A contentious proposal to create a “virtual gated community” using an AI-powered surveillance system has sparked a debate among residents in Rosedale, one of Toronto’s most affluent neighbourhoods. The plan, designed to tackle a surge in property crime, would involve installing cameras that scan the licence plates of every car entering the area, marking the Canadian debut of the controversial U.S. security company, Flock.
While overall crime rates in Toronto are reportedly decreasing, Rosedale has experienced a sustained increase in home invasions and break-ins, with a rate more than double the city average. According to police data, break-and-enter incidents in the neighbourhood remain the third highest per capita in Toronto, leaving many residents feeling anxious and unsafe.
The growing sense of unease prompted Rosedale resident Craig Campbell, who owns a security company, to propose the high-tech solution. In a virtual meeting held in late March, Campbell detailed a plan for an initial group of 100 households to pay a C$200 monthly fee for the service. The community’s WhatsApp group, which has about 350 members, already sees around 60 residents contributing to private security patrols.
How the Flock system works
The technology, developed by the American company Flock, does not use facial recognition. Instead, its AI-powered cameras scan licence plates to create a "whitelist" of vehicles belonging to residents and a "blacklist" of those deemed suspicious. The data collected by the cameras is stored for 30 days, and police would only be granted access with legal authorization.
My friends experienced a horrific home invasion here in the community – their children were held at knifepoint, and they will be traumatised for the rest of their life. Other friends aren’t sleeping well at night because they’re anxious about the crime that’s going to occur. Almost everyone knows someone who has been affected. Something has to be done.
Campbell, who holds the Canadian licensing rights for Flock, acknowledged his commercial interest in the venture but said his primary motivation is the frustration and fear expressed by his friends and neighbours.
“For my family’s safety, I’m not waiting around for the government to fix this,” Campbell said. “Yes, it’s a complex issue. But there’s things that we can do today to help ourselves instead of waiting around.” The system would operate in conjunction with the unarmed security guards who already patrol the neighbourhood.
While the city government is exploring other high-tech solutions to civic problems, such as the recent rollout of AI-powered traffic lights to combat gridlock, this private security initiative raises a different set of concerns.
Privacy concerns and U.S. controversy
The proposal has been met with a mixed response. While many residents who attended the virtual meeting and participated in the WhatsApp discussion expressed enthusiasm for the project, others raised serious concerns about AI bias, racial profiling, and the broader implications of mass surveillance.
Flock claims its network of over 90,000 cameras has helped American communities reduce crime by as much as 70%, but researchers find this figure difficult to verify independently. The company has faced significant scrutiny in the United States from privacy advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Investigations have revealed instances where Flock camera data from schools was shared with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and system errors have led to innocent people being stopped at gunpoint by police.
In one documented case, an officer used the system to track a woman who had a self-administered abortion. The system’s vulnerabilities have also been questioned, with one user posting a video to YouTube demonstrating how a Flock camera could be hacked in under 30 seconds. This move toward private security solutions echoes debates in other cities, such as Boston, which recently forfeited millions in federal funds for public road safety projects, and Christchurch, where two workers were injured in armed robberies.
Canadian privacy laws present hurdle
The plan would likely face a significant legal challenge if implemented in Canada, which has far stricter privacy laws than the U.S. The federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) would probably classify the network of cameras as a data collection system, subjecting it to rigorous oversight.
A spokesperson for Ontario’s privacy commissioner, while not commenting directly on the Rosedale proposal, stated that companies providing surveillance technologies for profit must obtain meaningful consent and only use personal information for purposes a "reasonable person would consider are appropriate." They must also inform the public about the surveillance and ensure personal data is destroyed when no longer needed.
The city of Toronto does not require permits for security cameras but its best practices recommend retaining footage for only 72 hours, a stark contrast to the 30 days proposed by Campbell. Toronto Police have also remained neutral, acknowledging that residents may seek security solutions but emphasizing the "important considerations around privacy" and advising residents to seek legal guidance on applicable laws. The force has previously been called on to justify its own methods, with police defending protest rules amid resident frustration in a separate context.
Campbell has stated that signs would be posted in the neighbourhood with a QR code linking to a privacy policy and an opt-out process. However, it remains unclear if this would satisfy regulators, given the large number of non-residents, such as delivery drivers and commuters, who pass through the area daily.
A neighbourhood divided
The debate continues to play out online and in private conversations, reflecting a deep division on how to balance safety and privacy. "Is there a reason why everyone wouldn’t want this level of safety and security?" one resident who pre-registered for the system wrote in the community WhatsApp group. Another user quickly responded, calling AI "one of the most unethical tools of our time" due to its environmental impact, inherent bias, and potential for wrongful arrests.
François Hébette, who moved to Rosedale from California 18 months ago, said he understands the fear driving the proposal, having experienced a break-in himself. However, he remains deeply uncomfortable with the plan.
Campbell remains adamant that innovation should not be halted by such concerns. "We’ve had questions from the community about what happens if the bad guy opts out of their licence plate being covered. And yes, that’s a possibility," he said. "There are valid questions about this and about the databases. But what you can’t do is stop progress and innovation. Instead, you have to be thoughtful and be very public about what your values are."
