SCOTT MOREFIELD: The Bipartisan Backlash Against Flock Cameras And America’s AI Surveillance State

Type the words “Flock camera arrest” into the search bar on Facebook and you’ll find story after story about people getting arrested for vandalizing, destroying, or otherwise interfering with Flock cameras. More interesting, though, are the hundreds and even thousands of comments after each one, nearly unanimous in support of the alleged perpetrator.

Regardless of where it happened or whose mugshot is on the page, the supportive (and hilarious) comments are nearly all some version of:

“That guy couldn’t have done it. He was with me at the Salvation Army that night feeding the homeless.”

“No way it was that dude. We were on the other side of town together picking up litter.”

“I could have sworn I saw him volunteering at the animal shelter when this happened.”

“Guy deserves a medal, not a prison cell.”

“Not all heroes wear capes.”

“Someone needs to start a GoFundMe for his bail money. I’ll contribute!”

“If anyone makes it on that jury, look up ‘jury nullification’ before you go. You don’t have to vote guilty!”

If you’ve been living under a rock and somehow missed the surveillance camera debate, a great place to start would be Tucker’s monologue on the subject, which is followed by his interviews with YouTuber Benn Jordan and ex-cop Noel Pichardo. (RELATED: ‘A Law-Abiding Citizen Trapped’ — Kansas Man Sues City Over Warrantless Spy Cams)

After that, watch this California IT expert expose Flock Safety cameras as far more than simple license plate readers, but AI-powered surveillance systems that track vehicles and store data in a private corporate cloud queryable by agencies and billion-dollar corporations like Palantir.

Then, look into the growing number of abuses of the system by individuals who, surprise of all surprises, choose to use their access to godlike powers nobody should have for personal, nefarious reasons.

Finally, go to deflock.org and check out how many cameras are using AI to track your license plate as you drive to work, church, the grocery store, and everywhere else.

If any domestic issue has the potential to unite both left and right into a massive political movement, this one does. Talk to almost anyone, right, left, or center, and they will probably hate the idea of being surveilled by AI technology everywhere they go. The expectation of privacy is ingrained in the American ethos. Most normal people don’t like the idea of the government looking over their shoulder all the time, or even some of the time, and accept that that also means some people who are doing wrong won’t be caught. (RELATED: Another Citizen Surveillance Tech Company Is Giving Flock A Run For Its Money)

Predictably, the “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?” nerds always weigh in on such stories too. You know, the types who, in a totalitarian state, would gleefully turn you in for thought crimes in exchange for a pat on the head and a cookie from the government. Without such people, tyrannical governments would have a difficult time gaining a foothold anywhere, but sadly, there are far too many with that mindset.

The ideal response to such people, and one I’ve seen multiple times online, is the classic Ben Franklin quote: “Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

At first glance, that sums things up quite perfectly, doesn’t it? But that said, is this issue really as black and white as that? I suppose it depends on how we define the word “essential.” For example, if we have a police force at all, and we do, we all give up a bit of liberty for some safety. Of course, like fluoride, pharmaceuticals, and other ‘toxic’ things we deal with in our lives every day, it’s the dosage that matters.

I will admit, opposed to mass surveillance as I instinctively am, even I am a little moved by stories like the one released this weekend about a deputy who used the Flock system to find a missing child in less than 30 minutes. There are plenty like that, to be sure. If I had a missing child or a stolen car, I would probably insist the cops use the surveillance technology available to them to solve the crime. Wouldn’t you?

So, is there a middle ground? A degree of safety that can be obtained with only a mild deference to surveillance technology while still protecting the public’s right to privacy?

I think so. In fact, we’ve been doing it for years. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has supported surveillance cameras on the streets of major urban centers for decades, long before the rise of AI. The idea is that if a crime occurs, police can then scan the camera footage to help find the perpetrator. These systems have been a huge factor in making city areas that would otherwise be hellscapes safer.

Similarly, look up when you walk into any retail outlet and you’ll see cameras that have probably been there for many years. If someone robs the place, security will find the timestamp and look at the footage. That’s obviously an entirely different thing from using AI facial recognition technology to track you from shop to shop and gauge your spending patterns.

Bottom line: surveillance technology isn’t intrinsically bad. But when it is mixed with AI to virtually track everyone’s every move and eliminate privacy altogether outside the home, it’s a bridge too far for most people. And some of them have shown they are willing to go to jail over it.