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.

Docs: Democrat Special Counsel Jack Smith Spied On, Lied To Congress

An executive agent spying on members of a legislature not only violates the Constitution but is a hallmark of authoritarian states.

'Keep drivers focused': EU mandates eye-tracking cameras in every car



The European Union says it wants to keep drivers safe by mandating new safety protocols surrounding emergency detection and distracted drivers.

The method of achieving these safety measures is likely to anger some drivers, if not many.

'This requirement does not forbid the ADDW system to use data from the camera.'

In an article titled "Safer cars, safer roads: New rules take effect," the EU announced that its new "life-saving systems" are required for all newly registered cars and vans starting on July 7.

This includes requirements for expanded safety glass, new tests for worn tires, emergency brake detections, and most notably, an "advanced driver distraction warning system to keep drivers focused."

According to official EU documents, these ADDW systems are required to monitor where the driver is looking at all times.

"The presence of the driver's gaze shall be monitored by the ADDW system in the areas of interest," the documents state.

Although the amount of cameras (and their placement) is not described, the set of rules does define what is considered a "distraction" area for the driver. This includes the driver's lap, the center console, and behind the driver's seat.

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

Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images

Allowable areas include the entire view of the windshield and the passenger window area.

The allottable time a driver is allowed to "gaze" into the distracted areas depends on the driver's speed. At speeds between 20 kph and 50 kph (between 12 mph and 31 mph), "if the driver's gaze remains within the defined 'distracted' vision area for more than 6 seconds," the car will issue a warning, InterRegs writes.

Above 50 kph, the time of allowed drifting gaze is just 3.5 seconds. Any violation of the allotted times will trigger a "visual warning ... to inform the driver, and an acoustic and/or a haptic warning shall be used" as well.

The warnings may "cascade and intensify" until the trigger conditions are met, the rules state. At the same time, there does not exist any verbiage that describes vehicle intervention or any kill switch to cut off the car's engine if the driver fails to comply.

RELATED: Republicans speak out against 'kill switch' mandate for all new cars: 'The technology is unworkable'

Francis DEMANGE/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images

In April, Republicans argued against similar technology being implemented in the United States, which included both passive and active monitoring tools, some of which can be powered by artificial intelligence.

Not only were infrared cameras that track a driver's eye movements and pupil dilation a possibility, but so were "cockpit-embedded sensors" capable of estimating blood alcohol levels through a driver's breath.

Other proposed methods have included touch-based sensors that detect alcohol through the skin of a finger or palm.

The EU says the new systems must function "without relying on biometric personal data of any vehicle occupants."

This data refers to any "physical, physiological, or behavioural characteristics" that identify the person, including "facial images."

"This requirement does not forbid the ADDW system to use data from the camera(s) equipped in the vehicle, it forbids the identification of the person by the ADDW system."

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

The KIDS Act would turn web browsing into a TSA line



Lawmakers never tire of devising new ways to undermine digital privacy and First Amendment rights, always under the guise of “protecting kids.”

The KIDS Act — the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act — is the latest piece of smug political branding and virtue-signaling to dress up heavy-handed federal overreach in the gentle language of child welfare. Lawmakers considering this legislation should ask a simple question: Could its broad and vague provisions someday be wielded by their political opponents to muzzle speech they favor?

Children deserve real and meaningful protection in the digital age. But true safety comes from empowering parents and holding actual bad actors accountable under existing laws.

Congress should reject the KIDS Act and defend the constitutional rights of all Americans.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) claim this latest “safety package” is about “empowering parents, establishing safety as a default, strengthening privacy for children and teens, increasing transparency around data brokers, and holding Big Tech accountable.”

Washington has heard this pitch before. Wide-ranging digital legislation is routinely sold as a privacy measure even when it undermines privacy.

As Taxpayers Protection Alliance research director David McGarry wrote in December, “Consensus [around digital safety legislation] remains elusive, and for good reason. The regulation of the internet is shot through with difficulties.”

The Kids Online Safety Act proves the point. McGarry observed, “Seeing the imprudence and constitutional vulnerabilities of the bill, its supporters have continuously trimmed and reshaped the legislation, each time declaring that this time — finally — the bill had been rid of its deficiencies. Each time, however, the amendments proved wanting, and further efforts to amend KOSA were undertaken.”

