> The country needs to find a “compromise” between privacy and safety, according to Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley. “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing, and what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise”

An alternative opinion: no, we don't. I don't want to live in a society where I have no privacy, even if it makes me safer. And as always, the question is "safer from whom?". At one end of the privacy<->safety scale, perfect privacy would allow bad people to coordinate crimes in pretty much the same way they have throughout human history. At the other, we might be safe from privatized crime but live at the whims of the current government in power.

I've seen no studies showing that selling our privacy to companies like Flock increases our safety. It's plausible that they could increase conviction rates after crimes have been committed, but a universally common thread in criminal psychology is that crimes are disproportionately committed by people who lack foresight, or do not internalize the consequences of their actions. They do things without a thought to what'd happen if they're caught, or even thinking about getting caught in the first place. Flock might (citation needed) remove repeat offenders, but that's not the same as actually reducing crime rates.

For Flock to actually increase safety, they'd have to detect and prevent crimes before they happen. There are no scenarios where I would want to live in the world where they're able to do that.