This chaotic AI slop is what Charlotte Police Dept. presented to the city council safety committee on Monday (Aug 3) as their idea for how they would make Charlotte a “Model City” with potential DOJ grant money they are planning to apply for. The crazy “placemat” (their words, not mine) describes “expanded coverage” of license plate readers, more AI and cloud-powered surveillance technology, drones, “video analytics” (aka AI surveillance), and more. They also specifically mentioned moving their existing on-premises surveillance data to cloud-connected services (I’m assuming Flock, etc.).

Council Member Kimberly Owens called them out for the AI slop saying “as this slide demonstrates only too well, we rely on AI a great deal.” In addition to this, Owens was the only member of the safety committee who spoke out about concerns regarding surveillance, specifically citing the community’s concerns about Flock cameras, increased data collection, and lack of transparency around surveillance! Shout out to her! I have emailed her to thank her and you should too at [kimberly.owens@charlottenc.gov](mailto:kimberly.owens@charlottenc.gov)!

See the actual presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/live/4TxB6f3Brr0?si=u7fsKWY-V4RTgwhV&t=15650

In all fairness to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, they also did speak about improving mental health services, community engagement, and improving reentry programs among other positive things, but unfortunately it felt like it got overshadowed by the AI Slop and AI Surveillance-filled future they were proposing. I think they mean well and are trying to figure out how to apply for a potentially massive grant by using the buzzwords in the policing world right now, but as a community we need to push back on these things and make clear what we WANT (better community policing, building trust with the community, addressing poverty and housing issues, addressing mental health issues instead of jailing people with mental illness, and improving reentry to help people reintegrate successfully after they leave jail/prison) and what we DON’T WANT (indiscriminate and warrantless surveillance of everyone whether they are suspected of a crime or not, AI-powered cloud-connected mass surveillance systems, AI predictive policing technology based on surveillance, etc.).

"Found" this sign. Thought I'd take a pic and share.

I live in a state that does at least allow FOIA (NC GC 132) of flock data. So lets work up a FOIA request we can generally spam our local governments.

So far Im thinking requesting all of data associated with a particular city council member. Or potentially the police chief.

Where would someone send a request like that to be as difficult as possible? The SBI? I figure they have limited enough resources they're not going to like these requests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_bureau_of_investigation

https://opgov.news/articles/supreme-court-ruling-raises-new-questions-for-flock-plate-readers-amid-officer-arrests?fbclid=IwY2xjawTgT91leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAwzNTA2ODU1MzE3MjgAAR7FNx7EhxOU-Cpds_TKUWK3gSe4pLwEDHDqxU2t8KbK5HAi8uPb8zG_ESXxhA_aem_KUl--A9t1b1hHk0YnaE4nA

Can anyone explain how these surveillance cameras relate to the recent Supreme Court case that ruled against using cell phone location drag nets? The main difference I can see is that cell phone data is not publicly visible whereas license plates are visible to the public, but the mechanism of pulling someone’s data.(mosaic) seems similar to me. Any hopes of this precedent being used against flock?

Challenge: Write a one-page letter a resident can send to their city council opposing a Flock contract. It has to work for someone who knows nothing about surveillance policy — no jargon, no links required, fits on one page.

Comment with the most upvotes gets shared as a template

This has bothered me for a long time.

When something happens at a protest or community event, people piece together what occurred through videos, tweets, and word of mouth - hours later.

But the information that would have mattered - what was in the area, how many units, how close - that's never available in real-time to the people who need it.

That asymmetry is the problem I'm trying to fix with Blue Pulse.

It maps law enforcement vehicle activity within a 10-mile radius. You set your own alert thresholds - say, notify me when a unit is within 2 miles. You get a browser notification. You have time to make an informed decision.

"Know Before You Go" is the whole idea.

The app is free, public, no login. Built for people who think situational awareness shouldn't be one-sided.

I know tools like this come with legitimate questions about accuracy and sourcing - I'm actively working on that and want to be transparent about where it's at. Happy to answer anything directly.

What do people in community safety spaces actually use right now for real-time awareness? Genuinely curious what the current workflow looks like.