That analysis applies just as well to the current version of KOSA included in the KIDS Act.

Supporters claim the latest version removes the “duty of care” requirement that would have forced platforms to withhold poorly defined categories of online content from underage users. But the bill still targets broad categories of constitutionally protected speech.

Digital platforms are instructed to “establish, implement, maintain, and enforce reasonable policies, practices, and procedures” addressing supposed harms to minors, including the “use of ... alcohol”; “threats of physical violence so severe, pervasive, or objectively offensive that such threats impact a major life activity of a minor”; and “financial harm caused by deceptive practices.”

RELATED: Digital tyrants want your face, your ID … and your freedom

imaginima/iStock/Getty Images

Those terms are vague and dangerously elastic. What counts as the “use” of alcohol? Could a platform face scrutiny for allowing video clips featuring champagne toasts? Could a joke between friends be treated as a threat of physical violence? Because “deceptive” remains undefined, virtually any online transaction or promoted product could become a federal enforcement hook.

This minefield of liability makes a mockery of the First Amendment and chills expression across the digital domain.

The bill’s most insidious provision involves age verification.

On paper, the KIDS Act says it does not mandate age verification. That language sounds reassuring, but it functions as a legislative bait and switch. The bill imposes a legal standard holding tech platforms liable for content if they “know or should have known” a user’s age.

Consider the real-world meaning of “should have known.” If a company faces massive legal penalties or federal lawsuits for failing to determine a user’s age, it will feel compelled to verify the identity of everyone who logs on — children and adults alike.

That creates a de facto mandate requiring adults to upload driver’s licenses, biometric data, or government IDs just to read a news article, browse a forum, or use a search engine. Web users would be asked to hand over their most sensitive personal information to corporate databases that have repeatedly proved vulnerable to data breaches and foreign hackers.

Age verification on this scale is not a “best practice,” as the bill’s language suggests. It is constitutional malpractice.

The KIDS Act also responds to alleged online harms by expanding federal bureaucracy and spending more taxpayer dollars. It establishes a asinine array of busywork for busybodies: Federal Trade Commission and Health and Human Services studies, a four-year National Institutes of Health longitudinal study, public awareness campaigns, and a new “Kids Internet Safety Partnership” inside the Department of Commerce.

RELATED: Age verification laws do not make us safer

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images

This amounts to a major expansion of taxpayer-funded bureaucracy tasked with creating a “playbook” for more age verification.

Supporters will note that lawmakers stripped the highly controversial “duty of care” provision from previous versions of KOSA and retained explicit protections for data encryption. But removing the worst elements of an inherently broken bill does not transform it into good policy.

Children deserve real and meaningful protection in the digital age. But true safety comes from empowering parents with robust tools, advancing media literacy, and holding actual bad actors accountable under existing criminal laws.

It does not come from turning the internet into a surveillance state where adults must show their papers to browse the web.

Congress must reject the KIDS Act and protect both the Constitution and the digital domain.

Traffic cones and barrels are spying on you — what are they hiding?



A person who took a recent viral video caught something suspicious about several barrels next to a highway: They were watching him.

When a citizen pulled off to the side of an Arizona highway, he saw yellow barrels that are seemingly inconspicuous, but upon closer inspection, he saw they had slots carved out for multiple camera lenses.

'Often the same systems employed by state and local law enforcement nationwide.'

The cameras tucked in the barrel were pointed in both directions and had a power source plugged into them that the man in the video claimed "just goes off in the distance."

What are they?

The video has been viewed more than 1.5 million times on X, and while it is unclear exactly where the barrels are located, they match the description of setups along U.S. Route 60, east of Apache Junction, Arizona. This remote stretch over 100 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border is where is where Border Patrol authorities are setting up automated license plate recognition cameras.

As reported by AZ Mirror, the disguised cameras look so much like traffic/construction markers — they indeed are construction markers, just with holes cut out — that the Arizona Department of Transportation asked Customs and Border Protection to stop using them because they could confuse drivers.

RELATED: Big Brother on the road: Backlash grows against license plate surveillance

These are the brand new disguised Automated License Plate Reader cameras in Arizona

The large yellow plastic barrels are camouflaged housings designed to look like construction equipment

They are being deployed in remote desert areas along highways

These new camouflaged… pic.twitter.com/JuU2NXMvxu
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 1, 2026

Plate readers are often "disguised along highways in traffic safety equipment like drums and barrels," the Associated Press wrote in November 2025.

