As Anthony Fauci acts like he is above the law, with his blanket and unspecific pardon from President Joe Biden, by refusing to answer Congress on the coverup of and discrediting of those who opposed the lab leak theory and his role in stealing Americans’ constitutional rights during the COVID-19 pandemic; President Donald Trump is embracing the expansion of the surveillance state, even partnering with Dominari Holdings, Inc. (his two sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump, have invested in this firm in what appears to be corrupt dealings). In terms of data centers, the president said, “You have to convince your community how great these things [are]. You can’t fight it. You have to go with it, and you’re going to have all that protection.”
As I wrote about previously, people are losing their homes, livelihoods, and power to these data centers, and some states and localities are putting moratoriums (temporary prohibitions) on the expansion of these facilities, including the one signed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul (of course, after the year pause is over, the state will begin a regulatory process and likely allow them into our communities in favor of big business and against the will of the people). The argument from advocates of building increased numbers of data centers is that the United States will fall behind China in the artificial intelligence (AI) race, but yet, China only has approximately 449 data centers compared to the United States’ 5,381 (numbers vary greatly, but it is agreed upon that the United States has roughly ten times more of them than China). Even though China is able to more efficiently power its centers, the United States is pushing even more of them into Americans’ communities (focusing on quantity and not a solution on how to power them better). If China can do the task with far fewer, why do we need so many more of them here?
Could it be that the purpose of these data centers is not simply to give us access to chat bots, solutions to our everyday problems, better technology to improve our lives, or worker bees to do our jobs for us? China already has a robust surveillance system, and it is looking to expand this with new facial-recognition systems and cameras powered with AI. Since China is ahead of the game in terms of “Big Brother,” is it possible that the United States is looking to compete with that country’s data collection and surveillance of citizens but needs more facilities to do so being that there were certain (though arguably not that many) constitutional protections preventing the police state from operating successfully up until this point? The data centers may be the specific tool for the United States to further evolve into a totalitarian state, and China may have a different route because of its established history in suppression of citizens (it has distinct measures already set up and needs fewer processors to monitor its population). These are just my thoughts, and I cannot prove that this is why data centers are being built so quickly, but keep in mind that even if what I am saying turns out to be incorrect, data centers do certainly give the federal government more abilities to be able to track our every movements and collect and analyze almost every aspect of our personal lives. Given the United States’ history of spying on Americans (partnerships with technology corporations, Section 702, the Patriot Act, etc.), what do you think the government will do with this information once the AI infrastructure is fully operational?
While the data centers are being built in haste, American citizens are taking matters into their own hands when it comes to Flock cameras. As I mentioned previously, these devices are an invasion of privacy, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a tool for sharing and blending information between federal, state, and local law enforcement; and the number of such cameras is on the rise (at the time of this writing, it sits at 125,671, but this number changes regularly), as the Flock system now reaches approximately 20 billion license plate scans every month. In Oregon, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have used Flock camera data, in conjunction with state police, to monitor and surveil for federal investigations; and in San Francisco, California, it was discovered that federal agencies accessed the city’s Flock database 1.6 million times over seven months. Although we already had Fusion Centers and other tools for the federal government to partner with state and local agencies, having cameras on street corners is just the next step in the totalitarian evolution.
In response, there is a chain of people taking saws and cutting down the poles that these license plate-reading cameras sit on (some are even throwing paint on the cameras or shining green lasers to damage them, or even shooting them), and from California to Idaho to Colorado to Wisconsin to Tennessee to Florida, people are risking their lives to eliminate these cameras. Police are investigating incidents in Houston, Texas and Troy, New York (Republican Mayor Carmella Mantello argues that the cameras keep people safe and aid law enforcement, and she is adamant about arresting any individuals involved). It is nice to see people taking action against the government and fighting back against intrusions of privacy, and videos on TikTok and other social media platforms are educating people on what these cameras are, why they are dangerous to our liberties, and how to destroy them.
Cameras spying on citizens and feeding the databases information pertaining to drivers’ daily routines and locations, specifics on individual’s cars, details about drivers themselves (including tattoos, race, and clothing), and pedestrians strolling by is something that you would think of in a dystopian science fiction movie, but it is becoming reality. Not only are there cases of police officers abusing the material captured on the cameras (to stalk people in their personal lives), but the fact that Americans are now dealing with being monitored twenty-four-seven by government is a grave violation of our rights. The Fourth Amendment (part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) specifically states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [cars], 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.” If cameras are watching us constantly, governments are searching us without warrants or probable cause. There is no reason to believe that every person who happens to pass by several cameras in a day is committing a crime, and the government has no right or authority to monitor our every move. Yet, police are doing just that. Why more people (it should be everyone) are not outraged by this is telling of how conditioned and complacent we have become. As a society, we have allowed the government to become so totalitarian that we cannot even see the tyranny occur or comprehend the full effects of it.
If most people are not concerned over their rights being stolen, perhaps they will pay attention to the string of cases where people were falsely accused of crimes because the Flock cameras got the data wrong. A man in Colorado was stopped by police and had guns pointed at him because it was erroneously thought that the vehicle tracked by a Flock camera had been stolen. In Plymouth, Minnesota, officers surrounded a vehicle that Flock cameras had shown as stolen, only to find out that the driver was testing the vehicle from a Land Rover dealership (the information had been coordinated between Flock and the National Crime Information Center, which the FBI regularly uses). In Toledo, Ohio, a man was bitten by a police dog when the Flock camera read a “7” instead of a “2” on the license plate (the man lost his job and was evicted from his home because he was severely injured during the encounter). One police department found that Flock cameras are only accurate 71% of the time in reading license plates, so that implies that 29% of the time, misreadings occur, meaning that people can be falsely accused of crimes that they did not commit. Is this the sacrifice for “safety?”
There is some good news, though, as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have been filing lawsuits against local governments for abusing power and searching citizens without warrants (one particular suit is in San Jose, California). Many cities and towns are cancelling their contracts with Flock because of the pushback by citizens, but this may just cause governments to turn to Vigilant Solutions, Motorola, Axon, and Genetec to install different versions of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras instead, which would be equally catastrophic. Because people do not want Flock cameras, perhaps an Axon camera will be acceptable, right? Well, if government officials do not get the hint that surveillance is the issue, more incidents of vandalism will occur (it does not matter which brand of ALPR is installed). In addition to that, governments are getting sneakier in their approach and hiding the cameras inside of digital speed signs to make it more difficult for people to destroy.
We the people have the right to privacy and not be searched and monitored, but the federal and many state and local governments do not care. As these levels of government merge closer together for purposes of law enforcement, we can no longer rely on states to protect against the power of federal agencies. The federal system of checks and balances has eroded away, and we are left taking matters into our owns hands, whatever that may look like. Destroying Flock (or Motorola or Axon) cameras or sabotaging data centers before they are up and running may assist in taking back some power for the people, but we need a whole lot more of the population to take action for any meaningful change to occur. Otherwise, these vandalism cases stay in the local news and get swept under the rug as isolated incidents. A mass movement is necessary, and it is up to us to decide if privacy and our constitutional rights are worth fighting for.
Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.