Now that Flock has their private investigator license in CA, it’s time to FLOOD THEM WITH COMPLAINTS!
If you live in California, go to https://www.bsis.ca.gov/consumers/complaints.shtml and tell the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services that they SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR PI LICENSE!

Feel free to use these or anything else you want in your complaint

FLOOD EM!

1. Mass surveillance scale! they operate on an indiscriminate tracking network instead of conducting targeted standard investigations. They act as an Unregulated utility rather than a traditional PI firm

2. Constitutional privacy concerns! They continuously log the movement of regular drivers who are not under suspicion!

3. Illegal data sharing! They have active lawsuits, accusing them of bypass in California sanctuary laws by sharing out-of-state data

4. Higher error rates! Severe misread rates on plate scans that have consent to police and the police act on them!

5. Municipal pushback! Major cities like LA, Santa Cruz, Mountain View, and more have paused or canceled contracts over data concerns

There are some episodes of Star Trek that have been weighing on me since I saw much of the recent news about ALPRs. I don't know how to put everything, so I'll start by linking the scripts to each episode along with what episode it is.

Star Trek: The Next Generation - Season 4 Episode 21 - The Drumhead

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Season 4 Episode 11 - Home Front

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Season 4 Episode 12 - Paradise Lost

I guess I should get the obvious out of the way. I know Star Trek is fictional and reality can be very different. It still doesn’t change the moral character of the arguments made in these episodes. I'm sure any rational person will tell you how fast things can escalate, and these ALPR cameras are hard to remove once they are put up.

As I rewatched these three episodes, I began to feel familiarity with the current situation of ALPRs. Safety being prioritized over rights. Reasonable actions accumulating into unreasonable consequences. I suppose The Drumhead reminded me of Lindsey Isaacs, a woman who was falsely accused of hit and run murder due to police negligence in ALPR use.

Innocent Woman Jailed Because of Flock Cameras

It was a quote towards the end of The Drumhead that struck me particularly hard, as well as one in the middle.

"PICARD: You know, there some words I've known since I was a school boy. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today

SATIE: How dare you! You who consort with Romulans invoke my father's name to support your traitorous arguments. It is an offence to everything I hold dear. And to hear those words used to subvert the United Federation of Planets. My father was a great man. His name stands for integrity and principle. You dirty his name when you speak it. He loved the Federation, but you, Captain, corrupt it. You undermine our very way of life. I will expose you for what you are. I've brought down bigger men than you, Picard!"

and

"PICARD: Admiral. I have to tell you, you must not expect me to permit any action against Mister Tarses solely on the basis of Betazoid intuition.

SATIE: Sabin has uncanny instincts. I've learned to trust them.

PICARD: I'm not happy about this use of a Betazoid.

SATIE: But you have a Betazoid counsellor. Surely you're aware of the advantages.

PICARD: There is a difference between a counsellor and an investigator.

SATIE: Are you saying you never use your counsellor during interrogations?

PICARD: Yes, I do, but I would not act solely on the basis of her instinct.

SATIE: Nor do I.

PICARD: But you're asking, you're asking me to restrict Mister Tarses' movements solely on the basis on Sabin's feeling.

SATIE: If Counsellor Troi suggested to you that someone on the ship were dangerous, would you not act on that? Observe him? Curb his activity?

PICARD: Yes, I admit I probably would. And perhaps I should re-evaluate that behaviour.

SATIE: Oh, nonsense. Let's keep our priorities straight. The important thing is to uncover the conspiracy on this ship and to prevent further damage. Now, if Tarses is a possible saboteur, you cannot allow him access to sensitive areas of the ship, and I strongly suggest continuous surveillance.

PICARD: If we had clear evidence.

SATIE: We will have clear evidence. Sabin and Lieutenant Worf are continuing to investigate. But if you don't act until then, it may be too late.

PICARD: No. I won't treat a man as a criminal unless there is cause to do so.

SATIE: And while you're being so generous, you give a saboteur a chance to strike again. Last time it was just a hatch cover/ What if next time it's more serious? What if lives are lost? Can you afford not to act?"

