Dr. Vietrin: 'flock' is a dystopian violation of our rights

Dr. Vietrin (Ohio State University; previously University of California and Yale; 14 years of research) argues that the system referred to as 'flock' fundamentally inverts ordinary police procedure and therefore cannot be fixed by added safeguards. He contrasts the traditional sequence—'a crime is supposed to happen first' then suspects are identified and investigated—with 'flock', under which 'everybody in this room, every day, every time we get into our cars, we are all under investigation at all times for all crimes.' That ubiquity means police begin with a pre‑investigated list of suspects ('that's you, that's me') whenever a crime occurs.

On constitutional grounds, Dr. Vietrin says Columbus's policy 'flagrantly' violates the 'Fourth Amendment' on a daily basis. He stresses the core claim that 'flock' is not a tool for investigating crimes but for investigating 'pre-crimes', and this quality makes reform proposals unworkable: efforts to 'install more safeguards', 'install more protections', and add 'guardrails that will prevent abusers from stalking their ex-girlfriends' are, he contends, logically incompatible with the technology's purpose. He warns against institutional hubris and insists 'we cannot and we can never have our cake and eat it too.'

The speaker's conclusion is categorical: because 'flock' presumes constant surveillance and pre-investigation of the population, it is a dystopian program that 'cannot be reformed' or made to preserve civil liberties while functioning as intended.