The AZ Mirror further noted that cameras have been spotted in orange traffic cones, yellow barrels, speed trap signs, and on the backs of overhead highway signs.

The same style of barrels in the viral video appears in CBP documents and permits dating back as far as 2019, with the documents providing a breakdown of the solar-powered cameras that go inside the barrels, complete with a battery and cellular unit.

"USBP monitoring equipment will be placed in the barrel and weighed down by sand. Barrel camera will have a power supply with solar panel placed thirty feet from the white line [at the road]," read a 2019 permit.

Another set of documents showed the same technology being used in cylindrical cones typically seen for road construction.

RELATED: License plate readers or surveillance? The number of AI cameras in the US is shocking

David L. Ryan/Boston Globe/Getty Images

Why are they there?

The AP reported last year that CBP has been tracking license plates to catch human smugglers as far back as 2017 in "an area of interest or smuggling route."

"Once the investigation is complete, or the illicit activity has stopped in that area, the covert cameras are removed," a document stated.

The CBP's mission is "complex and relies on a layered mix of personnel, technology, and infrastructure to detect illicit activity while supporting lawful trade and travel," the federal agency said, per the AZ Mirror.

The statement explained that the CBP approach uses license plate readers that are "often the same systems employed by state and local law enforcement nationwide" to identify threats and disrupt criminal networks.

Border Patrol said it does not provide the operational applications of its license plate readers to the public, nor does it disclose the specific number or locations of its cameras, citing "national security reasons."

Who is monitoring them?

KOLD 13 News in Arizona, like other outlets, reported that Flock Safety cameras have been operating in Arizona regions like Sierra Vista and South Tucson. However, while these two jurisdictions ended their contracts with the surveillance company in May, Flock has operated many of the cameras being used by CBP.

The AP reported that while Flock is one of several companies used by border agents, CBP had access to at least 1,600 of Flock's license plate readers across 22 states at one time.

As previously reported by Blaze News, Flock is used by more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies and has more than 100,000 ALPR cameras deployed in the United States.

Other camera companies being used by Border Patrol include Rekor and Vigilant Solutions. Rekor launched in 2019 with an announcement that it had recorded a whopping 30 million plate reads per week.

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

MIT’s AI future scenarios range from ‘Star Trek’ utopia to human extinction



The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has identified 12 possible future outcomes of artificial intelligence — ranging from a perfect utopia to complete human extinction.

BlazeTV host Pat Gray enjoys some of them, while others are deeply unsettling.

“The libertarian utopia: AI brings prosperity and AI-driven automation replaces most human jobs. The AI is vastly more intelligent but does not interfere with humans, leaving them to co-exist in separate zones,” Gray reads.

“The egalitarian utopia,” he continues reading, “AI and robotics lead to extreme abundance. Ownership becomes obsolete because robots produce everything needed, and resources are essentially free.”

“That’s like a ‘Star Trek’ outcome,” he adds.

The next is the “benevolent dictator possibility.”


“A super intelligent AI runs the world, making decisions that are 0% corrupt and perfectly fair,” Gray says, noting that the “first three are pretty decent options.”

However, after those three, the AI starts to get a little more controlling.

“The gatekeeper: A single all-powerful AI controls all technology and prevents humans from developing any other dangerous technologies, ensuring safety at the cost of freedom,” Gray explains, before moving on to the “protector god.”

This AI is “developed specifically to defend humanity, acting as an omnipotent guardian against existential threats.”

One concerning option is the “zookeeper option,” which keeps humans in “a protected, comfortable state similar to a nature reserve.”

Even scarier is the “1984 surveillance state possibility.”

This AI would “create an inescapable totalitarian surveillance state where every action is monitored and dissent is impossible.”

“We’re almost there now,” Gray says, before moving on to the “cyborg enhancement path,” which involves humans integrating “AI directly into their bodies and minds.”

The “self-preservation replacement scenario” follows, where “AI is developed, but its goals diverge from humanity’s, leading to the eradication of humans.”

“Not out of malice, but because humans are in the way of its goals,” Gray says. “Man, I could see that happening.”

