Overview of Benn Jordan thinks the surveillance problem is much bigger than Flock
In this Decoder interview, musician, YouTuber, and security researcher Ben Jordan argues that the backlash against Flock license plate readers is really part of a much larger reckoning with surveillance, privacy, and the lack of oversight around police tech. He says Flock became the most visible target because it was loud, defensive, and easy to criticize, but the deeper problem is the broader network of private surveillance tools, weak security practices, and government systems that allow warrantless access to massive amounts of location data. Jordan also explains why he now tries to push for practical guardrails rather than simply “taking down” one company.
What the conversation is about
- Ben Jordan’s path from musician and hacker mindset to public-facing investigator of surveillance tech.
- Why Flock’s automatic license plate reader network became a flashpoint.
- How local governments, police departments, and tech vendors built a sprawling surveillance ecosystem with minimal public input.
- The security flaws Jordan found in Flock’s systems and why those flaws matter beyond Flock itself.
- What realistic reforms could look like, including audit logs, warrant requirements, and opt-out mechanisms.
Why Flock became the focal point
Jordan’s core argument is that Flock is not the whole problem — it’s the most visible symptom.
Why Flock got hit harder than others
- Flock had a public personality: its leadership was outspoken and often combative toward critics.
- That made it a natural target for journalists, activists, and lawmakers.
- Competitors like Axon, Motorola, Verkada, Palantir, and others were, in Jordan’s view, quieter and more anonymous while doing similar things.
The larger surveillance ecosystem
- Jordan says the real issue is the relationship between:
- private surveillance vendors,
- police departments,
- city councils,
- and state/federal policy.
- He warns that focusing only on Flock can let the rest of the surveillance industry continue unchecked.
How Flock’s system works, and why it’s controversial
Jordan explains that ALPRs are not new, but Flock changed the model.
The technical and policy shift
- Traditional ALPRs were often mounted on police cars for specific investigations.
- Flock built a private, nationwide data network:
- participating agencies share data,
- other agencies can search that data,
- and searches can reveal where a vehicle has been over a 30-day retention window.
- The controversy is not just the cameras themselves, but the centralized private database and the ability to search it without a warrant.
Why he thinks the “public view” defense is weak
- Critics of surveillance argue the cameras record only what is already public.
- Jordan’s response: the issue is scale, persistence, and ease of search.
- He compares it to a person manually tailing someone across cities for 30 days — something that would normally require serious justification.
Security failures and why they matter
A major part of the interview is about Jordan’s security research into Flock’s systems.
Problems he says he found
- Lack of multi-factor authentication at one point.
- Police officers logging in from non-secure networks.
- Credentials found on the dark web.
- Camera/admin interfaces exposed on the internet.
- Plaintext credentials and device-level vulnerabilities.
- The ability, in some cases, to access footage or manipulate devices in ways that should not have been possible.
His point about risk
- If one weak account or insecure department can access the network, the whole system becomes as secure as its weakest participant.
- That makes the network architecture itself a security liability, even if individual agencies think they are being careful.
What Jordan thinks is wrong with the debate
Jordan repeatedly returns to the idea that public debate has been too simplistic.
Flock as “low-hanging fruit”
- He says Flock was easier to attack because it was visible and defensive.
- But outrage directed at one company can obscure the fact that many other vendors are building similar systems.
Conspiracy vs. reality
- Jordan argues that people often jump to wild conspiracy theories about surveillance.
- In his view, the real situation is already alarming enough:
- data brokers already know a lot about people,
- phones and apps feed data into massive systems,
- and the surveillance ecosystem is much bigger than most people realize.
“They’re not solving the right crimes”
- He questions whether these systems meaningfully address serious crime.
- Instead, he says they often focus on:
- shoplifting,
- car theft,
- nonviolent offenses,
- and low-level enforcement.
- He argues broader social problems like poverty and addiction are not being addressed.
Local democracy and bipartisan backlash
One of the strongest themes in the interview is that this backlash is happening locally.
Why local politics matters
- Jordan says people are waking up to who their mayor and city council members are.
- Local decisions shape surveillance far more directly than national debates.
- In some places, the issue has even influenced elections and mayoral races.
Why the backlash cuts across party lines
- He sees surveillance as one of the few issues that can unite both liberals and conservatives.
- Conservatives may be especially sensitive because of memories of COVID-era mandates and fears of government overreach.
- But Jordan stresses that bipartisan anger does not necessarily mean the public understands the issue well — just that the discomfort is widespread.
What reforms he thinks could actually help
Jordan is skeptical that the current system can be fixed with minor PR changes, but he does lay out practical reforms.
Possible guardrails
- Warrant requirements for searches.
- Immutable audit logs so every query is visible and tamper-resistant.
- Transparency about who is using the system and for what.
- Opt-out mechanisms at the DMV or vehicle-registration level for people not on a hot list.
- Independent audits and external researchers reviewing the systems.
- Retention limits and tighter controls on who can search and why.
His bigger idea
- He wants decision-makers to be forced to justify surveillance publicly.
- If a town wants cameras for a specific problem, residents should know:
- what the goal is,
- what data will be collected,
- who can search it,
- and how the system will be audited.
Ben Jordan’s complicated role: critic, researcher, and collaborator
Jordan describes an awkward but deliberate balance.
He still pushes hard
- He has made aggressive videos and public critiques.
- He remains skeptical of the company’s claims.
But he also works with Flock now
- He says he speaks with executives and reports vulnerabilities directly.
- He views that as necessary if the goal is actual harm reduction, not just outrage.
His ethics as a creator
- He says he tries not to release breach data or act irresponsibly, even when doing so would make a viral video.
- He wants to maintain trust by being nuanced and not simply telling his audience what to think.
Key takeaways
- Flock is a symptom, not the whole disease.
- The real issue is the growing ecosystem of private, searchable surveillance networks with weak oversight.
- Security flaws make the problem worse, because the whole network inherits the weaknesses of its least careful user.
- Jordan believes the best path forward is pragmatic reform, not just outrage:
- warrants,
- auditability,
- transparency,
- opt-outs,
- and real legislative guardrails.
- He sees the current backlash as a rare moment where privacy, local democracy, and public pressure are starting to align.
Bottom line
Ben Jordan’s message is that surveillance in America has become normalized through convenience, secrecy, and local contracting — and Flock only became the symbol because it was the easiest target. His real concern is the broader system that lets private companies and police departments build a nationwide surveillance web without meaningful consent, security standards, or accountability.