*The ubiquitous Flock cameras are the current lightning rod in politics. What should Utah politicians do about it? *
Flock cameras are the current lightning rod in politics.
**Cowley: **Ring Doorbell ran a Super Bowl ad showcasing technology to locate runaway dogs. Consumers were creeped out by their surveillance capabilities. This illustrates why people are afraid of camera and AI monitoring.
Reviewing abuses of this technology (law enforcement stalking women) misses the mark on why perpetual government-sponsored voyeurism is troubling. Using AI, Flock creates a graph of where you go and who you associate with, all day, every day, regardless of whether you’re suspected of committing a crime. Citizens question if constant surveillance is warranted, or even constitutional. Furthermore, the mere existence of this public snooping is ripe for hacking by nefarious actors.
Carpenter v. United States set a precedent that individual warrants are required for cell phone data, upholding the 4th Amendment. Comprehensive, long-term data collection through Flock cameras is more egregious than dragnet warrants, DUI checkpoints and stop-and-frisk policies combined.
Through the Snowden revelation, the public had a visceral reaction to George W. Bush’s NSA domestic surveillance. As they learn about the government’s latest citizen-monitoring tool, they are becoming increasingly irate over this un-American intrusion.
With respect to my senior co-contributor, “I’ve done nothing wrong, so who cares if law enforcement takes a picture of my license plate?” overlooks the bigger picture. Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I believe law enforcement is well-intentioned. Inarguably, this technology can solve crimes, but at what cost? Public safety has other investigative tools to safeguard communities.
Pignanelli: “Neither privacy nor publicity is dead, but technology will continue to make a mess of both.” – Danah Boyd* *
Pardon the eye roll. Within a few months, Flock cameras became the harbinger of the apocalypse because they capture automobile details like license plates, dents and other characteristics. Oh my gosh!
The people driving these cars all have smartphones that may use GPS, credit cards or other technology that reveal their whereabouts and personal information. Every day I’m inundated with emails and text messages from politicians, charitable organizations and scammers trying to grab my hard-earned dollars.
I donated to candidates of both parties, contributed to nonprofits and purchased from retailers — all of whom sold my personal information without permission. Very little will be done about this because few want to impede efforts to raise money or obtain new customers. But they have invaded my privacy much more than photographing my old car with its many dents.
I support some camera parameters, but really don’t care if someone wants to take a picture of my car. This explosion of self-righteous anger distracts from more worrisome targets.
*In a recent press conference, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said the process around approving the Stratos data center project was “not good.” Businessman Kevin O’Leary apologized for how his “team“ managed the publicity. During interim, the Legislature held several hearings on data centers. Across the country, data centers are becoming the deciding issue in elections. What will happen when federal and state lawmakers confront this issue early next year? *
**Cowley: **Cox’s and the Legislature’s approval is sinking, and the culprit is the Stratos Project backlash. Even those who support data centers raise their eyebrows at the hasty process, voluminous scope, undefined environmental impacts and lack of public input associated with Mr. O’Leary’s data center.
The Legislature is targeting data centers’ impact on natural resources, temperatures, air quality, noise and the electrical grid’s strain, but MIDA and its governance structure are in the blast zone.
Bribes, I mean incentives, are becoming commonplace in other states. Teachers in a Louisiana parish are receiving up to $50,000 to promote community support for a data center. Any large-scale development should add community benefit, but impacts should be evaluated fairly.
**Pignanelli: **The proponents of Prohibition secured passage of three constitutional amendments to achieve their objective. A major reason for this success is that they ensured bipartisan support.
The same dynamic is occurring with data centers. Officeholders and candidates of both parties are bemoaning the effects of data centers. Many candidates with once-limited prospects who promise to stall AI may now be elected to federal and state offices in the upcoming midterm elections.
The one big difference between Prohibition 100 years ago and moratoriums on data centers is that people of my ethnic heritage provided the outlawed product to thirsty customers. Conversely, technology companies could be forced to process data in other areas of the world, which would dramatically shift this country’s future.
*How do voters feel about these emerging technologies, and how will it impact the upcoming elections and session? *
Cowley: Public concern isn’t just resource-guzzling buildings; it’s artificial intelligence. People worry about their jobs, their kids’ well-being, and frankly, the future of humanity. Time will tell if AI will catapult us into the next industrial revolution or be our downfall.
Lawmakers who don’t take their constituents’ concerns seriously will pay the price at the ballot box.
**Pignanelli: **The fears of AI killing jobs and the increasing cost of techy products for everyday use will be major policy issues in federal and state elections, and drive legislation next year.