Flock around and lose your rights



Few surveillance products have ever been named more appropriately than Flock. A flock of sheep has no rights. It exists to be watched, counted, and managed by whoever owns the field. That increasingly resembles how government treats Americans as officials cover streets and neighborhoods with cameras under the familiar but false promise of public safety.

Flock’s automated license-plate readers are not ordinary security cameras. They record every passing vehicle, capturing plate numbers, makes, colors, damage, bumper stickers, and other identifiers. Those records enter a private cloud that participating local and federal agencies can search across a network of more than 116,000 devices.

Swapping freedom for security rarely delivers either. A government that refuses to control criminals should not receive limitless power to track everyone else.

The system can reveal patterns of life: who visits a church, clinic, protest, political meeting, or friend’s home. It can do so without individualized suspicion and often without a warrant.

Tracking plates means tracking people across time and space. These cameras do not sit only along highways. They appear in residential neighborhoods and on local streets. InvestigateTV demonstrated how Flock’s Condor cameras can move and follow an individual within view.

When asked whether he envisioned “a future with a Flock camera on every street corner,” Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley said yes. He described an America where crime no longer exists.

The sales pitch is always safety. The practical result is a searchable record of ordinary people’s movements.

Local media in Windsor, Connecticut, reported that a resident’s public records request revealed more than 500,000 third-party searches of camera data in nine weeks. Officials may insist that systems like Flock exist only to recover stolen vehicles or locate dangerous suspects. A database this valuable will inevitably attract more agencies, more vendors, and more uses.

Government surveillance programs always begin with sympathetic cases: stolen cars, missing children, wandering dementia patients, and violent fugitives. Those benefits are real. They do not answer the central question. Should every citizen become continuously searchable because the technology sometimes helps police solve a crime?

After the COVID era, Americans have no excuse for assuming that every agency will use sweeping powers narrowly. Officials used emergency authorities, corporate data, and private platforms in ways the public was repeatedly assured would never happen. A permanent vehicle-tracking network deserves more skepticism, not less.

Flock’s defenders also evade the real cause of persistent crime. Police rarely lack the ability to identify repeat juvenile carjackers and other violent offenders. The deeper failure lies in prosecutors, judges, legislators, and “criminal justice reform” policies that return dangerous offenders to the street.

The Baltimore region illustrates the contradiction. Flock cameras dot the area, yet juvenile carjackings remain rampant because offenders often face little meaningful punishment. Cameras may help identify the same criminal again. They cannot supply the deterrence that prosecutors and courts refuse to impose.

RELATED: America’s newest jail has no walls

Blaze Media Illustration

We already know how to reduce violent crime: incapacitate repeat offenders and impose sentences severe enough to deter others. Government instead weakens punishment, tolerates disorder, and then asks the public to surrender more privacy to manage the consequences.

Resistance to automated plate readers is growing across liberal and conservative communities. Residents have vandalized or dismantled cameras, while local officials have voted to ban or remove them. In conservative counties, however, sheriffs often become the greatest obstacle to reform because state and federal grants subsidize the equipment and stretch cash-starved departmental budgets.

Programs such as the Homeland Security Grant Program, State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and COPS Office Technology and Equipment Program can finance systems that local departments could not otherwise afford. Counterterrorism and infrastructure protection become convenient justifications for constructing a domestic surveillance network.

The incentives are understandable. Sheriffs cannot control soft prosecutors, lenient judges, or lawmakers who empty jails. They can control front-end policing, and grants let them expand their technological reach. But frustration with failed criminal-justice policy does not justify treating every driver as a suspect.

RELATED: We’re winning the fight against Flock — but the surveillance isn't going away that easily

Cindy Schultz/Washington Post/Getty Images

Nor should Americans assume that every officer with access will behave honorably. More than 20 documented cases of police misuse have surfaced since 2023. Officers have reportedly used the system to stalk romantic partners and rivals. One Idaho officer searched his wife’s movements more than 700 times, labeling the queries “test” to avoid suspicion.

That abuse is not an aberration from the system’s purpose. It is the predictable result of giving thousands of people effortless access to intimate location data with weak oversight.

Flock presents Americans with a false choice between crime and constant surveillance. We can enforce the law, incapacitate violent offenders, and protect communities without allowing government to reconstruct every citizen’s daily movements.

The answer to failed policing is better policing. The answer to lenient prosecution is accountability. The answer to repeat offenders is punishment. None requires a camera on every corner or a permanent cloud archive of where every American has been.

