For years, Americans have been reassured that the surge of AI surveillance cameras is harmless, primarily aimed at locating stolen vehicles or supporting crime-solving efforts. The prevailing notion is that if you haven’t done anything wrong, there’s nothing to fear.
However, a recent comment from the CEO of Flock Safety, a major player in AI surveillance, raises some significant concerns.
In a Forbes interview last year, Garrett Langley referred to a group known as DeFlock—volunteers mapping the locations of Flock’s license plate readers—as a “terrorist organization.” He went on to liken them to other advocacy groups like the ACLU, emphasizing that their goals supposedly aim for chaos.
Let’s pause and reflect on that.
Citizen Terrorists?
DeFlock’s mission is to chart the placement of surveillance cameras that are publicly visible throughout communities. Flock argues that disclosure of these locations could allow criminals to evade capture. Conversely, DeFlock believes citizens have a right to be informed about where government surveillance technologies are operational. There’s room for debate on that, but labeling transparency advocates as “terrorists” takes the conversation to a different level.
This is particularly noteworthy coming from the head of a company that thrives on the collection and analysis of extensive location data. Langley chose to use terms typically associated with violent extremism, indicating how the surveillance sector perceives critiques of its practices.
Additionally, Langley stated, “We’re not forcing Flock on anyone.”
Really?
No Choice
Americans haven’t had a direct say in the installation of AI-enhanced surveillance systems in their neighborhoods. They never voted to implement a system that can monitor vehicle movements across cities. They didn’t opt-in for technologies that, have evolved significantly beyond simple license plate recognition. Modern systems can capture details such as vehicle make, model, color, and even more intricate features, even when the license plate isn’t visible. Each technological advancement builds on the last, becoming increasingly sophisticated.
This goes well beyond mere crime-solving; it’s about developing an intricate understanding of vehicle traffic patterns and harnessing AI to interpret them. Thus, transparency is crucial. If taxpayer funds are being allocated for these cameras, shouldn’t the public have a right to know where they are installed? That’s what DeFlock is addressing. Yet, questioning this somehow brands them as “terrorists.”
The surveillance industry seems reticent to address this. The core of the controversy isn’t only Langley’s comments but rather the philosophy that drives this technology.
If someone creates a map of surveillance cameras, it’s not the camera that’s the issue. What about the entities recording the data? It seems the debate has shifted from whether enhanced surveillance should be scrutinized to whether those voicing concerns are considered a threat. This reversal merits concern among anyone who stands for accountability.
Growing Frustration
Frustration is on the rise. Across the nation, people are taking action against surveillance cameras. While Flock operates only in the U.S., similar movements can be seen worldwide, particularly in London, France, and Italy.
Let me be clear: vandalizing public or private property is unlawful, and I do not condone it. However, these actions illuminate a critical issue: many feel these surveillance systems are being forced upon them without genuine public discussion. Ignoring this sentiment won’t make it disappear, and dubbing critics as “terrorists” isn’t the solution.
It’s ironic that the surveillance industry often claims these systems foster trust and safety in communities. But trust can’t be built through silence and marginalization of those who seek clarity on privacy, accountability, and governmental oversight. Trust grows from transparency, which seems to be dwindling.
Just Ask
Americans can indeed support law enforcement while also believing that mass surveillance should have restrictions. They can advocate for the capture of violent offenders while asking crucial questions: Who owns the data? Who can access it? How long is it stored? Should AI be allowed to track their daily movements without their awareness? These aren’t radical inquiries. They’re exactly the types of questions that a free society ought to engage with.
Langley’s remarks may have been intended as a defense of his company, yet they inadvertently exposed a prevailing attitude: many Americans seem more apprehensive about questioning the system than about its expansion. He verbalized the underlying tensions that matter, as history shows that accepting widespread surveillance as normal rarely reverses.
So, to reiterate: we didn’t vote for these surveillance cameras. And suggesting that asking about their locations makes us the villains is no small matter.
I’m beginning to think I’m a “terrorist” merely for discussing these issues.
