Flock Cameras: A Government Tool to Stop Crime or an Abdication of Liberty

How much of our personal freedom are we willing to surrender in the name of public safety—and who gets to decide when enough is enough? Who gets to say what safe is and who gets to say safe from what?

________________________________________

WHEN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC BECOMES MONITORING THE PUBLIC

________________________________________

There is a point at which protecting the public crosses the line into monitoring the public, and I believe Flock cameras have brought us dangerously close to that line. Cameras at this level represent an abdication of personal rights for the supposed greater good, and I don't believe there is another definition that accurately describes what we are allowing to happen.

We are told, as we have been told so many times before, “If you are not doing anything wrong, why would you care?” Well, perhaps we should care because what is considered “wrong” is not a permanent definition. What is considered acceptable today may not be considered acceptable tomorrow.

Laws change, political administrations change, power structures change, and the people who control government change. When we voluntarily give government the power to watch, track and record the movements of ordinary citizens, we trust not only the people who hold that power today, but every person who may hold that power in the future. That is where my concern begins. Then lets take the next step AI, then what, like drones armed cameras.

________________________________________

WHO DEFINES WHAT IS “WRONG”?

________________________________________

Look at the headlines of today there are places a man is a woman and he can play against other women in sports, drag queens get invited into your schools to read to children, teachers can teach communism, encourage children they are a different gender than they were born without parental knowledge, people who illegally broke into our country are taken care of better than veterans who fought for our country or old people just trying to survive.

We had a communist president in Obama, we had President Biden who is so mentally weak that he was controlled by other people, we have a media that protects all of this corruption, and you think you can trust your government?

________________________________________

CAN WE TRUST TECHNOLOGY?

________________________________________

I guess you think you can trust tech company’s billionaires too, the ones who tell you they won’t branch off your video data and use it. The same people who everyone knows already do, from your phones, computers and every electronic device you own, you know the same tech companies that just settled a 17-billion-dollar suit for knowingly developing a system that is addictive and harmful to children. The same tech companies that time and time again seem to wander into joint ventures with the government. Not to mention the same companies that were or are in bed with China.

How about data centers flooding every city in America, I have not completed my research to date, when I have, I will write about that. I will say that it is another example of marriage between tech and government. The reason I haven’t made up my mind yet is because it is very difficult to get real facts even though these data centers are all over….

________________________________________

WHERE IS THE DATA?

________________________________________

Where is the data for people to evaluate. I don’t mean some self-serving information campaign from the government or tech companies, I mean facts, I mean reports from common people who already live around them. We are told its China paying for misinformation, we are told there is nothing to see here. I have been working on this and I feel the exact same way I felt at the beginning of Covid.

How about AI that admittedly has a liberal foundation that no one seems concerned about, or even an imaginary Bit Coin, an electronic funding source that they say can be trusted, not because it is a finite resource like gold or silver. It is an electronic system developed with numbers. We were all taught that numbers are infinite. No, we are told we can trust it because people promise they will only make so much. Remember when they told us you social security dollars are in a lock box? How about when we went off the gold standard they said why would we just print dollars.

________________________________________

I DON'T BLINDLY TRUST GOVERNMENT

________________________________________

I like this administration and support most of what they do, But I do not blindly follow or trust any administration. I also clearly see the other powers working in the shadows around us. Even a good government can get bad information and be fooled. History is full of examples, and each citizen should recognize that even if it is your choice of governments today, it may not be tomorrow.

This isn’t about trusting a government, this is about letting your government shred the constitution that is the foundational system this nation has thrived under for 250 years. This is about allowing you government powers that they will abuse at some point. History shows us that lines can be crossed that can never be reversed and I fear this is one of those lines.

________________________________________

TODAY'S GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS ARE NOT THE GUARANTEE OF TOMORROW

________________________________________

Supporters of expanded surveillance frequently point to the intentions of the people administering it today. They tell us these cameras are designed to catch criminals, solve crimes and make communities safer. That could be code for a party not in power that knows it cannot pass laws that are using their off time to seize more power during an administration they know you trust. Remember my articles about how the communist left is taking power from inside your local governments. Why is it always a company making the money or the governments getting something they want reporting about these things and never the citizens who live with it.

I don't dispute that cameras can help solve crimes. That isn't the question. The question is whether government should be given increasingly powerful tools and worse yet increased unfettered authority to monitor innocent citizens simply because those tools might help catch criminals. Those are two very different questions. I realize cameras have solved many crimes however most were private cameras owned by citizens. That makes it very different.

________________________________________

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

________________________________________

There is a constitutional question here. In my opinion these cameras violate amendment 4 and 5 of the constitution of the United States of America. Where are the new constitutional amendments that state our system or our constitution changed? Where is the law that backs up the change in power government claims to have. This is an example of our government, mostly local, taking the power they want, not what the constitution allows. The very nature of this constant bombardment of actions from governments that force people to stop governments from seizing more power must be questioned.

