So no, actually Flock itself is the problem. If Flock were willing to sign some consent decree that its data can only be accessed by police with a valid judicial warrant, for example, they probably could've headed off this entire mess.
But instead they called people "terroristic" for pushing back. Completely braindead move from the CEO.
Flock in absence of police is not that bad except for the whole "now we have no police" problem. Having police in the absence of Flock is totally fine, we've done it since forever.
...
...
...
Welp, sucks to get the shit beaten out of you, better luck next time.
If you have no cops, the cameras don't mean anything. It is now de facto legal for big people to beat up smaller people. Your cameras mean nothing. You can now film yourself getting beaten up every single day forever, and congrats, there's nothing to be done about it because there's no apparatus of the state to physically protect you.
If you understood my comment to mean "police are perfect", then I must've been unclear. That's not my position and not a position I'm interested in defending or discussing.
The fundamental issue is that Flock doesn't care about people's privacy or rights. That washes out in a variety of ways including CEOs' statements, product-level security controls (thus creating the horror stories), and lack of legal commitments to protections.
I would personally be in favor of a fairly widespread camera network that had significant legal protections built in. Flock has demonstrated – in every possible way – they cannot possibly be the providers of such a system.