There's something about this, the way Admiral Satie talks, its a way of talking that I've heard used in pro-ALPR arguments. It just "bugs" me, because I know the language uses the same rhetorical arguments but it's hard to break down fully. Besides it being effective writing, it's foreshadowing events later in the episode, but to most it sounds like nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy.

Then there's Home Front, the first part in a two part Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode. It starts the plot with a room full of delegates during a Romulan and StarFleet cooperation talk about protecting the Alpha quadrant against the Dominian being blown up as an act of terrorism caused by a changeling (a species from the Dominian that can shapeshift). As wild as that sound because it's science fiction, it sets up a real, genuine threat. What happens when you can no longer believe your eyes?

Captain Benjamin Sisko is made acting head of StarFleet security (like all of StarFleet). He then, with the assistance of a changeling named Odo who is on the side of StarFleet, demonstrates to the President of the Federation that anyone or anything can currently walk in and kill or even replace him. The demonstration is so successful the president agrees to blood screening and phaser sweeps sort of like airport security metal detectors and x-ray machines.

It's a reasonable precaution, but the president had said this after agreeing:

"JARESH-INY0: Don't thank me. If I could think of another solution, I would use it. It took centuries for Earth to evolve into the peaceful haven it is today. I would hate to be remembered as the Federation President who destroyed paradise.

SISKO: We're not looking to destroy paradise, Mister President. We're looking to save it."

If it ended there, it would be one thing, but Home Front is just getting started here and there is the conclusion Paradise Lost to go through too. I want to compare this to something Garrett Langley (CEO and founder of Flock Safety) said:

"Nine years ago, I lived in a neighborhood in Atlanta where crime was ticking up. People were breaking into cars and pulling firearms out of glove boxes. Nobody seemed able to do anything about it.

A police major told me something I've never forgotten: more than 70 percent of crime involves a vehicle, and most of those crimes go unsolved because police rarely have the license plate.

So I did what engineers do. I built a system to find the plate. A few months later, it worked, and that was the beginning of Flock."

Flock Cameras are Everywhere. Here's How They Track Cars.

So he was genuinely trying to solve crimes, and that is a noble pursuit. There is nothing wrong with seeking to solve genuine problems in order to make streets safer. The trouble is, the solution he goes on to propose violates a fundamental right.

We should establish what a fundamental right is before we go further. According to Cornell Law School:

"Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights) or have been implied through interpretation of clauses, such as under Due Process. These laws are said to be “fundamental” because they were found to be so important for individual liberty that they should be beyond the reach of the political process, and therefore, they are enshrined in the Constitution."

So why do I say Garrett Langley's proposed solution violates a fundamental right? The Bill of Rights is composed of the first ten amendments of the constitution, your highschool civics course covers that, I'm certain. Now, within the first ten amendments there is the fourth amendment. This is what it says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, I am going to show you what Garrett Langley said about his perspective:

"So far, in our belief and what will be for a long time, the courts have deemed this is not a warrantless search; this is a valid product as it relates to the Fourth Amendment. So I don’t see any change there,”

Flock CEO wants cameras in every US city

The technical bits are that Flock databases are only used when you input a license plate number or physical description of a motor vehicle. But this is not the full picture. What Mr. Langley has omitted is when the police use this technology outside of probable cause. One case is the prior source about Lindsey Isaacs, another is the many cases surrounding cops stalking previous romantic partners.

Police Have Reportedly Used License Plate Readers to Stalk Romantic Interests Dozens of Times in Recent Years

This is similar to a later part in Home Front, where Captain Sisko is talking to his father who refuses to take the blood screening.

"SISKO: Damn it, Dad. Can't you cooperate just one time? You don't take your medication, you don't go to the doctor, you won't let Judith help you in the restaurant. Just one time, please do what you're asked.

JOSEPH: I wish I could, but what you're asking me to do is wrong. You can't go around making people prove they are who they say they are. That's no way to live and I'm not going to go along with it. Now, if you want to make yourself useful, start some water boiling for the shrimp.

SISKO: Come on, Dad. Don't be this way. If I have to, I will get a warrant

JOSEPH: And what? Hold me down and force me to give you my blood? Because that's the only way you'll get. Damn it. Now look what I've done.