Then there is the “apocalyptic future,” which features a “poorly designed super intelligent AI” breaking free and “destroying civilization,” and “the boredom scenario,” where “AI does everything so well that humans lose their sense of purpose.”

The final scenario is the “oops scenario,” where “humans try to create a controlled AI but fail, creating something they cannot understand or control, leading to unpredictable, potentially catastrophic results.”

“So,” Gray says, “there’s a few.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Colorado's speed-camera traps just got way more aggressive



There’s enforcing the law — and then there’s building a system that treats every driver like a suspect the moment they turn the key. Colorado isn’t flirting with that line anymore. It’s driving straight past it.

For years, speed cameras were a minor annoyance. You knew where they were, your navigation app warned you, and if you were paying attention, you adjusted. It wasn’t perfect, but at least it was transparent. Colorado has now scrapped that model in favor of something far more aggressive — and far less accountable.

Meanwhile, the state continues issuing tickets at scale, backed by a system that never sleeps, never questions itself, and never exercises judgment.

The state’s new Automated Vehicle Identification Systems don’t just clock your speed at a single point. They track your vehicle across multiple cameras, calculate your average speed over distance, and automatically issue a ticket if you’re 10 miles per hour or more over the limit. No warning. No discretion. No human judgment. Just a system quietly watching, calculating, and penalizing.

Let’s call this what it is: not smarter enforcement, but broader surveillance.

Highway robbery

The rollout followed a 2023 change in state law, and what started as warnings has quickly turned into active ticketing. One of the newest stretches under this system is Interstate 25 north of Denver, where drivers moving through construction zones are now monitored continuously. The state says it’s about safety. That’s the headline. But the fine print tells a different story.

The penalty is $75 and carries zero points on your license. That’s not an accident. If this were truly about cracking down on dangerous driving, there would be meaningful consequences tied to your driving record. Instead, this looks like a volume business model — low enough fines to keep people from fighting, high enough frequency to generate serious revenue.

And then there’s the part that should concern every driver in America: The ticket goes to the registered owner of the vehicle, not necessarily the person who was driving.

That’s where this stops being about traffic enforcement and starts colliding with the Constitution.

RELATED: Illinois wants to track every mile its drivers drive — is your state next?

Horacio Villalobos/Getty Images

Blank check

The burden of proof in this country is supposed to be on the state. That’s not optional. That’s foundational. Yet Colorado’s system leans on the assumption that if your name is on the registration, you’re responsible — unless you can prove otherwise. That flips due process on its head.

Colorado Revised Statute 42-4-110.5 does not give the state a blank check to assign liability to vehicle owners in every situation. In fact, it explicitly acknowledges that the owner may not have been the driver. And long-standing legal precedent — at both the federal and state level — makes it clear that the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Relying on a license plate and a database isn’t proof. It’s a shortcut.

And let’s be honest: The system counts on the fact that most people won’t push back. They’ll see the fine, weigh the hassle of fighting it, and just pay up. That’s not justice. That’s compliance by inconvenience.

Legal maze

If you do challenge it, you’re stepping into a legal maze that most drivers aren’t equipped to navigate. Meanwhile, the state continues issuing tickets at scale, backed by a system that never sleeps, never questions itself, and never exercises judgment.

This is what happens when enforcement becomes automated: Accountability disappears.

A police officer can assess a situation. A camera cannot. It doesn’t care if traffic flow made it safer to keep pace. It doesn’t account for conditions. It doesn’t apply discretion. It simply records, calculates, and penalizes. That might be efficient, but it’s not fair — and it’s certainly not nuanced.

Mile-high spies

Then there’s the bigger picture, the one few officials seem eager to talk about.

These systems don’t just measure speed. They track movement. They log where your vehicle enters a zone, where it exits, and how it behaves in between. Expand that across highways, cities, and eventually entire states, and you’re looking at a real-time network that monitors how Americans move.

And if you think it stops at speeding, you haven’t been paying attention to how quickly technology evolves.

Today, it’s average speed enforcement. Tomorrow, it could be automated citations for rolling stops, lane usage, or anything else that can be digitized. Add artificial intelligence into the mix, and the potential scope grows exponentially. This isn’t science fiction — it’s the natural progression of a system that’s already in place.

Colorado isn’t just testing a traffic tool. It’s piloting a framework.