Swapping freedom for security rarely delivers either. A government that refuses to control criminals should not receive limitless power to track everyone else.

Swedish government wants tracking devices on children — and it's already watching them



Sweden's Ministry of Social Affairs said last week that a select segment of its youth could be "drawn into crime" and is making bold suggestions to avoid that possibility.

Describing its methods as one of the best tools at its disposal, the proposal would have shocking applications and a wide age range.

'Electronic surveillance may, in serious cases, be a necessary support.'

The Swedish government pleaded for child safety by way of electronic monitoring during a recent press conference and noted that certain children already flagged by their social services should be required to be at home within certain hours.

Strangely, the age group ranges from 13 to 20 years old.

The subjects would be monitored for a maximum of three months at a time, the Swedish government said, while Euronews reported that smart watches or bracelets with GPS monitoring would be the proffered device.

The bracelets would look "like a watch or bracelet, so it wouldn't be as obvious or stigmatizing" as an ankle bracelet, according to Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Gronvall.

While the government estimated that only 50 to 100 youths would be monitored, the social services minister cited that "173 children under the age of 15 [are] suspected of being involved in murders or murder plots."

RELATED: Commencement speaker praises AI and globalism — graduates crush her with boos

Swedish royal family. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty Image

"The government proposes that electronic monitoring should be able to be used in situations when children's safety needs to be ensured," the federal website stated. It added that the watchful eye of the government would be used to "ensure that the child or young person is at home at the times decided by the social services."

Sweden insisted that the devices would be as minimally intrusive as possible but are necessary as an "early intervention" apparatus that, in the end, will "protect" those being monitored.

"Electronic surveillance should only be used when necessary, with strict rules ... the measure is needed to ... prevent the child or young person from engaging in criminal activity," the government added.

RELATED: Ode to a 1984 Buick Skylark — and to all the other cars of my life

Parliament Palace, Stockholm, Sweden. Photo by: Giovanni Mereghetti/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Using similar logic, Swedish police have had the legal authority to monitor the electronic communications of children under 15 since October 2025.

"Preventive coercive measures may be used against children under the age of 15 to ... prevent and detect certain particularly serious crime," the government said.

The government also increased the time for which "children may be detained" while expanding the reasons for doing so.

Most of the commentary from government officials, like Social Affairs Minister Jakob Forssmed, justified the monitoring system as a way to give "more tools" to the government to prevent gang recruitment and serious crimes.

"Electronic surveillance may, in serious cases, be a necessary support to ensure that children and young people do not stay in inappropriate places at inappropriate times," said Jessica Stegrud, social policy spokesperson for the Sweden Democrats.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Worse than Orwell could ever imagine': How smartphones became government weapons



Most people know by now that our smart devices are spying on us — collecting data every time we purchase something, visit a website, or engage with social media content. But few understand just how invasive these little voyeurs really are. Turns out our secret watchers are picking up on our personality traits and taking detailed notes on our routines — even learning which side of the bed we sleep on.

Some skeptics dismiss this massive breach in privacy under the premise that they have “nothing to hide” or that the government already knows everything about them anyway. But their flippancy is a grave mistake, says retired Navy SEAL and Blackwater founder Erik Prince and retired Marine and Big Tech insider Ryan Patterson.

Not only are criminals using data to target and exploit people, rogue government agents can and do weaponize data against citizens. We saw it happen with Ad-IDs during the corrupt January 6 investigation.

“Highly politicized federal agents run amok because if you give a jackass a gun and a badge, you get a bigger jackass,” says Prince, condemning the 2024 FISA expansion under Joe Biden as a warrantless digital dragnet that turns every American’s phone into an open book for government “fishing expeditions.”

These scoundrels, he says, can build a case based on someone’s commercial data. If they “went to a school board meeting,” “a political rally,” or “a controversial sermon,” that information can be used to shape narratives.

“They use this data to get the probable cause to then unleash the rest of the government — the people that can hack, the people that can get a search warrant, the people that can enter your home,” adds Patterson.

When the Patriot Act passed after 9/11, letting the government spy on Americans with fewer checks, even liberal tech friends in San Francisco called it a “slippery slope,” he says.

“If we start allowing our government — whichever party — to criminalize things they couldn’t see before, but now can because of this data, it’s really scary.”

Prince calls it “antithetical to a free society” and “worse than George could even imagine.”