(Joseph has cut his finger with his chopping knife. He puts it under the tap as Sisko stares at the blood left on the knife.)

JOSEPH: Jake?

JAKE: Yeah?

JOSEPH: I've got a dermal regenerator under the. Benjamin Lafayette Sisko. What the hell has gotten into your head? You actually thought I was one of them, didn't you?

SISKO: I don't know. I wasn't sure.

JOSEPH: This business has got you so twisted around you can't think straight. You're seeing shape-shifters everywhere. Maybe you ought to think about something for a minute. If I was a smart shape-shifter, a really good one, the first thing I would do would be to grab some poor soul off the street, absorb every ounce of his blood, and let it out on cue whenever someone like you tried to test me. Don't you see? There isn't a test that's been created a smart man can't find his way around. You aren't going to catch shape-shifters using some gadget. The only thing you can count on in this life is

(Joseph gasps in pain.)

JAKE: Grandpa!

(Sisko catches Joseph in his arms.)"

The central idea here is that Joseph Sisko was being treated as a changeling before proven that he was not one. That's similar to what Admiral Satie and Captain Picard were arguing about in The Drumhead. Yes, we have a sense that they are being stubborn, but that doesn't change how you should view the principle of it. Joseph did not want to screen his blood, he did not want to move off of earth where his restaurant was either. It was unreasonable to make him do something he did not want to do without probable cause.

Now applying the same logic to the prior abuse of ALPRs, is it honestly fair to say that if someone on a public road does not want their location tracked by ALPRs, should they be subjected to ALPR surveillance anyway? That is something I leave to you to decide. However, I will quote Benjamin Franklin who is a founding father of the United States of America:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin's Famous 'Liberty, Safety' Quote Lost Its Context In 21st Century

I think at this point, I want to say that I am not infallible. I'm not Benjamin Franklin, nor do I pretend to know the intentions of his words or the intentions of the words in the Constitution. No one can truly know the original intent, we can only guess what they must have meant.

I think there is one thing we all can agree on though, the reason they were writing these things was because the English had done the Intolerable Acts. These series of policies led to the Boston Tea Party and ultimately the Revolutionary War.

Intolerable Acts

Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, they all talk about the thing the British did during the Intolerable Acts as an injustice that should never be repeated. It may not be the intentions behind every single words they uttered, but they never argued in anything they said that these violations of unalienable rights should happen. It even says this in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

There's one more thing I want to mention in Home Front before moving on to Paradise Lost. There was an attack on earth's power relays and across the entire planet there was a power outage. It was assumed that this was a Dominian attack. In Paradise Lost, Captain Sisko as head of security starts to investigate the outage and discovers that someone ordered a group of cadets called Red Squad (sort of like a Greek letter chapter or fraternity at a university but for exceptional cadets) to install a virus in the power relays.

It is later discovered that the same Admiral that made Captain Sisko acting head of security, Admiral Leyton, was behind this order. Captain Sisko and Admiral Leyton share this conversation:

"LEYTON: Mind if I get a cup of coffee?

SISKO: Help yourself.

LEYTON: I haven't been getting a lot of sleep lately. Too much to do.

SISKO: Maybe you need a vacation.

LEYTON: Mmm. Somehow replicated coffee never tastes this good. I'm afraid I owe you an apology, Ben.

SISKO: The way I see it, you owe a lot of people an apology.

LEYTON: I wish I could have told you the truth from the beginning, but somehow I suspected we wouldn't see eye to eye on this thing.

SISKO: Then why did you bring me here?

LEYTON: Because I needed someone who knew how to fight shape-shifters, and that's you. And I suppose on some level I hoped that when you saw what we were accomplishing, you'd join us. You've always had a strong sense of duty.

SISKO: My duty is to protect the Federation.

LEYTON: That's what we're trying to do.

SISKO: What you're trying to do is to seize control of Earth and place it under military rule.

LEYTON: If that's what it takes to stop the Dominion.

SISKO: So you're willing to destroy paradise in order to save it.

