The people behind the Flock cameras that I talked about a month ago have not stopped trying to erect a total roadway surveillance state.
Pairing traffic cameras with artificial intelligence, the company behind the cameras provides a complete spy system, tracking drivers’ and automobiles every move. At least, they are trying. They have enough data to cook up a transportation profile on you right now, at least if you drive through the cities and freeways where Flock cameras are pointed
The fact that the police with access to Flock’s database cannot keep their hands off the data is just the tip of the goosefeather.
Musician, technology maven, and YouTuber Benn Jordan decided to test Flock Safety, to see if what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. So he registered as a journalist to attend Flock Forward 2026, the company’s swag-pushing, PowerPoint-heavy convention. But he was rebuffed: no journalists allowed. Not only barred from the convention floor, the good geese at Flock so feared exposure that they had the Hilton he had registered at cancel his reservation!
Using his technological expertise, Mr. Jordan recorded Internet traffic and open-mic conversations as well as — and this is genius — used a.i. face-recognition to answer Juvenal’s challenge, “who will watch the watchers”: he watched, finding policemen, politicians, businessmen and a former Minnesota state senator amongst the gaggle.
We are told that we have no expectation of privacy on public roads. But is a Flock of a.i.-backed cameras the kind of thing we want spying on us, tracking our every move?
While we say that “it’s only a conspiracy if they do it in secret,” what is it when the people who seek to destroy the last vestiges of our privacy demand their own privacy even as they plot against us?
Not good. That’s what.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Nano Banana
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
3 replies on “Goose/Gander/Flock”
How many vehicles have GPS? Can’t GPS be used to track your vehicle’s every move? How many criminals have been tracked down because of data saved by their i-phone? Just about anyone with a smartphone is under surveillance of one form or another. All of our data is being captured and stored, thanks to our desire for instant access..
Pat, use of GPS itself doesn’t transmit the user’s location, it merely accepts data from which the user device can infer location. Use of a cellular phone set does provide approximate location, and programs on phone sets can transmit precise locational data inferred from GPS; a cellular set with its battery removed or in a Faraday cage is neutralized. Telematic systems such as OnStar give-away everything, including the direction in which a parked car is pointed.
Far too many victims of government schooling that don’t have the baseline training anymore to grasp the language of the Constitution. (Written for 8th grade level of the time)
And many are inclined to quote the Supremes out of context where they said there is no expectation of privacy in public.
The exact case that said no expectation of privacy in public also stated explicity that dragnet surveillance is not covered under that “in public” exception. They were only able to rule on the case before them, but clearly stated that they weren’t yet addressing 24/7 monitoring
Folks only quote the first part, to shove mass surveillance down our throat, while failing (or intentionally neglecting) to show the the rest of the same exact court ruling.
Here is the quote…
“If such dragnet-type law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occur, there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable.” Which means that they explicitly WEREN’T covering that. Because that was a totally different problem.
Very clearly, it broaches the constitutional guarantees of being secure in one’s persons and effects to have a government proxy recording you everywhere the minute you are visible outside your home.
Very clearly.
That “time enough then” is here, now.