Good Intentions in a Fallen World: Why Flock Safety’s Mission Collides with Reality

At the heart of the Flock Safety system is a mindset most people can respect.

The stated goal is simple and, on the surface, noble: reduce crime, help law enforcement recover stolen vehicles, and make neighborhoods safer. In a world where violent crime, human trafficking, vehicle theft, and hit-and-run incidents are real and devastating, it is understandable—commendable even—that people would seek better tools to protect their families and communities.

Many of the individuals advocating for systems like Flock are not villains. They are parents. Business owners. Church leaders. City council members. Police officers who have seen the worst of human behavior and want fewer victims tomorrow than there were yesterday.

The heart behind Flock is not evil.

The problem is not intent.

The problem is reality.

The Reality of a Fallen World

History, philosophy, and theology all converge on one uncomfortable truth: we do not live in a neutral world populated by perfectly restrained actors. We live in a fallen world where power is routinely abused, incentives shift, and tools outgrow their original purpose.

Technology does not exist in a vacuum. It is always wielded by human beings—human beings with biases, fears, ambitions, political pressures, and, at times, corrupt motives.

This is why the most dangerous systems are rarely introduced with malicious intent. They are introduced as solutions.

And that is exactly why they work.

The Problem of Use Creep

“Use creep” is the gradual expansion of a system beyond its original justification.

It does not happen overnight. It happens slowly, quietly, and often legally.

A tool is introduced for Reason X.Later, it is used for Reason Y, because “it already exists.”Eventually, it becomes unthinkable to live without it.

By the time people realize what has changed, the infrastructure is already built.

Flock Safety is sold as a crime-fighting tool. But once a mass license plate surveillance network exists, the question is no longer what it was built for—the question becomes what it can be used for.

History tells us exactly how this plays out.

“Temporary” Measures That Never Went Away

Governments have a long and consistent track record of implementing “temporary” measures that quietly become permanent.

Consider just a few examples:

Income Tax (United States)The federal income tax was introduced in 1913 and marketed as a tax on the wealthy. It was not supposed to affect the average citizen. Today, it affects nearly every working American, with enforcement mechanisms far beyond what was originally envisioned.

Emergency PowersFrom wartime authorities to post-9/11 surveillance expansions, emergency powers are almost never fully rolled back. Each crisis justifies the next layer, and the baseline of “normal” shifts permanently upward.

Surveillance LawsThe Patriot Act was passed as a temporary response to terrorism. Two decades later, many of its surveillance authorities remain embedded in everyday governance, often expanded rather than reduced.

The pattern is clear:What begins as an exception becomes the rule.

Why Surveillance Is Different

Some tools are inherently more dangerous than others because of what they enable.

Mass surveillance systems—especially automated, searchable, and networked ones—are not just reactive tools. They are predictive and retrospective. They allow authorities to look backward in time, reconstruct movements, associate individuals, and infer behavior.

Once such a system exists, it does not require new laws to be abused. It only requires a change in priorities.

A new administration.A new political climate.A new definition of “suspicious.”

What is considered lawful today can become suspect tomorrow.

The Benjamin Franklin Warning

Benjamin Franklin famously warned:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

This quote is often dismissed as outdated or overly dramatic. But Franklin wasn’t arguing against safety—he was warning against short-sighted tradeoffs.

Temporary safety measures have a habit of becoming permanent constraints on liberty.

And once liberty is surrendered, it is rarely returned voluntarily.

Good People Don’t Stay in Power Forever

One of the most common defenses of systems like Flock is:“Only authorized users have access.”“There are policies.”“There are audits.”

But history teaches us that systems outlive their creators.

The people who build, deploy, and responsibly manage a tool today will not be the same people controlling it ten or twenty years from now. Leadership changes. Laws change. Cultural values change.

The question is not whether current users intend to abuse the system.

The question is whether the system can be abused when intentions inevitably change.

If the answer is yes, then the risk is not hypothetical—it is deferred.

From Safety to Social Control

Surveillance systems rarely remain focused on violent crime alone.

Once normalized, the scope expands:

• Minor offenses

• Civil code enforcement

• Political demonstrations

• Association tracking

• Behavioral profiling

At that point, surveillance stops being about safety and starts being about compliance.

And compliance is the currency of control.

The Moral Tension We Must Acknowledge

It is possible to hold two truths at the same time:

1. The people advocating for Flock often have sincere, well-meaning motives.

2. The long-term implications of mass surveillance are incompatible with a free society.

Dismissing concerns as paranoia ignores thousands of years of human behavior. Blind trust in systems of power is not optimism—it is amnesia.

The Real Question We Should Be Asking

The real question is not:“Does this reduce crime today?”

The real question is:“What kind of society does this build tomorrow?”

A society where movement is tracked by defaultA society where anonymity is treated as suspiciousA society where every action is recorded “just in case”

Those are not the hallmarks of freedom. They are the hallmarks of control—regardless of how benevolent the original intent may have been.

Final Thoughts

Flock Safety is not unique. It is simply the latest expression of a very old pattern: good intentions colliding with fallen reality.

If history has taught us anything, it is this: Powers expand. Exceptions harden into norms.

The cost of liberty is vigilance—not blind trust.

And once a surveillance infrastructure is fully normalized, the debate is no longer about whether we should have built it.

It’s about whether we can ever undo it.