But targeting political opponents might not even be the most nefarious use of commercial data. There’s growing speculation that rogue agents also use it to groom potential killers.

“If I were in the CIA and I had access to Google, which I imagine they do, I could say I need 25 people in Texas who are unstable, really don't like Donald Trump, have a gun, good shot. ... I could probably have that in a couple of minutes, and then I could say now let's turn them into killers — Manchurian stuff, but you don't need to bring them to Russia; they won't even know that they've been turned,” says Glenn.

“It's terrifying because they know you better than you know yourself.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Exclusive: House Republican seeks criminal investigation into Jack Smith's alleged surveillance scheme



Since former DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's alleged surveillance scheme surfaced earlier this month, House Republicans are leading the charge to bring justice.

Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, a member of the Republican Study Committee, urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to open a criminal investigation into Smith for his apparent involvement with Operation Arctic Frost, according to a letter obtained by Blaze News. During former President Joe Biden's administration, the FBI obtained private cellphone information from nine Republican lawmakers, an internal document indicated, in what appears to be an ideologically motivated instance of government weaponization.

'Weaponizing the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency to spy on political opponents is what we expect from authoritarian regimes.'

Brecheen's call for an investigation is also in accordance with President Donald Trump's executive order entitled "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," which Trump signed the same day he was inaugurated.

Since the scandal broke, the FBI has opened an internal investigation, firing several agents who were involved in the operation. As of this writing, the Department of Justice has not yet opened a criminal investigation, leading Brecheen and his co-signatories to be the first federal group to call for a criminal investigation into the operation.

RELATED: 'WORSE THAN WATERGATE': Republicans demand answers after documents reveal FBI spied on 9 GOP lawmakers

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Image

“The Biden administration used Operation Arctic Frost to target its political opponents by authorizing covert surveillance on elected members of the Republican Party," Brecheen told Blaze News. "We cannot let the Biden administration and special counsel Jack Smith get away with this direct violation of the Constitution.”

Many prominent lawmakers, including Brecheen, have characterized the scandal as a modern-day Watergate, according to the letter obtained exclusively by Blaze News. Brecheen also warned that if high-profile politicians can have their privacy violated for ideological purposes, ordinary Americans could too.

'The Bureau could easily be directed against individual citizens.'

"The revelation that the Biden Administration directed the FBI to surveil duly elected American lawmakers is indeed a scandal of magnitude our country has not seen since Watergate," the letter reads. "Let us be clear: weaponizing the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency to spy on political opponents is what we expect from authoritarian regimes such as North Korea or Iran, not the United States."

RELATED: Corrupt Stacey Abrams groups once led by Sen. Raphael Warnock go extinct after admission of guilt

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"The ramifications of this unprecedented scandal, however, stretch far beyond the lawmakers who were surveilled," the letter reads. "By empowering federal agents to secretly monitor the private phone calls of sitting United States Senators, Jack Smith set the sinister precedent that the same form of covert surveillance can and will be deployed against law-abiding American citizens."

"If the FBI could be so readily weaponized against powerful figures in our government, then it is not difficult to conclude that the Bureau could easily be directed against individual citizens."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Revealed: TSA used loophole to SPY on conservatives



Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has announced the end of an Obama-era program that involved spying on U.S. citizens — and cost those citizens hundreds of millions in tax dollars a year.

“Today I’m announcing that TSA is ending the Quiet Skies program, which involved having a federal agent follow U.S. citizens as they traveled by air. It was created by Obama in 2012 to supposedly track dangerous individuals, but instead it was weaponized against political enemies such as Tulsi Gabbard,” Noem said in a video posted to social media.

“Since its existence, it has failed to stop a single terrorist attack, while it cost U.S. taxpayers roughly about $200 million a year,” she added.

Independent journalist Breanna Morello has been on the frontlines of breaking this story and has uncovered just how American citizens would end up on these lists.


“What they used is a program called Evade, which was another Obama program that was started. And what they did is they used Evade to add people to the TSA terror watch list,” Morello tells BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“Evade was a private-sector company that was going out there looking at your social media posts,” Morello continues. “The reality of it is everyone I found who’s on these lists are all conservative.”

“So they intentionally went above and beyond to target people. Now, Tulsi Gabbard, the following day after she criticized Kamala Harris, was added to that terror watch list,” she adds.

Morello also explains that hundreds of Americans, including those who attended the January 6 rally, were added to the same watch list.