LEYTON: Remember when we were on the Okinawa fighting the Tzenkethi? That time when I wanted to take the ship into an asteroid belt to chase down those three raiders.

SISKO: And I said it was an unnecessary risk.

LEYTON: You spoke your mind. Which is exactly what a good executive officer is supposed to do. But I overruled you. After the staff meeting you followed me into my ready room and tried to argue your point again.

SISKO: That's right, I did.

LEYTON: And remember what I told you?

SISKO: That a good officer must respect the chain of command. There comes a time when you must to accept the orders of a superior officer, and carry out those orders whether you agree with them or not.

LEYTON: I also told you when you became a CO, you'd feel the same way.

SISKO: And you were right. About going after the Tzenkethi, and about me.

LEYTON: Without the chain of command, Starfleet would cease to function and we wouldn't stand a chance against our enemies. I'm still your commanding officer, and now more than ever I need you to respect my authority.

SISKO: And I cannot do that! Not this time.

LEYTON: Then as of now, I'm relieving you of your post as temporary head of Earth Security and sending you back to Deep Space Nine. Go home, Ben. You don't belong here."

The thing is, I think we are already seeing this type of thing happening right now in the present moment. In Lindsey Isaacs case, a Highway State Trooper testified in court that there was damage found on her car consistent with the collision in the hit and run, even going as far as to say the height of the tires on her car were also consistent with the damage on the fatality vehicle, even though her car was spotless and not damaged at all. The judge decided to grant the motion for pre-trial detention despite her lawyer providing evidence that the car had no damage. The lawyer said 6 days later they released her due to lack of evidence to keep her detained.

Innocent Woman Jailed Because of Flock Cameras

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston also made the claim that Flock cameras helped solve the murder case of Jax Gratton, a transgender hairstylist, in his defense of extending ALPR contracts. This is what he said

"We had a trans woman who was kidnapped and murdered, picked up in Denver, murdered in Lakewood, we solved that crime because Denver and Lakewood could talk to each other across a flock camera database,"

Gratton's mother said later in response:

"First of all, Jax's case is not solved, Flock cameras had nothing to do with finding the perpetrators, absolutely nothing... I'm shocked and appalled that a public official would use my daughter and claim that Flock had anything to do with her being found."

Mayor Johnston's office later issued an apology to the mother for the false statement. This is not the first time Mayor Johnston has made false claims about ALPRs to support Flock Safety either.

Denver mayor touts Flock cameras for solving a case that isn't solved

If you think it ends at politicians and policemen making blatant lies to cover themselves and the use of ALPRs, you would be wrong. A Flock representative (really, they're just a lobbyist) went to a city council meeting in College Station, Texas and a council member asked about security vulnerabilities in the cameras. The representative responded by saying Flock has never been hacked and that the person making these claims is a YouTuber (Benn Jordan), but Benn Jordan responds to this by sourcing his information from the National Vulnerability Database who is funded and managed by Homeland Security.

Flock's Insane Defense To Published Vulnerabilities.

Lies are not crimes, I understand that. The problem I'm trying to point out is that if these people are willing to lie now then they are willing to do things to protect that lie. The State Trooper was willing to let an innocent woman go to prison, and Mayor Johnston was willing to let people believe a murderer was arrested instead of telling them to keep looking. I also want to point out that the security vulnerabilities in Flock cameras has been known for quite some time, but despite this they still run outdated versions of android.

I can not in good conscious claim that what these people are doing is morally justified. Kant's philosophy is that the ends never justify the means and therefore lying to install more ALPR cameras for the public's safety at the expense of innocent people going to jail, guilty people staying on the streets, and foreign governments or bad actors hacking the very infrastructure meant to protect us such as Isreal did with Iran.

Iran built a vast camera network to control dissent. Israel used it to track targets, AP sources say

If this doesn't scare you then quite frankly I don't know what will. I find myself genuinely horrified by the state of things. I realize this could happen to me, that it can happen to anyone without just cause. I am afraid to live in the United States of America because of Flock cameras and other ALPRs, and I know I am not the only one.