________________________________________

THE PATRIOT ACT SHOULD HAVE TAUGHT US SOMETHING

________________________________________

The problem is that surveillance powers, much like the powers granted under the Patriot Act, are only as good and as safe as the people administering them. I remember arguing about the Patriot Act more than two decades ago. I warned people at the time that once government acquired extraordinary powers in the name of protecting Americans, those powers would be extremely difficult to take back, I told them they were unconstitutional powers that would be abused, but I was told not to worry. I was told there were safeguards. I was told the Patriot Act would sunset in three years. But it didn’t.

The government powers have a remarkable way of becoming permanent once government has them. That should make every American stop and think before we casually surrender another piece of our privacy or our constitutional rights because we are promised that it is necessary for our protection.

The phrase “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” sounds reasonable until you actually stop and think about what it means. The question isn't whether I am committing a crime. The question is whether I should need to prove that I am not committing a crime simply because the government has the technological ability to watch me. Remember the term crime can be a moving target.

________________________________________

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

________________________________________

There is a fundamental difference between investigating someone when there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and collecting information on everyone in the hope that the information might eventually become useful. Then we must ask, useful to whom?

That distinction matters. A free society should not begin with the assumption that its citizens need to be monitored; it should begin with the assumption that its citizens are free and innocent. That is not some radical concept. It is one of the founding principles upon which this country was founded. That is the guarantee of the constitution.

Why should a government be able to encroach on your rights when it was the government that the founding fathers were trying to control. Your right to being innocent until proven guilty is part of the 5th. 6th and 14th amendment of our constitution. Why should you lose the assumption of innocence just to prove someone else’s guilt.

________________________________________

TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT DEFINE FREEDOM

________________________________________

We are told that technology has changed, crime has changed, and therefore government must change with it. Perhaps there is some truth to that argument, but technology does not determine what is right or wrong. People do.

And people in positions of political power can change the rules, the definitions, and the ideologies they accept. No matter what side you are on, you have witnessed that we are one election away from complete change. There is a constitutional path to make such changes, if it is truth why don’t they use that path.

________________________________________

ARE WE REALLY SAFER?

________________________________________

This brings me to the question I believe we should actually be asking: Are we really safer?

If Americans lived for generations without this level of surveillance, why have we suddenly decided that surrendering more rights and privacy is the answer to our problems? If we are giving government more surveillance powers in exchange for greater safety, shouldn't we be able to demonstrate that the trade-off is actually working? Let’s see the results, not media propaganda built on lack of reporting.

Because something doesn't add up. In cities across the nation, we continue to see serious crimes. We continue to see government corruption. We continue to see Americans increasingly distrust the institutions that are supposed to serve them. All at record levels. Yet the answer seems to repeatedly be the same: give government more authority, give government more information, give government more technology and give government more ability to watch ordinary citizens, all at the price of our rights, bought and paid for by increased taxation of the citizens.

________________________________________

FEAR HAS ALWAYS BEEN A POWERFUL POLITICAL TOOL

________________________________________

History teaches us something else that Americans should never forget, fear is a powerful political tool. It is remarkably easy for government to create or exploit situations that make people afraid enough to surrender rights they would never willingly surrender under normal circumstances.

Fear changes the equation. When people are frightened, they will often accept things they would otherwise reject. They will accept restrictions. They will accept surveillance. They will accept government authority. And they will accept it because they are told it is temporary, necessary and for their own protection.

But temporary government powers have a troubling tendency to become permanent and don’t forget throughout history government lies.

________________________________________

LIBERTY MATTERS TOO

________________________________________

This is ultimately what my objection to Flock cameras comes down to. I am not arguing that criminals should not be caught. I am not arguing that law enforcement should not use technology. I am certainly not arguing that public safety doesn't matter.

I am arguing that liberty matters too. I am arguing that government and media manipulation is real, I am arguing that someone’s definition of safety should not be allowed to override the constitutional rights of all of us.

There must be a line between legitimate law enforcement and a society in which innocent citizens are routinely tracked simply because technology makes it possible. We should not confuse the ability to do something with the justification for doing it. Just because technology makes it possible for a government to monitor more of our lives does not automatically mean government should. Even more importantly just because they can, does not mean we should allow it, no matter how it is defined, explained, or rationalized.

Just because you could, maybe even would sleep with your neighbor’s hot wife, does not mean you get too. This intrusion is no different. Ability does not equal permission.

________________________________________

THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ANSWER

________________________________________

Do we want to live in a country where government investigates people because there is evidence of wrongdoing, or one where technology allows government to track everyone simply because it can?

Do we believe freedom means being left alone unless there is a legitimate reason for government intervention, after following the constitutional process or do we believe freedom now comes with the condition that government can watch us as long as it promises to use the information responsibly? “The TRUST ME government”

History is steeped in stories of government promises to be fair, to do what the citizens want, while they disarmed them, took their property rights, held them as prisoners and indeed killed them for their refusal to comply.

I want to ask one last question for everyone to think about. Why would the government be placing these surveillance tools during a time we all know society is being turned over to AI. No matter what side you are on, even if you trust the people in charge now, even if you believe human nature allows you trust the next generation of people who come to power, do you trust the machines that someday will outpace the humans that made them?