120,000 Flock surveillance cameras across the US. Crime is at record lows. Violent crime down, auto theft cut in half. Police say the system helps solve hundreds of thousands of crimes annually. The pitch: catch more criminals, stop getaway vehicles, drive murder rates toward zero. Abuses are "rare" (dozens of cases). Benefits crush the costs. But here's the thing: the author treats a correlation between rising surveillance and falling crime as essentially solved, brushes away abuse with one hand, and declares it "one of the easiest public policy questions." That's not analysis, that's a sales pitch. Mass surveillance systems are never that clean. Once 120,000 cameras normalize license plate tracking, the scope expands. Mission creep isn't theoretical. The safeguards that are "working extremely well" today get weaponized tomorrow under a different administration. And the auto theft numbers? Could be partially attributable to better vehicle tech, insurance tracking, economic factors. Instead we get a straight line from cameras to crime collapse. This is the kind of framing that sounds rational until you ask who controls the data and what happens when it's wrong.