The originalist answer is straightforward: warrant first. If government wants to search historical movement data, it should show probable cause, identify the person or vehicle, describe the data sought with particularity, and get judicial authorization. Useful tools do not get constitutional exemptions. Flock cameras may catch killers. They may also stalk ex-girlfriends, monitor political meetings, misread plates, expose innocent families to guns, and let agencies rummage through movements without suspicion. That is precisely why the Fourth Amendment exists. Public safety and liberty are not enemies. The state can investigate crime. It just cannot turn every road into a suspicionless tracking checkpoint.
Even red light cameras, which are triggered by an event, have be found unconstitutional in certain jurisdictions, for shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. How is blanket surveillance going to stand up to that burden?
People have ring cameras at their front doors, but have no problem that a company knows their comings and goings. Flock cameras have been utilized by ICE to apprehend criminal illegal aliens. Bottom line is that leftists are the ones screaming about Flock Cameras. Every time I go across an interstate bridge I am tracked by a camera. Toll booths and airports are also covered by video cameras. Walmart parking lots all have signs that you are being monitored by cameras. ATMs use cameras. Banks have video cameras, and so do mini-marts and self serve gas pumps. 🙄 It is frustrating that every time I leave the farm, I have to put on makeup, clean jeans, and brush my hair so I look my best.
Hard no to the Surveillance State - “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
"Let me warn you, no matter where you stand on the Flock issue, you’re not going to be happy with this op-ed.
Actually, I came to the same conclusion as the op-ed about 5 minutes after the Flock came to my attention -- and I AM happy with the op-ed. We make a religion out of forgetting that the Watchers require Watching.
Just wait until every vehicle is equipped with an AI assisted interior camera to monitor the driver plus a remote activated kill switch. (I do admit the thought of using this to deal with people that aggressively text behind the wheel is intriguing.)
A good friend lawyer told me long ago - do not talk to a policeman and if you suspect a stranger asking you questions is an officer, ask. You have ZERO idea what they may be investigating, what facts they are looking to verify or how much pressure they are under to come up with a suspect.
The Flock cameras fall directly into the same category. I think ZERO information should be available to local, state or federal police without a warrant. I don't believe a single judge should have the ability to issue that warrant without a review by a citizen panel.
Can my driving my similar car thru the same track possibly taken by someone who committed a crime make me the only suspect police can come up with and put me into a position of having to prove my innocence?
In a society with a political party driving us ever closer to a possible position of having to retake our government thru force, can we allow them to establish even more surveillance over us?
The fact that Flock cameras can help get the bad guys is irrelevant. Having government surveillance cameras and audio recording devices in every room of every person’s home in America could probably solve some crimes as well. If you can’t see that these Flock (and Axon and other similar) camera surveillance networks deny our inalienable rights, then you need to stop writing as if you know what you are talking about, and hit the books again.
Siri is gathering data on everyone who has it. The surveillance people invite into their lives is never questioned. Your internet service provider knows more about you than your parents, spouse, and friends.
If the benefits outweigh the problems, let’s put cameras in our homes, in our bedrooms, in our bathrooms, in our cars*. Let’s ramp up airport security. Let’s impose automatic fines on people rolling stop signs or going one mph above the speed limit. Let’s have those fines automatically charged to their credit cards…
Treat Flock database inquiry as a search warrant - require the enquirer have sufficient information to justify the search. Have monthly access reports signed-off by senior officers. Lock Flock cameras down the same way other law enforcement databases are, with an ID and password, and report on usage vs justification.
Law enforcement has lots of tools that can be misused - controlling the exposure is what makes these tools useful and believable. The Flock camera is that kind of tool. If use is not tightly controlled, Flock cameras are not Constitutional.
Your point that poorly outlined and controlled actions within law enforcement and the justice system quickly becomes unconstitutional. This is the the crux of the topic. That’s why moral consensus is so important. We have lost a lot of that through secularization of the American culture.
"And studying the record, I cannot tell you whether Flock is a net good or a net evil. I genuinely do not know."
