I don't really think "enshittification" is a conspiracy theory. I think everyone can relate to engaging in a relationship with a company, thinking they had a reasonable understanding of how the relationship worked, and then having the terms changed out from under them.
Maybe Flock gets bought by another company and "oops, the terms changed". Maybe all contract renewals will have commercial use in the language.
Once the cameras are there, the heavy lifting (from Flock's side) has been done.
Sure but the premise was a conspiracy that they are padding financial numbers by selling the data commercially. They don’t so why perpetuate the conspiracy? Focus on the real problem with the business.
(Not disagreeing with your point, pointing something else out) What happens when flock sells the company + data? That collected data doesn’t get deleted and could be used for whatever purpose at that time, as the company could be dissolved along with the contracts.
That’s not how data agreements work. The city/entity would need to agree to the revised contract. Is it possible? Sure. Is it something I am concerned about? No, I would rather focus on the facts.
Data agreements must be enforced.
In California, it's thought that only 9% of data brokers are compliant with state laws requiring transparency and deletion of personal data.[0] It only goes down from there; most states do not have strong consumer privacy laws.
Furthermore, most municipal entities are not in a position to litigate a case over these changes for an extended period of time, and Flock is changing their terms to make it harder to terminate contracts. They can also now keep the data as long as they'd like. [1]
This, along with general corporate conduct these days, makes it very likely that they're actively planning to sell the data and might be doing so already in.
[0] https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/08/companies-buy-sell...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-c...