Flock may be monetizing their system beyond your little contract? That might be somewhat consistent with your statement that this is your data, however illogical, and indefensible, that might be. Do you want the feds to come, genuflect at your feet, and beg (AKA pay) you for access to Flock's data? Is that even reasonable? Only in your bubble. 

The humorous bit cannot be ignored, if you are indeed pissed because they've updated some of the T's & C's. Haven't we recently been subjected to Mother Mayor's campaign supporting increased taxes based on the premise that "things have changed since the city was founded"? Now you have the chutzpah to act offended that what is essentially a software/service company has updated their agreement, all the while changing nothing that negatively impacts the service they provided, that you wanted, and that you agreed to pay for. It really sucks when someone treats you like you've been treating us, doesn't it?