For me, the question isn't whether the cameras provide useful data. They do, as Mr. Muse has conveniently summarized. The question isn't if the cameras can be abused by nefarious individuals, duh, of course obviously they can and will be abused.
The question is, why are we allowing government surveillance of public spaces at scale? It seems other commenters share this concern. How is this different than living under the UK CCTV regime? The fig leaf that Flock isn't technically a government entity doesn't soothe me at all.
If we can't move freely about our environment without being surveilled then what exactly is Liberty?
What about a world where crime is actually prosecuted. The country would be once again safe to roam, and demand for flock cameras (by those who prefer safety to freedom) would become negligible.
If the Nazis had come into power in a state that had flock cameras, instead of 6 million Jews, it would have been an extinction event. Despite any possible positives, the negatives that can, and will eventually will come out of a government mass surveillance system outweigh the positives. What if a crime occurs in New York and the cameras capture a certain number of cars that went by the location of the crime. And the current Mayor decides he’s going to check all the cars owned by Jewish people first. Send police to their door. And maybe an O was mistaken for a zero and an innocent Jewish family spends time in jail or gets their front door pounded down by armed men. There is so much ability for misuse. And it’s already been proven that it occurs.
I don't believe a monopoly provider of services (government police with their public sector unions) can ever appropriately punish the transgressions you document. Until that problem gets fixed, this is too nefarious a technology to be allowed.
Good news is that there are a thousand other reasons to fix that problem. Abolish police unions. Gut qualified immunity. Punish cops for crimes and end this "rules for thee, but not for me" culture of corruption.
The originalist answer is straightforward: warrant first. If government wants to search historical movement data, it should show probable cause, identify the person or vehicle, describe the data sought with particularity, and get judicial authorization. Useful tools do not get constitutional exemptions. Flock cameras may catch killers. They may also stalk ex-girlfriends, monitor political meetings, misread plates, expose innocent families to guns, and let agencies rummage through movements without suspicion. That is precisely why the Fourth Amendment exists. Public safety and liberty are not enemies. The state can investigate crime. It just cannot turn every road into a suspicionless tracking checkpoint.
Even red light cameras, which are triggered by an event, have be found unconstitutional in certain jurisdictions, for shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. How is blanket surveillance going to stand up to that burden?
People have ring cameras at their front doors, but have no problem that a company knows their comings and goings. Flock cameras have been utilized by ICE to apprehend criminal illegal aliens. Bottom line is that leftists are the ones screaming about Flock Cameras. Every time I go across an interstate bridge I am tracked by a camera. Toll booths and airports are also covered by video cameras. Walmart parking lots all have signs that you are being monitored by cameras. ATMs use cameras. Banks have video cameras, and so do mini-marts and self serve gas pumps. 🙄 It is frustrating that every time I leave the farm, I have to put on makeup, clean jeans, and brush my hair so I look my best.
Imminent investigations (i.e. the abducted child) can’t use warrants. What they need is two person sign off.
Hard no to the Surveillance State - “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
"Let me warn you, no matter where you stand on the Flock issue, you’re not going to be happy with this op-ed.
Actually, I came to the same conclusion as the op-ed about 5 minutes after the Flock came to my attention -- and I AM happy with the op-ed. We make a religion out of forgetting that the Watchers require Watching.
Somebody is making a lot of money on what used to be a right of privacy.
There is no right to privacy in public. Never has been. We need a right to public anonymity.
Take another look at the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Nope. Not there.
Just wait until every vehicle is equipped with an AI assisted interior camera to monitor the driver plus a remote activated kill switch. (I do admit the thought of using this to deal with people that aggressively text behind the wheel is intriguing.)
A good friend lawyer told me long ago - do not talk to a policeman and if you suspect a stranger asking you questions is an officer, ask. You have ZERO idea what they may be investigating, what facts they are looking to verify or how much pressure they are under to come up with a suspect.
The Flock cameras fall directly into the same category. I think ZERO information should be available to local, state or federal police without a warrant. I don't believe a single judge should have the ability to issue that warrant without a review by a citizen panel.
