“Crime will be eliminated in America by 2035.”

Is this wild claim from:

A) the pen of science fiction writer Phillip K. Dick?

B) a religious prophet with future revelation? or

C) a billionaire tech leader with a “God” complex?

The answer is C, as it turns out. Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley indeed made this prediction to Forbes Magazine in 2025, claiming that his AI-powered surveillance system would erase crime from our society in a decade (pending of course the success of youth training and reduced recidivism.)

While it is tempting to take Langley at his word, the issue has flared up to the point where it invites facts and reason to come forth.

The issue of Flock cameras raises several questions:

Are they actually reducing crime? Are privacy concerns being exaggerated?

Is too much money being spent? Is our personal data even more at risk?

What do the courts have to say about our Constitutional rights?

Are privacy activists terrorists? Or are they patriotic freedom fighters?

One can hardly scroll on social media for more than five seconds without someone opining on the good or evil of omnipresent Flock cameras. The issue has exploded in America in the last few months, with no signs of slowing down.

On the one end of the debate, Flock cameras are essential for police work and public safety, and the more there are the better. Anybody who disagrees is a tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist.

On the other end of this controversy, Flock cameras will finally unravel our Constitutional republic as we know it, ushering in a dystopian all-powerful State – with surveillance capabilities that would make East Germany jealous.

This article contains many “hands.” On the one hand, on the other hand, etc. – as we try to balance information and explore a controversial hot topic. However, this analysis of Flock cameras may not go the way the reader would think.