A resident in Dunwoody, Georgia, named Jason Hunyar filed a public records request for the access logs of the city's Flock surveillance camera contract. The logs show Flock employees pulling up cameras inside a children's gymnastics room at the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta, the MJCCA pool, a playground, a school, and a string of fitness centers and studios. The cameras were accessed as part of what Flock calls a demo partner program. The footage was being used to pitch other police departments. The city council renewed the contract after the records came out.
Flock's response was that no one is spying on children in parks. A spokesperson said the city of Dunwoody is one city in their demo partner program, that select Flock employees access feeds to demonstrate new products, and that future demos would be restricted to public locations like retail parking lots. The promise, as always, arrived only after the records did.
This is now the sixth time we have written about Flock. The pattern is the same as it was in October 2025 when we covered the basic shape of the network. It is the same as in December 2025 when Flock left children's playground feeds streaming on the open internet with no protection at all. It is the same as in March 2026 when police using Flock cameras broke the public promise that the cameras would only be used for serious crimes. Each time the vendor said the system was bounded. Each time the system was less bounded than promised.
The Dunwoody case is structurally different from the December children-in-the-feed story. Last December, Flock left feeds exposed to anyone on the internet by mistake. This time, Flock employees were pulling those feeds up themselves on purpose. The December story was a configuration failure. This is the product working the way the vendor designed it to work. The demo program is not a leak. It is a feature.
The cameras Flock was accessing include both city-purchased equipment and privately-owned cameras enrolled in the Flock network. Residents in Dunwoody who have a Flock-compatible camera on their own property are paying for surveillance equipment that a vendor in another city can pull up to pitch a sales prospect. The chain of consent runs from the resident to the city to the vendor and stops there. The vendor's customers are the next ring out, and they are the audience the demo is for.
Hunyar published his findings in a Substack post titled Why Are Flock Employees Watching Our Children. The city saw the post. The city saw the access logs. The city saw the spokesperson's response, which framed access to a children's gym camera as a demonstration of new products. The city renewed the contract. There is no point pretending the elected officials did not know. The decision to keep paying Flock was made with the full record on the table.
Flock's promise that future demos will only happen in retail parking lots is the same kind of promise we covered in March. The promise arrived when the public got loud. The promise is bounded by what the vendor decides counts as a public location. The promise is enforced by no one outside the vendor. The contract runs on vendor-discretionary access controls. What Dunwoody renewed is a subscription to a private camera network the city has agreed to brand as municipal infrastructure.
Every Flock story we have written has been a story about the system failing in some specific way. Cameras streaming to the internet. Footage outsourced to cheap offshore labor. Cameras used to ticket motorcyclists when police promised they would only be used for murders. Ring backing out of the partnership after users threatened to smash the cameras. The Dunwoody story is the first one where the system is not failing. It is doing exactly what the vendor designed it to do. The vendor watches the cameras. The vendor uses the footage to sell more contracts. The cameras include a children's gymnastics room. The city pays.
A camera in a children's gym, on a playground, in a school, or on the wall of a private business does not need to be malicious to expose the people in front of it. It needs to be enrolled in a network that someone outside the room can reach. Flock is that network. The Dunwoody renewal is what happens when a city finds out and decides the network is worth more than the children in the frame.
Blackout VPN exists because privacy is a right. Your first name is too much information for us.
Keep learning
FAQ
What did Flock actually access in Dunwoody
Cameras inside a children's gymnastics room at the Marcus Jewish Community Center of Atlanta, the MJCCA pool, a playground, a school, and several fitness centers and studios. The access logs were obtained by resident Jason Hunyar through a public records request.
Did Dunwoody renew the contract after this came out
Yes. The city council renewed the Flock contract after the records were public, after Hunyar published a Substack post about the findings, and after Flock's spokesperson confirmed the access happened.
What is Flock's demo partner program
A vendor program where Flock employees pull up live camera feeds from partner cities to demonstrate the product to other police departments. Dunwoody was one of those partner cities. Flock has said it will now only run demos through cameras in public locations like retail parking lots.
Are private cameras part of the Flock network
Yes. The Flock network includes both city-purchased cameras and privately-owned cameras enrolled by businesses or residents. Anyone whose private Flock-compatible camera is in the network may have had their feed reachable by Flock employees during a demo.
What can residents do
File public records requests for the access logs of any Flock contract their city holds. Vote on the council members who renew the contract. Do not enroll private cameras in the Flock network. Reduction of exposure starts with not adding the camera to the network in the first place.