Benn Jordan urges scrutiny beyond Flock in new Verge surveillance interview

Benn Jordan wants the backlash against Flock Safety to reach beyond one camera company. In an October 15, 2026 Decoder interview with The Verge’s Nilay Patel, he argued that competitors including Axon and Motorola deserve scrutiny, too—and that replacing a vendor does not address his concerns about the surveillance networks themselves.

The musician, YouTuber and researcher has become a prominent critic of Flock’s automatic license-plate readers: cameras and software that record vehicle plates. He recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism at a hearing about Flock and other license-plate-reader systems.

A different vendor, the same objection

Jordan’s concern is that Flock has become shorthand for the entire problem. He described politicians declaring themselves anti-Flock while turning to Axon, Verkada or Motorola cameras. In his account, opposition aimed at one company can leave similar networks untouched, even as officials claim to have responded to public concern.

In my research, Flock has been the low-hanging fruit, just because they were the loudest and most defensive, whereas every other company was just taking a step back and cashing the checks.

Benn Jordan, speaking to The Verge’s Decoder

That is Jordan’s explanation for the uneven attention, not a finding that every vendor’s systems are identical. His wider target is the relationship among private companies, government and law enforcement, particularly the lack of transparency around surveillance. He said government had failed to keep the public informed as these systems spread.

No purchase decision, no easy exit

Jordan traced his investigation to noticing cameras in Atlanta roughly two years ago. He initially thought they were traffic cameras, then began examining what they did and looking for security vulnerabilities. Asked why this surveillance backlash feels different, he identified two ways it departs from buying a connected device:

• Consent: A person can decline to buy a smartwatch or an Amazon Echo. Jordan said drivers have no comparable choice about being recorded by roadside camera networks, and residents were not given a meaningful say before the systems appeared.
• Payment: Jordan said residents help pay for local surveillance through taxes rather than choosing to purchase it. He contrasted that with consumer devices, where the person buying the hardware can decide whether its benefits are worth accepting.

He also sees a constructive consequence: people learning who their mayor and council members are, then attending local meetings. Jordan called that democracy in action. The Verge reported that hundreds of cities, counties and other local governments had begun canceling Flock contracts, providing context for his argument that local pressure can produce results.

Criticism alongside direct engagement

Jordan is not treating public criticism and contact with Flock as mutually exclusive. He communicates with CEO Garrett Langley and reports security vulnerabilities to the company when he finds them. He described that outreach as an olive branch, aimed at tangible solutions to surveillance overreach rather than tearing down a single company.

Federal scrutiny had already moved beyond Flock before this interview. On September 3, Sen. Josh Hawley’s office announced an expanded investigation covering Motorola Solutions, Verkada and Axon Enterprise. The Missouri Republican sent their chief executives letters seeking information about the collection, retention and sharing of data generated by AI surveillance cameras.

Hawley’s letters framed the issue as access to personal information, not simply camera ownership. He said he wanted law enforcement to have crime-fighting tools, while questioning whether company policies provided sufficient safeguards. His office sought answers about who could access driver data and how it could be stored, sold or used.