“For years, they were followed by air marshals, they were stalked by TSA, they went through additional groping that they didn’t have to go through,” she tells Gonzales. “But again, the TSA is not an investigative agency.”

This is why the TSA hired a private-sector company to do the work for them.

“So, chances are if you ever had a little four S’s on the bottom of your boarding pass and then you went through additional screening processes after already going through TSA, you were probably on the list, and you’re probably being followed by air marshals without knowing it,” Morello explains.

“So they’re just intentionally finding a loophole and subverting it,” Gonzales comments.

“And that loophole is a private-sector company, yes,” Morello responds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Bitcoin war: How governments are rigging the system



There’s no doubt that Bitcoin will change the economic world forever — but Logan Allen, the founder and CEO of Zorp Corp — is well-aware that the crypto technology doesn’t come without its issues.

“As a technology, it’s been fundamentally limited,” Allen tells James Poulos on “Zero Hour.” “Political forces found a way with Bitcoin to create a scarce resource that they could control and thus manufacture solutions.”

“So in other words, there’s a small group in the Bitcoin community that have made Bitcoin unable to scale through various types of factious arguments and political squandering and or political squabbling,” he continues.

Now, solutions to these manufactured issues are being sold.


“They call them ‘lightning,’ they call them ‘liquid,’ they call them all of the things, just different layers that you can stack up and try to get people to use. But all of these layers reintroduce a problem that Bitcoin was fundamentally created to solve,” he explains.

“That problem is actually a legal problem called the ‘third-party doctrine’ and amusingly, all of the problems that are proposed for fixing Bitcoin and scaling it reintroduce this third party,” he continues.

The third-party doctrine is a legal loophole around the Fourth Amendment, which Allen explains allows the government to know where we are at all times.

“As long as we choose to have a phone, because there’s a third party between us and the government that’s collecting our information. And so, by the third-party doctrine, the very fact that we need to use a telecommunications network in order to have our phone, and that the telecommunications network knows where we are, means that we actually opted into exposing our information and neglecting our privacy,” he tells Poulos.

“This is true in money as well as in communications,” he continues. “So Bitcoin was created to solve a very particular problem in the privacy space, which it was solved. It was built to remove the third party.”

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The ‘TERRIFYING’ theory on the mysterious fleet of drones spotted near Trump golf course



Over the last few weeks, clusters of large drones have been spotted flying around the Raritan River, which is located near North Central New Jersey. These alleged sightings have sparked concerns due to their proximity to President-elect Donald Trump’s Bedminster golf course as well as Picatinny Arsenal, a U.S. military research and manufacturing facility.

According to reports, these drones have been appearing since mid-November and usually return on a daily basis, flying in formation. In response, the FAA has issued temporary flight restrictions over Bedminster golf course and Picatinny Arsenal.

The FBI has also been investigating.

However, the FBI and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas’ involvement doesn’t make Glenn Beck feel any better.

“Does anybody think [Mayorkas] has any credibility whatsoever? He's like, ‘Well, I don't know what's going on,”’ he says, pointing out that Mayorkas also didn’t know what was going on at our border.

The FBI as well as New Jersey law enforcement have given similar statements, claiming that they don’t know where these drones came from or what their purpose is.

Glenn has some theories, however.


“That could very well be surveillance on the average American because they’re doing police work, [or] it could be our government doing it,” he says, noting that the sheer size of these drones (some reportedly as big as cars) likely aren’t owned by hobbyists.

“I think this is most likely our government. Second most likely — this is a China balloon,” he says. “The Chinese military drones that are in these gigantic fields, and thousands of thousands of them are flying in formation ... God forbid we get into World War III. Our aircraft carriers are going to be the horses of World War I.”

Co-host Stu Burguiere, however, thinks that it wouldn’t even take military personnel or government officials to pull off a drone attack.

“I think a lot of normal people could put that together with not that much effort,” he says, calling the prospect “terrifying.”

Glenn then recalls an equally terrifying memory, in which a man demonstrated how drones will be the next weapon of war.

To hear it, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Controversial FISA bill heads to Senate, making it easier to spy on Americans



The House voted last week in favor of reauthorizing the surveillance bill that has been exploited by the FBI hundreds of thousands of times to spy on American citizens.

Blaze News previously noted that it was this legislation that elements of the intelligence community exploited to spy on members of the Trump campaign in 2016 without probable cause. It was also used to violate — without warrant — the privacy of multitudes of Jan. 6 protesters, congressional campaign donors, and BLM demonstrators.

