The idea that technology can dissuade crime is not new, but today it takes on an unprecedented dimension. In a context of distrust of conventional security systems, some are now betting on algorithms to fill the dead angles of human surveillance. The promise carried by monitoring by artificial intelligence seduces as much as it worries, especially when it becomes the heart of the ambition of a startup with national objectives.
According to Forbes, Flock is now valued at $ 7.5 billion. Its technology is based on a simple but formidably effective idea. Quaril the public space thanks to fixed cameras, but also now to autonomous drones, potentially capable of spotting a tattoo or a silhouette several hundred meters. The data collected, such as vehicle brands or suspicious journeys, is analyzed and overcome via artificial intelligence tools. Langley claims that this digital network already allows one million cases to be elucidated each year.
An artificial intelligence monitoring canvas that stretches without brakes
Flock's success is based as much on its technology as on its commercial strategy. More than 5,000 police services, 1,000 private companies and countless neighborhood associations have already adopted its services. In Dunwoody, near Atlanta, the police remotely control the activity of their city via a center -stalled center, capable of detecting a shot, transcribing the calls to 911 live and locating the intervention units in a few seconds. In a demonstration conducted in California, an operator was able to observe two men playing baseball several hundred meters, using a simple keyboard.
Flock also knew how to take advantage of unusual partnerships. Companies like Fedex or Lowe's sometimes authorize access to their video flows, thus extending police coverage without direct public intervention. This system makes it possible to bypass one of the main obstacles of classic video surveillance: the fragmentation of camera owners, which makes the exploitation of images tedious. In this new model, each customer can choose to share their data with the police, weaving a canvas where the boundaries between private and general interest become vague.
According to the New York Times, this logic is part of a broader political trend, where security becomes a federal issue. The deployment of the National Guard in certain cities, funded directly by the State, recalls that the effectiveness of these devices is not only measured by figures, but also by the perception of control and presence which they induce. Even if some metropolises like Washington have recorded a drop in vehicle flights, this improvement remains difficult to isolate other socio-economic factors.
A security model contested even in the courts
Behind the enthusiasm of its promoters, Flock, however, arouses strong concerns. Indeed, several associations for the defense of civil freedoms denounce permanent surveillance deemed contrary to the fourth American amendment. The NGO Deflock has already mapped more than 29,000 plates reading cameras, a majority of which belong to Flock. It also leads a Discord server which makes it possible to coordinate local disputes. In some counties, the inhabitants even vandalized or removed cameras. In Camden County, an elected official was continued for dismantling a device without authorization.
The company had to adapt its tools to regulatory pressure. In Illinois, an investigation revealed that police had shared FLOCK data with other states. They aimed at people suspected of having violated local laws linked to abortion or immigration. Since then, the company has said that it has restricted these division between jurisdictions. However, as Futurism points out, the continuous expansion of these technologies has increasing controversy on the use of personal data in automated systems.
Critics don't just come from activists. The former industrial partner of Flock, Axon, known for his Taser pistols and his poteling cameras, broke the links by accusing him of anti-competitive practices. In response, Langley says he wants to offer a less expensive and more efficient solution. This rivalry between two police tech giants highlights the growing tensions around the privatization of public security.
Langley sees him further. He already imagines using the data collected to improve traffic management, repair the roads faster or even plan town planning. He claims that his technology could also be used for quality of life. But as its digital empire is deployed, the border between innovation and intrusion becomes more and more difficult to trace.