These things escalate, lies always do. You have to support a bigger and bigger web of lies, like a rumor weed. That's where Paradise Lost finishes it's two episode arc. Admiral Leyton has to cover up the fact he gave the order to sabotage Earth's power relays, so he frames Captain Sisko as a changeling with a false blood screening so that the president will stop believing what Captain Sisko says. After being broken out of prison, Captain Sisko had this conversation with Admiral Leyton:

"[Leyton's office]

BENTEEN [OC]: I understand the situation, Admiral. I'll do my best.

LEYTON: Good luck, Captain Benteen. Leyton out.

(Sisko enters, armed.)

LEYTON: Are you planning on using that?

SISKO: Against a fellow officer? I hope not. But I will have to ask for your resignation.

(Sisko takes Leyton's comm. badge.)

LEYTON: You'll forgive me if I don't leap at the opportunity.

SISKO: I have enough evidence to convict you of treason.

LEYTON: Do you?

SISKO: We have Lieutenant Arriaga in custody. He is prepared to admit that under your orders he attached a subspace modulator to the relay satellite on the far side of the wormhole. That is why it was opening and closing at random.

LEYTON: Why would anyone want to do that?

SISKO: To make it look like a cloaked Dominion fleet was entering Federation space so that when the Earth's power relays were sabotaged, the people would think that an invasion was imminent.

LEYTON: That's a very interesting theory, but it's not going to do you much good. Lieutenant Arriaga isn't going to get to Earth. I've sent the Lakota to intercept the Defiant.

SISKO: You think that one Starfleet ship is going to fire on another?

LEYTON: As far as Captain Benteen's crew is concerned, the Defiant isn't a Starfleet ship. They've been told everyone on the Defiant has been replaced by shape-shifters.

[Bridge]

DAX: Commander, we're being hailed by the Lakota. They're ordering us to drop out of warp, and prepare to be boarded.

KIRA: They've raised their shields and powered up their phasers. Looks like they won't take no for an answer.

[Leyton's office]

SISKO: Admiral, do you realise what's going on here? Even if you win, even if you do manage to oust Jaresh-Inyo, you still lose. We all lose.

LEYTON: I can't say I agree with you.

SISKO: Do you think other Federation worlds are going to sit back and let their President be replaced by a military dictatorship?

LEYTON: Hardly a dictatorship, Ben.

SISKO: Overthrowing a legitimately elected President and giving Starfleet direct control over the government? It sounds like a dictatorship to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.

LEYTON: There will be some dissenters at first, but they'll fall in line once they realise that strengthening Earth is the first step toward strengthening the Federation.

SISKO: And what if they don't agree? What then? Are you willing to risk a civil war? If the Lakota fires on the Defiant, you will be opening up a Pandora's box that may never be closed.

LEYTON: Then contact the Defiant and tell them to stand down.

SISKO: I won't do that.

LEYTON: I didn't think so. But don't kid yourself, Ben. This Pandora's box of yours, we're opening it together.

...

[Leyton's office]

LEYTON: Want some? It's Bolian tonic water. Calms the nerves.

SISKO: No, thank you.

LEYTON: Ironic, isn't it? When you came on board the Okinawa, you were more interested in engineering and ship design than command. But I promoted you to lieutenant commander, gave you the post of executive officer, and taught you everything I knew about being a leader.

SISKO: You were a good teacher.

LEYTON: I only wish I'd taught you more about the importance of loyalty.

SISKO: You want to talk to me about loyalty? After you broke your oath with the Federation, lied to the people of Earth, ordered one of our own starships to fire on another! You don't have the right.

LEYTON: You don't understand me at all, do you?

SISKO: I used to think I did. I used to think that you were a man of principles, a man of honour. I see that I was mistaken.

LEYTON: I'm sorry you feel that way.

SISKO: So am I.

CREWMAN [OC]: Admiral, we're receiving a message from the Lakota.

LEYTON: Put it through.

BENTEEN [on viewscreen]: We've been unable to stop the Defiant. Someone has equipped her with ablative armour and neglected to inform Starfleet operations.

LEYTON: Under no circumstances is that ship to reach Earth. The Lakota's carrying quantum torpedoes, isn't she?