Among the 273 lawmakers who recently supported renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to the great satisfaction of the Biden White House, were Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and other such nominal Republicans. Turner suggested that a failure to renew the government’s well-abused spying ability “will make us go blind.”

It appears many in Congress were blind — perhaps willfully so — to a seed of immense consequence that Turner and Democratic Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.) sowed in the reauthorization bill, which the U.S. Senate is now all but guaranteed to approve.

Section 702 allows the government to spy on foreign nationals outside the U.S. with the compelled aid of electronic communication service providers. Supporters of Section 702 like Turner routinely stress that it is a critically important means of keeping tabs on Hamas terrorists, Chinese communist agents, and other foes.

The trouble is that American citizens contacted by a foreign national over email, social media, or the phone can have their communications tapped, searched, and stored without a warrant.

This alone is enough to warrant the criticism 702 has received from opponents like Republican Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Jim Jordan (Ohio). However, lawmakers have somehow made the 702 headed for reauthorization even worse.

Edward Snowden dusted off his whistle in exile this week, warning Monday, “The NSA is just DAYS from taking over the internet, and it’s not on the front page of any newspaper — because no one has noticed.”

The whistleblower referenced what critics call the “everyone is a spy” provision in the surveillance bill, which Turner and Himes championed.

Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, provided a penetrating explanation of the provision in a series of tweets earlier this week, characterizing it ultimately as the “biggest expansion of domestic surveillance since the Patriot Act.”

“Under current law, the government can compel ‘electronic communications services providers’ that have direct access to communications to assist the NSA in conducting Section 702 surveillance,” wrote Goitein. “In practice, that means companies like Verizon and Google must turn over the communications of the targets of Section 702 surveillance.”

Goitein noted that the House approved an amendment the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence offered to the reauthorization bill, which it ultimately passed. This amendment alters the definition of “electronic communications surveillance provider.”

“If the bill becomes law, any company or individual that provides ANY service whatsoever may be forced to assist in NSA surveillance, as long as they have access to equipment on which communications are transmitted or stored — such as routers, servers, cell towers, etc.,” wrote Goitein.

In other words, it won’t just be giants like Verizon and Google the NSA will rope into helping it peer into the lives of American citizens, but rather any business that provides wireless internet services to its customers, from dentists’ officers to gyms.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the few lawmakers sounding the alarm about this provision, confirmed that “if you have access to any communications, the government can force you to help it spy. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a wifi router, a phone, or a computer.”

That\u2019s not even the worst part. Unlike Google and Verizon, most of these businesses and individuals lack the ability to isolate and turn over a target\u2019s communications. So they would be required to give the NSA access to the equipment itself\u2026 13/25
— (@)

“If this provision is enacted, the government could deputize any one of these people against their will, and force them to become an agent for Big Brother,” Wyden said in a statement. “This could all happen without any oversight. The FISA Court won’t know about it. Congress won’t know about it.”

While plumbers, technicians, engineers, and various other professionals could be compelled into the service of the surveillance state, Snowden noted those in the tech space are especially at risk, emphasizing, “If you work at a US tech firm, this bill could transform your whole company into a spy machine.”

Wyden, clearly desperate to motivate his Democratic peers to kill the bill, noted that their indifference in this vote might cost them bigly if President Donald Trump wins in November — even though Trump has implored lawmakers to “KILL FISA.”

Across the aisle there are a handful of Republicans distrustful of conferring more surveillance powers on a government exceedingly prone to error who have similarly signaled they’ll fight the bill in the Senate.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a longtime critic of Section 702, noted Tuesday, “If you find yourself voting for the House-passed bill expanding FISA and reauthorizing 702 without a warrant requirement … [y]ou might have been deceived. Or maybe you’re deceiving others.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Larry Kudlow this week that some of his fellow Republicans have expressed an interest in doing “a whitewash on FISA and let[ting] them continue to have all the power in the world to spy on Americans.”

“I will not let them do it easily, and I am doing to do all I can to make sure there is a debate on FISA because I don’t think our intelligence agencies should be allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant,” said Paul.

The internet freedom group Demand Progress framed the vote Thursday as a choice of whether or not to equip future presidents with “a knife to ram through the back of democracy.”

“These KGB-style powers pose an existential threat to our civil liberties,” added the group. “The Senate must block this provision.”