Flock Cameras Are Moving From Roads to Watching as Drones From the Sky

A company that blanketed American roads with license-plate-reading cameras is now sending drones into the sky. Cities across America are grappling with their own debates about aid to law enforcement, coupled with concerns about privacy and surveillance.

Flock’s Drone-as-First-Responder system, or DFR, launches remotely operated drones from automated rooftop docks. A drone can be sent to a location generated by a 911 call, a license-plate-reader alert, or a gunshot-detection alert. It will then stream live video to dispatchers, officers in the field, and a real-time crime center.

The company entered the market through its 2024 acquisition of the drone firm Aerodome. They advertise high-definition video, as well as thermal imaging. Integration with the rest of its sensor network is also available.

Police have flown drones for years. However, a system that connects an emergency call to an automatically launched aircraft, a live video feed, and a crime center in one loop, tied to a company’s other data, is entirely new. Flock said drones are its fastest-growing business.

Military.com reached out to Flock Safety with questions about the program’s growth, its data policies, and the concerns raised in city debates. No response was received by publication.

Keep reading

NDP MP Leah Gazan calls for criminalizing residential school denialism

NDP MP Leah Gazan is calling on the federal government to criminalize residential school denialism, a move that could have serious implications for freedom of speech and journalism in Canada.

Gazan wants the Liberals to adopt her private member’s bill as government legislation, arguing that criminalizing denialism would protect residential school survivors and prevent hate.

The call comes amid controversy over Rebel News merchandise featuring slogans such as “Dig Deeper” and “Still No Proof.” The shirts call for further investigation into unmarked grave claims at former residential school sites, not the denial of the harms associated with residential schools.

But Gazan’s demand raises an important question: where does legitimate scrutiny end and criminal speech begin? Journalists must be able to investigate claims made by public institutions, particularly when those claims have significant consequences for public policy and spending.

Drea Humphrey has launched ReconciliationOverreach.com, an initiative to investigate spending and accountability within what she describes as the reconciliation industry.

Criminalizing questions about residential school claims risks discouraging the very scrutiny that journalism is meant to provide. Survivors deserve dignity, but that should not come at the expense of open debate or the public’s right to ask questions.

Keep reading

How Many Ministries Of Truth Does One Country Need

How many Ministries of Truth does one country need? With Andy Burnham announcing yet another, Prof Michael Rainsborough points out that Britain’s “narratives of decline” arise because the country is, in fact, declining…

In previous essays I have sought to describe the political condition into which Britain and other Western democracies have been drifting by offering various analogies.

At first, I tried being serious. My initial forays drew comparisons with the post-totalitarian societies of late communist Eastern Europe, where the widening distance between official propaganda and observable reality produced an ever-greater institutional effort to enforce the official world view. Later essays pursued the analogy more directly, asking whether Britain was becoming increasingly Sovietised, with some of the same characteristics of a political order in severe decline becoming recognisable. With the supply of serious comparisons running low, and the ironies apparently passing unnoticed, there seemed little left to do except laugh.

Once the absurdities become difficult to describe with a straight face, parody is the logical next step. The difficulty now has been making the exaggeration last until publication. Institutions and bureaucratic inventions for comic effect have acquired real-world counterparts before the joke has had time to land.

WISDOM escapes into the wild

A few weeks back my satirical turn took the form of ‘The Spy Who Came in From the Consensus‘, a John le Carré spoof in which the machinery of the contemporary British state deployed its formidable powers of information gathering to confirm what it already believed. At the centre of the story was WISDOM, the Whole-of-Institution Strategic Data and Outcomes Management system. Created to defend Britain against foreign disinformation, it soon graduated to monitoring “harmful narratives”, “problematic nostalgia”, declining trust and negative sentiment about immigration. A genuine photograph of migrants arriving on a beach was flagged for “decontextualised visual framing”. Requests for original sources and factual corrections became possible indicators of hostile interference.

