You'd probably have some questions. Maybe even some objections.

Well, that's essentially what Flock Safety is doing, and neither state nor local officials seem particularly interested in pumping the brakes.

Flock's automated license plate reader (ALPR) network has exploded across American cities, and San Francisco is no exception to the broader trend of municipalities embracing surveillance tech with open arms and closed eyes. The company markets itself as a public safety tool — helping cops catch car thieves and solve crimes faster. And sure, there are legitimate use cases. Nobody's arguing that law enforcement shouldn't have any tools at their disposal.

But here's where the liberty-minded among us start getting twitchy: there's a massive difference between targeted surveillance of criminal suspects and the passive, bulk collection of movement data on every single person who drives down a public street. Flock's system doesn't distinguish between a suspected felon and a mom driving to Trader Joe's. It logs them both.

As one SF resident put it, "We're building the infrastructure for a surveillance state and calling it crime prevention."

The real failure here isn't just Flock — it's the elected officials and regulators who are supposed to be standing between corporate surveillance vendors and your civil liberties. Where are the transparency requirements? The data retention limits? The independent audits? The warrant requirements before law enforcement can query your travel history?

Mostly absent.

Fiscal conservatives should care about this too. These contracts aren't cheap, and cities are spending taxpayer money to erode taxpayer rights. That's a lousy return on investment by any measure.

Public safety matters. But so does the Fourth Amendment. You shouldn't have to sacrifice one to get the other — and any politician who tells you otherwise isn't protecting you. They're just making it easier to watch you.