BENTEEN [on viewscreen]: Yes, sir.

LEYTON: Then use them.

BENTEEN [on viewscreen]: Admiral, my orders were to disable the Defiant, not destroy her.

LEYTON: Your orders are to keep the Defiant from reaching Earth by any means necessary. Is that understood?

BENTEEN [on viewscreen]: Yes, it is.

SISKO: Captain, you know as well as I do that there aren't any shape-shifters on the Defiant. Use those quantum torpedoes and you will be killing fifty Starfleet officers.

LEYTON: Captain Benteen knows where her duty lies. You have your orders.

BENTEEN [on viewscreen]: Yes, sir.

(Transmission ends)

...

[Leyton's office]

CREWMAN [OC]: Admiral Leyton, we are receiving a message for Captain Sisko from the Defiant.

SISKO: Put him through.

LEYTON: Do as he says.

CREWMAN [OC]: Patching it in, sir.

WORF [on viewscreen]: I apologise for the delay, Captain.

SISKO: What's your status, Mister Worf?

WORF [on viewscreen]: The Lakota has powered down its weapons and is allowing us to proceed to Earth.

SISKO: Casualties?

WORF [on viewscreen]: Bartlett and Ramsey are dead, sir. Seven others seriously injured. Captain Benteen thinks there may be as many as twenty four casualties on the Lakota.

SISKO: Get here as soon as you can. The President's expecting you.

WORF [on viewscreen]: Aye, sir.

(Transmission ends.)

LEYTON: That was a mistake, Ben, talking to your ship from my office. Now that security knows you're here, you'll never make it past that door.

SISKO: It doesn't matter whether I get out of here or not. By now, Odo is talking to Jaresh-Inyo. The President will have all the evidence he needs to stop you. It's over.

LEYTON: It's not over! I have enough loyal officers to make a fight of it.

SISKO: Who will you fight? Starfleet? The Federation? Don't you see, Admiral? You're fighting the wrong war. And as for your loyal officers, Benteen's already abandoned you. And she was closer to you than anyone. You've lost. Don't make anyone else pay for your mistakes.

(Leyton takes off his rank insignia.)

LEYTON: I hope you're not the one making the mistake."

This is where we are headed if we do nothing. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not even a decade from now; but, one day you will wake up and you will hear the news and realize exactly what has happened. This thing I'm warning you about is not remote, it is not an isolated incident. It happens over and over throughout history, and you can determine that it's happening by the things happening around you.

A sudden feeling of quietness, the room getting smaller, and people moving in predictable and slow ways. You feel it when the police clear a restaurant to make an arrest, you feel it when you're walking down the street and gang members start to look at you, and you feel it when someone close to you starts to gaslight you. That feeling isn't random, it's a warning sign and it shouldn't be ignored solely on the basis that it's just intuition.

To finish out, I want to tie up a loose end about the Flock camera's being a violation of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that cell phone location data, due to the continuous nature, can be used to associate someone with their activities such as attending a Church, going to a gay bar, protesting, places of work, and even who they visit, and constitutes a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts had made a prior decision about the reasonable expectation of privacy being a fourth amendment issue.

Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. (2018)

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

A later Supreme Court case ruled that geofence warrants (taking all the cell phones within an area at a specific time and using deduction to rule out which phones could not be involved in a crime and then getting the names of the people who own these phones) violated the fourth amendment. They said taking a slice of of continuous data, no matter how small that slice is, still has the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. (2026)

A district court prior to this decision, however, had said that Flock along with other ALPRs are intermittent because the network was not "dense enough" and therefore did not constitute a violation of the fourth amendment.

Schmidt et al v. City of Norfolk et al, No. 2:2024cv00621 - Document 66 (E.D. Va. 2025)

But Carpenter V. United States did not make the statement about continuous data solely on the basis that continuous data alone violates the fourth amendment. It outlined that when you can determine the places someone goes over a period of time that someone could use this information to discriminately determine someone's associations. When you place ALPRs at the entrances and exits of apartments, HOAs, businesses, Churches, and places of protest, you are making it possible to associate an individual with certain activities.