Having begun by investigating Russia, China and Iran, WISDOM eventually discovered that the most troublesome source of misinformation about Britain was British people’s stubborn attachment to feeling British. WISDOM’s final diagnosis of the country’s deteriorating social cohesion was commendably concise: “The problem isn’t the problem, the problem is the people noticing the problem.“

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Andy Burnham stood before the United Nations and announced the creation of a National Centre for Information Defence. Barely had WISDOM escaped onto the page before reality began catching up with the satire.

According to Burnham, NCID will detect, attribute and disrupt hostile-state information attacks. He cited Russian bots masquerading as British citizens, fake websites, fabricated reports, forged newspaper branding and covert interference. Most insidious of all, naturally, was the amplification of “far Right narratives“. Russia, Burnham said, was creating a narrative of British decline. Britain, he claimed, had surrendered too much ground to those promoting such an account.

Burnham insisted that the “negative” and “corrosive” narrative about life in Britain “bears no resemblance to reality“. A few moments later in the very same speech, Burnham described people struggling with the “cost of living”, lives that were “not improving”, young people outside employment, education or training, widening inequality and a society vulnerable to division. Making life more affordable, he then announced, would lie at the heart of a new “10-year plan” for Britain.

The narrative of decline therefore bears no resemblance to reality, although reality apparently requires a 10-year plan.

Keep reading

New York Teen Forced Out of School After Judge Denies Medical Exemption

A senior at a New York high school can no longer attend class as of today, after a federal judge declined to extend a medical exemption from the school’s vaccine mandates for the current school year.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Gary Brown of the Eastern District of New York ordered a New York school district to allow Sarah Doe, who had obtained a medical exemption, to attend high school during the 2025-2026 school year.

But in a ruling issued late Wednesday in Jane Doe v. Oceanside Union Free School District, Brown denied the renewed medical exemption request for the 2026-2027 school year.

Last year, Brown granted an emergency preliminary injunction allowing Sarah to attend 11th grade without receiving the third dose of the hepatitis B (Hep B) vaccine — the only recommended shot she hadn’t taken at the time — because her severe reactions to previous doses had left her sick and disabled.

When the lawsuit was filed, at least six treating physicians certified to the school district that Sarah could be harmed by taking the shot, according to court documents. The district nonetheless repeatedly denied her exemption requests. Since then, more doctors have affirmed that assessment.

Brown said last year’s decision rested in part on a physician’s report that Sarah experienced an anaphylactic reaction to an earlier dose, and evidence she had received the first two doses and had some immunity.

Brown also based his previous decision on an appeals court precedent stating that there had never been definitive proof that hepatitis B could be transmitted through “non-parenteral” routes like saliva — meaning passed in ways not transmitted through blood or broken skin.

After attending school last year under the court order, Sarah applied for a medical exemption from the Hep B vaccine and also the second meningococcal vaccine required for this school year.

The school district again denied her request. Sarah’s lawyers responded by filing an emergency motion seeking a new court order allowing her to return to school this year.

Explaining his latest decision, Brown said this year’s circumstances were “substantially different.” This year, Sarah would be attending school without two of the mandated vaccines, instead of one. And, he said, there was insufficient medical evidence showing that she could not receive the meningococcal vaccine.

“At the end of the day, Sarah is a child who just wants to go to school,” her attorney, Sujata Gibson, told The Defender.

Keep reading

Prepping For A Cashless Control Grid How Digital Currency Becomes Digital Control

When Money Stops Being Money

Something fundamental is vanishing, and most people will not notice until it is already gone. Not with a declaration. Not with a law passed in the dead of night. Simply, gradually, the option to buy something without creating a permanent record will disappear. The ability to save purchasing power outside of a system that can freeze it, monitor it, or program it will become a memory that seems almost fictional to those who never experienced it.

I have watched this unfold over years of observing payment systems, reading central bank white papers that few citizens bother to examine, and noticing how my own transactions leave increasingly detailed trails. The pattern is consistent across nations: convenience precedes surveillance, and surveillance precedes control.

We are not approaching a cashless society. We are sleepwalking into it. And for anyone who values independence, privacy, or the basic human right to conduct commerce without surveillance, this represents not progress but regression toward a form of control that previous generations would have recognized immediately and resisted forcefully.

