'I Would Never Do This To You:' Protesting Flock, Arizona Man Presents Plan to Surveil Government Officials

‘I Would Never Do This To You:’ Protesting Flock, Arizona Man Presents Plan to Surveil Government Officials

Samantha Cole

Jul 28, 2026 at 12:07 PM

“They didn’t understand it was satire in the beginning until the end,” Casa Grande, Arizona resident Jacob Petrosky told 404 Media. “They were not happy, they were very upset.” ‘I Would Never Do This To You:’ Protesting Flock, Arizona Man Presents Plan to Surveil Government Officials Screenshot via Casa Grande on Youtube On July 20, Jacob Petrosky stood in front of the Casa Grande, Arizona City Council during a public comment session and made an announcement.

“I’ve spent the last several months talking to people all over Casa Grande, and one thing keeps coming up: Safety. So, today I’m excited to announce a new company called Shepherd Safety,” he said. “Our mission is simple. Keep government officials and their families safe.” It would be no different than how the city monitors its citizens using Flock cameras, he said; he planned to launch satellites that would use AI to monitor “where government officials go, where they stop, who they meet with, and when they return home.”

He said he’d already started compiling profiles on their vehicles, spouses vehicles, children’s vehicles, and planned to combine that data with Bluetooth signals, advertising IDs, and commercial data sources, “so our authorized users can replay the movements of every government official and their immediate family,” he said. Local businesses would be invited to join the network, to “protect” officials while they shop, eat at restaurants, and move around the city.

After laying out his plan and its benefits for the government officials before him, Petrosky revealed that it was all satire. “I would never do this to you,” he said to the council members. “Could I? Probably. But I wouldn’t because it’s wrong. Just like what you guys are doing to us is wrong.”

Petrosky told me he never expected or intended to be the face of opposition to Flock cameras in his small town. And the clip, which has since gone viral on social media, only shows one angle of one moment that’s part of a much longer fight.

Casa Grande City Council unanimously approved a 10 year, $10 million contract with Flock last year, and since then, Petrosky has spoken against the partnership several times at city council meetings. “You know, I’m actually a little bit embarrassed by the video. I did not feel good about it,” he told me. “The looks… You don’t get to see the looks on [council members’] faces. They didn’t understand it was satire in the beginning until the end, and the looks on their faces were like, we hate you and we’re gonna get you. They were not happy, they were very upset.”

What Happened When Flock Came to My Town My small town in South Carolina will soon have more Flock cameras than police officers. Matthew Gault

Casa Grande City Council members did not immediately respond to 404 Media’s request for comment.

Petrosky said he’s not trying to be “a troll,” but after asking the council to consider the invasion of privacy they were inflicting on constituents, including asking them to consider putting Flock data behind a warrant, his patience was wearing thin. “So it didn’t feel great, but I wanted it to sink in,” he said. “I’m not looking to go viral. I don’t want to be an online personality, but what I really just want is maybe just a little bit of privacy.”

Petrosky said he first noticed Flock cameras going up in Casa Grande last year. It wasn’t until then that he started getting civically involved. “I registered to vote this year. I’m very transparent about that. I could care less about city council or politics or any of that. I’m very much a nerd,” he said. “They did this deal last year, and then all of a sudden, like 200 cameras appeared in our city, pretty much almost overnight. It was really crazy. In fact, they deployed them so quickly that it freaked me out.” He realized that he couldn’t enter or leave his neighborhood on a paved road without being tracked on a Flock camera.

Petrosky launched a website, DeFlockCG, along with a petition that asks Casa Grande residents to voice specific demands, from limited third-party access to camera data and repercussions for abuse of the system, to removal of Flock from the city altogether. Almost 900 people have signed the petition so far.

Local news outlet Pinal Central reported earlier this month that a public records request revealed that the city has installed about 140 of the planned 200 cameras as of late June, with half being license plate reader cameras while the other half are pan-tilt-zoom cameras.

The city’s website about its Safe Cities Initiative says that in addition to assisting in solving crimes and increasing transparency for the public, the initiative and cameras are intended to “prevent crime before it occurs.” The website only mentions Flock in reference to using the Flock OS system to connect cameras and technologies, but links to a “transparency portal” and how to register privately-owned cameras into the network go directly to Flock’s own web pages. On Flock’s website highlighting the Casa Grande partnership, the company quotes Casa Grande Police Chief Mark McCrory: “In the past, investigators relied on slow, manual efforts to gather video evidence. Now, with registered cameras securely integrated into our Real Time Information Center, we can access vital footage faster—turning information into actionable intelligence when it matters most.”

Flock ‘Objects to Our Removing Their Equipment’: Emails Reveal Why a Town Put Bags Over Its Flock Cameras “For the time being, if you or someone on your crew has availability to secure black plastic bags (or something else) over the cameras, that would be great.” Jason Koebler

In May, Casa Grande City Council voted unanimously to give police access to elementary school cameras through the Flock partnership.

Last week, a 404 Media investigation revealed that police departments around the country have used Flock cameras at least hundreds of times to search for specific people with specific characteristics, like “heavy-set male with a black and white hat” or “person on skateboard,” and these searches sometimes reference people’s race or signs of their political affiliation.

Several cities and small communities around the country have canceled their contracts with Flock, citing privacy concerns and the potential for abuse. Petrosky said he primarily wants the city to require a warrant for accessing the data collected by cameras.

Petrosky knows his “announcement” at the council meeting was absurd, but the absurdity was the point. “It’s incredibly stupid, and then it’s also just incredibly inappropriate. The thought of tracking and associating them with their children and their spouses and all of it,” he said. He would prefer to keep to himself, and doesn’t relish these moments in front of the council, the entire town, the police department, and now, the whole internet. “Never in my wildest imagination would I ever be in a position like this. I don’t want to be famous. I just want this to go away. I want these things to at least just be put behind a warrant.”

You’re the man thanks

Conservative ideology and radicalization generally also tends to be built out of a persecution complex, so I’m not sure if that will have the intended result.

Whether it’d be just and appropriate or not though, is another story

Except these cameras are likely excluded from areas that lawmakers exist in. It would be dystopian to expect elected officials to live under surveillance Of their every move! /s

Flock data is owned by the government? That’s kinda crazy. I assumed they just paid for access. Something doesn’t sound right.

Can you point to resources on this?

….you know…so I know which sites to avoid going to and all.

It should be ENTIRELY public info. If you are going to be handed the power to inflict your views on an entire constituency, you lose the right to hide anything you do. There can be no place to hide malfeasance or they will use it. If they are unwilling to sacrifice their privacy, they can stay home. They are not being forced to seek public office.

Unexpected, but good for them!