Concerns About Surveillance in America

As we approach the 25th anniversary of September 11, 2001, I want to defend freedom, not from a political stance, but as a Coloradan, a mom, and a grandma who values the liberties that define our nation. Fixed license plate reader cameras are steadily transforming our streets into areas of ongoing surveillance. These systems continuously scan and archive vehicle plates, tracking time, location, and travel habits. In many communities, this setup has expanded without clear legal authorization, transparent democratic boundaries, or the individualized suspicion that usually calls for a warrant. It seems to be happening almost without anyone noticing. The result? A growing database of our everyday movements—where we work, pray, shop, and take our kids—compiled without anyone’s permission.

Since that tragic day, Americans have been asked time and again to surrender bits of their liberty in exchange for promises of safety. The Patriot Act and similar measures have expanded government surveillance powers in ways that would have likely been rejected by previous generations. Many of these actions were taken with good intentions. The justification commonly offered is, “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to worry about.” This phrase has morphed into a soft excuse for hard reductions in privacy. It shifts the burden onto individuals to justify their freedom instead of requiring the government to explain its need to intrude. That’s not how the Constitution is supposed to work.

Automatic license plate readers amplify this logic. Fixed camera networks view the public as a sea of potential data points. Patterns of our daily lives are recorded and stored, sometimes for many months or even years. When concerns are raised by citizens or lawmakers, the responses are often more emotional than constitutional. Critiquing these systems is seen as not supporting law enforcement. Let me clarify: I back the police unreservedly. I’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with officers, championed their rights to do their work, and pushed back against damaging rhetoric that jeopardizes both law enforcement and the communities they serve. Supporting our police doesn’t mean giving up the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. My mission is freedom, and having cameras on every corner tracking free people isn’t freedom. It’s the opposite.

The situation becomes even more concerning when the data is misused beyond legitimate law enforcement. Information often gets widely shared, kept far longer than necessary, and in some instances, it’s accessible to government agencies through commercial data vendors. When the movements of millions of Americans become a product that enriches a few while cataloging the many, we’ve crossed from ensuring public safety to profiting from liberty itself. Everyday folks become the product in this scenario. That’s not protecting freedom; it’s manipulating it.

We only need to look at Hong Kong for a warning. During the major pro-democracy protests from 2019 to 2020, authorities aggressively employed surveillance technologies. Protesters dismantled cameras, obscured lenses with paint or plastic, and used umbrellas and lasers to block them, fearing they were being monitored. Hong Kong police employed AI facial recognition tools, and the crackdown that followed just accelerated the spread of camera networks modeled after mainland China’s high-tech surveillance system.

Americans shouldn’t wait until such systems are firmly established here before calling for accountability.

Companies like Flock Safety have brought attention to the widespread installation of these systems, but they’re not the only players in this space. Many manufacturers develop and sell such technologies, making the issue larger than any one company. To address the problem, we need to limit federal grant funding for purchasing these camera networks, tighten laws to mandate warrants, regulate data retention, prohibit commercial sale of this information, and raise public awareness about how their daily freedoms are being jeopardized.

This shouldn’t be viewed as a partisan concern. I’m not against the use of useful technology in valid investigations. Targeted, warrant-based use of license plate data can be beneficial in solving crimes and safeguarding the public. What we must reject is the quiet normalization of fixed, perpetual camera networks that treat every driver as a potential subject whose movements must be documented “just in case.” This mindset inverts the proper dynamic between citizen and state. It assumes the government can gather information first and rationalize later—an assumption that contradicts the Fourth Amendment.

I stand with law enforcement. Yet I stand even firmer with the Constitution. Continuous monitoring of free Americans without warrants and without democratic approval doesn’t align with that standard. We can ensure public safety while still preserving our right to live unmonitored lives. Striking that balance isn’t just possible; it’s vital for the meaning of liberty for generations to come.