IN THE SPAN OF JUST 30 DAYS FOUR STATES HAVE ANNOUNCED 24/7 DRONE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS (NEW YORK, FLORIDA, KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN)
8-26-26
If it's only for catching car thieves then why do they need access to all of your personal information.
IN THE SPAN OF JUST 30 DAYS FOUR STATES HAVE ANNOUNCED 24/7 DRONE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS (NEW YORK, FLORIDA, KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN)
https://files.catbox.moe/6oto1a.mp4
https://files.catbox.moe/4gqdq8.mp4
https://archive.is/zvW6y
https://archive.ph/KQ2cD
https://archive.is/EiYn3
Flock isn't for real crime. It's for framing white people and spying on whites. Thugs don't get gangstalked. Gang stalkers wouldn't dare go into the hood.
The
panopticon-style surveillance state will enable predictive crime
control by combining continuous, asymmetric observation with automated
psychological/behavioral scoring that triggers preemptive intervention.
The
constant collection of biometric, behavioral, physiological, and
digital data, facial micro-expressions, gait, heart-rate variability,
voice stress, online activity patterns, purchase and movement histories,
social interactions, and environmental context. A real-world analogue
would be dense networks of cameras, IoT sensors, wearables, 24/7 drone
surveillance, smartphones, and AI analysis of public and private data
streams. The asymmetry of knowledge (the system sees everything;
individuals cannot verify the extent of scrutiny) maintains the panoptic
effect.
Data are continuously fed into models that output a
scalar or multi-dimensional “crime coefficient”. The score estimates the
probability that an individual will commit a serious offense in the
near future, based on accumulated indicators of latent criminality,
emotional instability, or pattern deviation. High scores flag people as
latent criminals even if no crime has yet occurred.
Once a
threshold is crossed, the system authorizes intervention; isolation,
mandatory therapy, restricted movement, or, in the extreme case, lethal
force. Lower-level responses include soft coercion (notifications,
social credit-style restrictions, targeted counseling). The population
internalizes the scoring system; many would self-police to avoid rising
coefficients, producing the classic panoptic outcome of visible
compliance without constant active watching.
Flock-like cameras are a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights as a US Citizen.
ALPRs
don't just collect your vehicle information and your license plate they
also collect; your gait, your heart rate, your face, BT signals, Wifi
signals, RFID signals, Cellular signals, your dogs microchip, your heart
monitor, any wearable technology you have, thermal imaging and more.
>Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Ruled
that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just physical spaces.
Meaning you have a right to privacy even in a public space if your
actions are being conducted in a way that would expect privacy (such as
speaking in a phone booth or having a private conversation in your car).
>United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
Ruled
that the Fourth Amendment requires the executive branch to obtain a
prior judicial warrant before engaging in electronic surveillance for
domestic security purposes.
>Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. (2026)
A
RULING FROM THIS YEAR that says law enforcement conducts a Fourth
Amendment "search" when it acquires digital location history data via
reverse location or geofence warrants, which sweep up location data from
every electronic device near a crime scene.
>Carpenter v. United States (2018)
Ruled
that the government acquires a "search" under the Fourth Amendment when
it collects historical cell-site location information (CSLI) tracking
an individual's movements over a prolonged period.
>Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Ruled
that using advanced sensory technology (like thermal-imaging devices)
from a public street to peer into the details of a private home that
would otherwise require physical entry constitutes a 4th Amendment
search and requires a warrant
SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that
mass warrantless wiretapping and surveillance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and
blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment.
