In 1949, George Orwell (1903~1950) published his book, 1984. In that notable work, “Big Brother” was a warning about where totalitarian power might lead. Today, many Americans point to China as proof that the warning came true. But I think the real picture is more expansive and is an unsettling one that needs to be taken seriously in the U.S.

The
Situation in China
China has more
than 1.4 billion people—about 17% of the world’s population—and that massive
nation has long been governed by an authoritarian leader who subjects them to
extensive surveillance.
Local governments there have developed
facial recognition software that can be used with the hundreds of millions of
surveillance cameras across the country. In northwestern China, the Uighur
people, suffering under religious persecution as Muslims, have been under
widespread surveillance. But journalists and dissidents have been targeted as well.
Surveillance in China is
widespread because of four forces that reinforce each other: the totalitarian
political structure; the huge population requiring automated control; urban,
digital infrastructure that makes surveillance easy; and tech companies
integrated with the state. The combination of those four forces makes China
unique.
As my A.I. buddy Claude says, “A surveillance
system doesn’t need to touch everyone equally to be effective. It needs only to
be capable of finding anyone, at any time, and everyone knows it. The knowledge
that you could be watched changes how people speak, gather, worship, and
dissent.”
China’s totalitarian leaders built the
surveillance system deliberately, by design. That sets it apart from what is
happening, and what may increasingly happen, in the U.S. But the tools are the
same. Cameras, databases, and software that can track a person’s movements
don’t care what kind of government is using them.
The
Situation in the U.S.
While there are certainly great differences
between surveillance in the U.S. and China, “Big Brother” doesn’t have to be linked
to a centralized state with a totalitarian leader. That surveillance can be
done with the aid of private networks that the government can freely borrow.
Flock Safety, an Atlanta
company founded in 2017, is the private company that produces Flock cameras. As
of August 2026, it had alone had about 120,000 cameras in 49 states. Those
cameras record roughly 20 billion images every month.
As an ardent Democrat, I rarely
find myself agreeing with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Yet his warning during a
Senate hearing on Flock Safety’s AI-powered surveillance deserves attention. That
September 23, 2026, hearing was called, “Always Watching: Flock’s Nationwide AI
Surveillance Network.”
Mr. Hawley stated that the
current surveillance system in the U.S. is “unlike anything we've ever seen in
this country before.” What troubled him was not simply the number of cameras,
but the fact that they are linked together, searchable, and increasingly
powered by artificial intelligence.
The issue is no longer
whether Flock cameras and A.I. technology work. Rather, it is a matter of whether
a free society should accept constant surveillance—and whether such monitoring
can and should be considered a violation of our basic human rights.
Supporters emphasize that
the Flock camera systems can, and do, help recover stolen vehicles, locate
missing persons, and solve serious crimes more quickly than could otherwise be
done. And to an extent, that may well be true.
But civil-liberties groups
such as the ACLU have argued that expansive surveillance systems can, among
other things, chill free speech and political participation, deter attendance
at protests or controversial meetings, and create risks of government abuse.
When a conservative
Republican such as Mr. Hawley and civil liberties advocates across the
political spectrum raise similar concerns, the issue transcends ordinary
partisan politics.
Let’s
Not Allow “Big
Brother” to
Impair Our Human Rights
So,
while China’s “Big Brother” is
centralized, one party watching through one system, USAmerica’s is emerging
from the bottom up, thousands of small eyes watching and sharing what they see.
Since Orwell’s warning sounded in 1949 still
rings true all these years later, we USAmericans need to take seriously the current
surveillance threat in rather than only pointing our fingers at Beijing.
_____
Note: This
blog article was drafted largely after (and because of) reading the excellent
piece by Michael Chancellor at this website:
https://goodfaithmedia.org/hidden-eyes-why-flock-surveillance-cameras-must-come-with-oversight/
[I also
appreciate the research and drafting assistance provided by Claude and Copilot.]

Yes, I've been saying for sometime Now that Big Brother is here!
ReplyDeleteI was expecting more comments before now, but so far, except from a personal email from a local Thinking Friend and a brief comment from an old TF in California, here is the only comment I have received (and it is also from a local TF) to post here:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy. Case in point, the AI in my phone scanned your article and offered me several quick responses. One of which was 'I voted,' which we actually did.
"What may help us is the public opposition to these huge data centers, both by Democrats and Republicans. I guess I’m hopeful that just as we seem to be standing up to tyranny now in this election, we will, in our public opposition, push the brakes on this surveillance.
"Stay strong."
Since I posted this yesterday, I have learned that just about 15 miles from where I live in Liberty, Mo., the Excelsior Springs City Council voted unanimously to remove the city's Flock surveillance cameras. This shows that the debate over privacy, public safety, and surveillance is not happening somewhere far away. It is taking place right next door.
ReplyDeleteThat vote was on October 19, 2026, and it was by a
Deleteunanimously 5-0 vote
The first comment posted above was by a boyhood friend, who was born in the same month as I was (Aug. 1938). This morning I received the following comment from another boyhood friend of both John Tim (above) and me. Talm, as I knew him then, wrote,
ReplyDelete"Read your blog and to a certain degree agreed. Since I have nothing to hide, I think the good the cameras do outweighs the negatives."
Read your blog and to a certain degree agreed. Since I have nothing to hide I think the good the cameras do out weighs the negatives.
I responded by email directly to John Tim Carr yesterday. Here is what I said to him, which is related to the comment above our mutual boyhood friend, who was born just a few months after John Tim and me.
DeleteJohn Tim, thanks for reading and responding to the blog post I made this morning. On today's jog in the nearby park, I paid more attention than usual to the two surveillance cameras I saw. One was pointed at the nice new toilets that were built a few months ago and the other by a new feature they are currently installing. Those cameras are for the purpose of preventing vandalism, no doubt. Not long after the toilets were built, someone wrote graffiti on the front and side that was not easily removed. Since the camera went up, I haven't seen any more graffiti on the toilet, so perhaps that camera is a good thing. Still, if I use the toilet, "Big Brother" has a picture of when I went it and how long it was before I came out. I assume that is harmless information. But still, it is recorded somewhere and "Big Brother" can access whenever he so desires.
First, I got back from a trip and missed responding to the last post, but, even so, I have voted! Second, I agree with the fear of the misuse of the Flock cameras. On the other hand, we live in such strange times that I am also worried about removing them. One of the most obnoxious criminal gangs likely to be caught on city cameras is ICE!
Delete