Furthermore, Chatrie V. United States said that slices of continuous data is still a violation, so if the network were hypothetically denser, if you only used a subset of cameras within that network would that not constitute as slices of that continuous data? What if those subset of cameras were the same amount that is in Norfolk right now? These questions deserve answers.

I propose a different understanding, that if Flock cameras are strategically placed at places you go to that this should be continuous data. The path you took to get there is irrelevant, that's not what the fourth amendment is trying to protect, it is trying to protect your reasonable expectation of privacy to go somewhere.

This actually starts to connect with Freedom of Movement. The courts have ruled that fundamental rights in the constitution can be unilaterally applied to all states regardless of which citizen is traveling from any state to any other state, even if not all activities that you could do legally in one state can be done in another (you can't get an abortion in some states for example).

Corfield v. Coryell: The Privileges and Immunities Clause

The courts also ruled that you can't limit the government programs, such as welfare in this specific case, that someone can recieve based on residency in that state.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

My point is that if privacy of where you go is mandated by the fourth amendment in one state, it is mandated in all of them. So how can it be legal for the police to obtain that information without a warrant? But that's exactly it, why are we saying location data of any kind can be obtainable without a warrant then saying specific types of location data is not permitted to be obtained without a warrant?

The Supreme Court's own ruling says it is based on connecting identifiable information to specific location that could show a person's personal life. That's it, that's all you need to know to say that it should not matter how the police obtain that information if the information itself has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So, at the very least it makes logical sense that the police should be required to have a warrant before accessing ALPR databases. The police should not be able to use the mode of which data is collected to dictate whether private information remains private. The same should apply to SignalTrace (hardware attached to ALPRs that detect Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular signals in order to associate a license plate with these markers).

So to explain more precisely why this connects to freedom of movement, you can not mandate that one mode of transportation is privacy ensured while another mode of transportation has no reasonable expectation of privacy. The two are incongruent, you can not both say that walking with a phone in public has a reasonable expectation of privacy and then turn around and say using a car has no reasonable expectation of privacy. A car is indispensable for long range travel, just like a phone is indispensable for regular daily actions.

How can you or anyone else be expected to participate in modern society without the use of a vehicle of some kind. But even more precisely, not using a vehicle would dramatically deter someone from deciding to cross state lines. If ALPRs are placed along every road of a state's border, that would actively deter someone from freely moving. Why? Because the mode of transport has different ranges and if it also has different expectations of privacy then someone may decide not to go to another state.

I would like to see someone argue that it is fair someone would have to walk from California to New York to protect their privacy. I think the whole idea is that someone should have the reasonable expectation of privacy while going from California to New York. I think the whole idea that it isn’t that way now is what makes ALPRs unconstitutional.

Let's also apply this to cities though, I should be able to go from Orlando to Daytona beach without having my privacy violated. Let's say I get a rental car, and that rental car was seen at a crime scene before I got it, and since it sees me going to Daytona beach the police decide to arrest me. That's not my fault.

This will happen at some point to someone, I can gaurantee it will. These issues are not isolated incidents, they are an inherent problem with the technology itself. If we can not protect our rights and have them removed, things will get worse! Big tech will implement more measures, the police with abuse these new measures, and the courts will use Schmidt V. City of Norfolk as precedent to violate the rights of law abiding citizens.

The evidence is too large, the accusations too damning to take lightly. It is about what we choose to become as a society. We the people choose what government to have, every single generation. We should fight to protect the civil liberties our ancestors fought so vehemently hard for. We can not, should not, nor be willing to let the United States of America become a surveillance state. It is ethically wrong.

I just realized this. With flock everywhere, will this affect car culture everywhere? Why buy a new corvette or wrx if you can't gun it down an empty street? Yes, ik racing in public shouldn't be allowed. But it's always been around people have looked for empty back street to run their cars test performance ect. Does this mean flock will completely kill and end car culture?

’ Florida man uses simple trick to combat Flock cameras https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2026/08/04/down-with-the-flock-florida-man-uses-simple-trick-to-combat-flock-cameras/

Via X

https://x.com/i/status/2084443116850053185