Flock Condemns False Child Predator Allegations, Yet Calls Critics Terrorists

Flock Condemns False Child Predator Allegations, Yet Calls Its Own Critics Terrorists

Flock is under intense pressure. Its own Chief Legal Officer publicly acknowledged that "every single day, I read a headline from somewhere in the country" about residents raising concerns. Dozens of cities have canceled or rejected contracts. Lobbying spending has skyrocketed. Two class action lawsuits are active. A new major lawsuit was filed this week. None of it is abating.

This week, Flock published a blog post defending employees who accessed cameras at the Marcus Jewish Community Center in Dunwoody, Georgia, calling allegations of inappropriate conduct "false" and warning that:

Accusing someone of spying on children is not a policy disagreement; it is a life-altering allegation.

Executive Summary

IPVM concurs with Flock on the specific allegation: there is no evidence that any employee accessed those cameras for malicious purposes related to children. Residents who called Flock employees child molesters on social media went beyond legitimate criticism into territory that is false and harmful, and those individuals should apologize.

At the same time, Flock's CEO has spent years attacking privacy advocates, calling them terrorists and accusing critics of wanting to "normalize lawlessness." Flock's blog post argues that false, defamatory allegations against individuals cause real harm and should not be made, a standard the company has not applied to its own rhetoric. Consistency matters. This incident will likely harden Flock's adversarial posture further, which would be the wrong response to a situation Flock exacerbated.

The accelerating negativity surrounding Flock, attacks on individual employees, on installers, on the company broadly, creates a cumulative burden. Many employees genuinely believe in the mission, but the sustained pressure of this kind wears people down and threatens the company's ability to grow.

What Actually Happened

As IPVM documented earlier this week, Dunwoody's mayor acknowledged Flock had been in "places they should not be" and confirmed Flock apologized to the JCC. Local resident Jason Hunyar had obtained event logs through a FOIA request showing 8 Flock sales employees accessed live and recorded feeds on Dunwoody's network more than 480 times, including cameras inside the JCC's gymnastics room, a pool, parks, playgrounds, and libraries. This directly contradicted Flock's own public FAQ, which stated: "Nobody from Flock Safety is accessing or monitoring your footage." The pledge was violated. That is a documented fact, separate from any question of intent.

IPVM Concurs: The Predator Allegations Are False

There is no evidence of malicious intent. The access was a sales demo, not predatory behavior. The "little Epstein" language at Dunwoody city council meetings and social media posts naming individual employees as child molesters is false and harmful. Those who made these allegations should apologize to the Flock employees they named.

Impact on Employees

Flock's field staff, installers, and sales employees absorb the front-line consequences of the company's growing opposition. When individual names appear in FOIA requests, social media posts, or city council confrontations, the personal cost is real. Even employees who took the job because they genuinely believe in reducing crime are not insulated from the cumulative weight of week after week of public hostility.

The Consistency Problem

That environment reflects a rhetorical posture that Flock's own leadership helped create. Flock's blog post argues that random internet commenters' allegations are "life-altering." By that same standard, what should privacy advocates feel when Flock's billionaire CEO publicly labels them terrorists? CEO Garrett Langley has called privacy advocacy group Deflock a "terroristic organization." Calling privacy advocates terrorists is not a policy argument. It is an attempt to delegitimize critics by associating them with violence.

The Consequence

When a company frames critics as criminal sympathizers and opposition groups as a terrorist organization, it should not be surprised when the opposition responds in kind. The predator allegations are wrong. They are also, in part, a product of the rhetorical environment Flock helped build.