Stealer's wheel

Supporters will argue this is about protecting construction workers, and that’s a legitimate concern. No one is arguing against safety. But safety cannot become the catch-all justification for systems that erode fundamental legal protections. You don’t preserve public safety by undermining due process.

And let’s not ignore the tone coming from officials who promote these programs. There’s an almost casual acceptance — sometimes even pride — in the idea of constant monitoring. As if a 24/7 enforcement net is something drivers should simply accept as the cost of modern transportation.

That’s not how this is supposed to work.

Government answers to the people, not the other way around. Policies like this deserve scrutiny, debate, and — when necessary — pushback. Because once a system like this is normalized, it doesn’t get scaled back. It expands. Quietly. Incrementally. Permanently.

Colorado may frame this as innovation. But from behind the wheel, it looks a lot more like overreach.

And if other states decide to follow this blueprint — and they will — drivers across the country may soon find themselves in the same position: tracked, ticketed, and told to prove their innocence after the fact.

That’s not better enforcement.

That’s a fundamental shift in how the rules are applied — and who they’re really serving.

The Doorbell Camera Surveillance State Is Not Just About Finding Fido And Grandma

The mass surveillance state is quite literally on your doorstep in the form of a big-tech owned doorbell camera.

Glenn Beck sounds the alarm on Apple’s digital ID: ‘Control of absolutely everything’



Apple has introduced its own digital ID, which is connected to Apple Wallet — but Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is not thrilled to hear about the company's latest advancement, calling it a “very bad idea.”

“Digital ID is the first thing. Then it includes your medical records. It includes all your health — everything. It will give you access to the hospitals or not access to the hospitals. It will allow you to buy things or not buy things,” Glenn explains.

“It’ll allow you to access online or not access online. It is control of absolutely everything. And that’s in the design, and they talk about it openly,” he adds.


After the tyranny displayed during COVID, Glenn is among those most skeptical of advancements like digital ID.

“Presenting the new Apple digital ID,” Glenn says sarcastically. “Now at the TSA checkpoints in more than 250 airports all across the U.S., you can present your digital ID at TSA checkpoints and get right onto that plane.”

While Apple claims the digital ID is “not a replacement” for a physical passport, it does add an official government ID to a user’s Apple wallet.

“It does sort of sound appealing, doesn’t it? I mean, just speaking frankly for a moment,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere chimes in.

While Glenn agrees that it does “sound appealing,” he points out that the end result would be anything but.

“I have to tell you, when you start putting everything, all records, all passports — it is your one universal key, and it’s tied directly to online, where it’s tracking everything, everywhere you go, every dollar you spend,” he says. “This is just a very bad idea.”

“There’s a story … it’s called the book of Revelation. I mean, how much clearer do you have to be, where you can’t go anywhere, you can’t buy anything, unless you have the mark. I’m not saying Apple is coming up with the mark of the beast, but this is the technology that sure kind of fits it,” he adds.

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.

Surveillance everywhere, justice nowhere: Brown University shooting exposes the illusion of safety



A dystopian surveillance state is what so many Americans fear their country is becoming, while some have just accepted that a surveillance state is our past, present, and future.

“There comes a point where, as a society, we just end up getting used to the massive surveillance state that we live in,” Glenn Beck’s head researcher and former DOD intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill tells Glenn.

However, while we’re used to the surveillance state, it doesn’t appear to be doing its job — especially when you look at the response to the recent shooting at Brown University.

On Saturday, Dec. 13, a gunman opened fire inside a first-floor classroom at the Barus and Holley building on Brown’s campus — and the gunman remains elusive.


“If you go back to around 2021, there were people writing about how Brown University was one of the most surveilled campuses in the United States,” Buttrill explains.

“How is it we only have one picture of this guy from the back?” Glenn interjects, adding, “Apparently the one thing that will help you get away with any crime is a hoodie.”

“Yeah, wear something over your head and a coat. Apparently that foils the entire surveillance state, y’all,” Buttrill agrees. “So I guess we have nothing to worry about with surveillance.”

“And on top of that, Kash Patel, the FBI director, said that, you know, they sprung into action and they activated their cellular monitoring system to help identify the person that has now been let go,” he continues.

“Again, that’s another layer of this surveillance state that I think a lot of us should be worried about, and that didn’t do anything either,” he says, adding, “That helped give us the wrong suspect.”

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.