Can my driving my similar car thru the same track possibly taken by someone who committed a crime make me the only suspect police can come up with and put me into a position of having to prove my innocence?
In a society with a political party driving us ever closer to a possible position of having to retake our government thru force, can we allow them to establish even more surveillance over us?
The fact that Flock cameras can help get the bad guys is irrelevant. Having government surveillance cameras and audio recording devices in every room of every person’s home in America could probably solve some crimes as well. If you can’t see that these Flock (and Axon and other similar) camera surveillance networks deny our inalienable rights, then you need to stop writing as if you know what you are talking about, and hit the books again.
Siri is gathering data on everyone who has it. The surveillance people invite into their lives is never questioned. Your internet service provider knows more about you than your parents, spouse, and friends.
If the benefits outweigh the problems, let’s put cameras in our homes, in our bedrooms, in our bathrooms, in our cars*. Let’s ramp up airport security. Let’s impose automatic fines on people rolling stop signs or going one mph above the speed limit. Let’s have those fines automatically charged to their credit cards…
*I know, I know…
They're not bad they are horrible and intolerable and are integral to the
What You Need to Know About the Burgeoning Binary Dialectic, Digital ID Enslavement Grid: https://tritorch.substack.com/p/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-burgeoning
Never give the .gov this total level of control over you because On the throne of the world, any delusion can become fact.
Treat Flock database inquiry as a search warrant - require the enquirer have sufficient information to justify the search. Have monthly access reports signed-off by senior officers. Lock Flock cameras down the same way other law enforcement databases are, with an ID and password, and report on usage vs justification.
Law enforcement has lots of tools that can be misused - controlling the exposure is what makes these tools useful and believable. The Flock camera is that kind of tool. If use is not tightly controlled, Flock cameras are not Constitutional.
Your point that poorly outlined and controlled actions within law enforcement and the justice system quickly becomes unconstitutional. This is the the crux of the topic. That’s why moral consensus is so important. We have lost a lot of that through secularization of the American culture.
The answer of wether this technology is or isn't good or evil isn't complicated or hard to understand.
Like all technological and industrial change, depending on the human influences it can be both good or bad for other humans.
Data centers are exactly the same question at present. Nuclear power went through this in the 1970's also and humans chose the wrong direction then.
"And studying the record, I cannot tell you whether Flock is a net good or a net evil. I genuinely do not know."
For me, the question isn't whether the cameras provide useful data. They do, as Mr. Muse has conveniently summarized. The question isn't if the cameras can be abused by nefarious individuals, duh, of course obviously they can and will be abused.
The question is, why are we allowing government surveillance of public spaces at scale? It seems other commenters share this concern. How is this different than living under the UK CCTV regime? The fig leaf that Flock isn't technically a government entity doesn't soothe me at all.
If we can't move freely about our environment without being surveilled then what exactly is Liberty?
If Flock isn't exactly Big Brother, what is it?
What about a world where crime is actually prosecuted. The country would be once again safe to roam, and demand for flock cameras (by those who prefer safety to freedom) would become negligible.
Mistakes were made…
If the Nazis had come into power in a state that had flock cameras, instead of 6 million Jews, it would have been an extinction event. Despite any possible positives, the negatives that can, and will eventually will come out of a government mass surveillance system outweigh the positives. What if a crime occurs in New York and the cameras capture a certain number of cars that went by the location of the crime. And the current Mayor decides he’s going to check all the cars owned by Jewish people first. Send police to their door. And maybe an O was mistaken for a zero and an innocent Jewish family spends time in jail or gets their front door pounded down by armed men. There is so much ability for misuse. And it’s already been proven that it occurs.
Honest assessment. Thank you.
I don't believe a monopoly provider of services (government police with their public sector unions) can ever appropriately punish the transgressions you document. Until that problem gets fixed, this is too nefarious a technology to be allowed.
Good news is that there are a thousand other reasons to fix that problem. Abolish police unions. Gut qualified immunity. Punish cops for crimes and end this "rules for thee, but not for me" culture of corruption.
Thanks again for a great article.