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are the mechanism of this transformation. The digital euro, the potential digital dollar, the digital yuan already operational in China – these are not simply modernizations of payment systems. They are structural changes to the relationship between the individual and the state, between commerce and surveillance, between freedom and permission. Once fully implemented, they would create a financial infrastructure where every transaction is visible, every purchase is logged, and every economic decision requires implicit or explicit approval from authorities.

This is not speculation. This is documented policy. The Bank for International Settlements, which coordinates central banking globally, has explicitly stated that CBDCs will enable “programmable money” – currency that can be restricted based on time, place, or purpose. The European Central Bank’s digital euro project includes provisions for offline payments only up to limited amounts, with all larger transactions requiring network connectivity and identity verification. The Federal Reserve’s FedNow system, launched in July 2023, created the technical infrastructure for instant digital payments that serves as the foundation for eventual CBDC implementation.

Three developments demand immediate attention:

1. Over 130 countries representing 98 percent of global GDP are now exploring CBDC implementation, with 11 countries including China, Nigeria, and the Bahamas already operational.

2. The United States government has accumulated over 207,000 bitcoin through seizures and asset forfeiture, creating a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” via Executive Order in March 2025, effectively centralizing control of assets that were designed to resist centralized control.

3. Cash usage has declined 60 percent in the United States since 2017, with 41 percent of Americans reporting they use no cash in a typical week, removing the practical habit of anonymous exchange before the infrastructure to support it disappears.

The implications extend far beyond convenience or efficiency. They strike at the heart of what it means to be a free individual in a society that claims to value liberty.

Keep reading

Flock’s Optional Gunshot Detection Feature Has Fourth Amendment Implications for Gun Owners

Flock is just one of many suppliers in the global gunshot detection market, which has an estimated total value of $1.5 billion. But the company’s marketing material raises concerns about the technology’s capabilities, which go beyond simply detecting gunfire. In Flock’s own words, a confirmed gunshot “can surface the vehicles seen entering or leaving the area around the time of the sound, using nearby Flock license plate reader cameras.” That statement deserves scrutiny, since it describes a mechanism for turning suspected gunfire into a list of nearby vehicles.

Innocent gun owners could end up on such lists. Suppose a bang recorded by one of these microphones gets classified as gunfire (which it may not actually be, given the possibility of a false positive from a similar noise). That “confirmed event” can trigger an ALPR [automated license plate recognition] inquiry that sweeps in drivers who had nothing to do with the noise. In a country where more than 20 million people have carry permits and 29 states do not require them, some of those drivers will be lawfully armed. The proximity of those innocent drivers could be mistaken for evidence that they fired the shot.

This possibility raises two legal concerns for lawful gun owners. First, what justifies stopping a person on one of these lists? Second, is querying the database a search under the Fourth Amendment? Recent cases provide some answers.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen protects lawful public carry. In the 2024 case United States v. Daniels, which involved the detention of an unarmed man who did not match a 911 caller’s description of armed men, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit noted that no crime was reported. Citing Bruen, the court said it “cannot look with suspicion on citizens presumably exercising their Second Amendment rights in a lawful way.”

Last May in Commonwealth v. Foster, by contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a stop where police responded within seconds to late-night alerts from a gunfire microphone, found only two people, and observed conduct the court considered evasive. An investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion based on specific facts connecting someone to suspected criminal activity. The risk here is that an alert combined with a plate match could be treated as sufficient for reasonable suspicion even though it only establishes proximity.

A recent case from New Jersey illustrates that risk. Last March, in State v. Carrillo, a state appeals court ordered suppression of evidence (an unlawfully possessed handgun) discovered in a minivan after a traffic stop. The police searched the minivan after obtaining a warrant. But the court held that a gunshot alert and an ALPR hit did not adequately connect the minivan to a shooting the day before. Prosecutors conceded that video supposedly showing muzzle flashes from the minivan at the time of the gunfire actually showed none.

Keep reading

Does Britain Have a Free Speech Problem?

When Keir Starmer visited the White House in February 2025, J.D. Vance used the occasion to raise what he called “infringements on free speech” in Britain. Our then Prime Minister, sitting a few feet away in the Oval Office, was having none of it. “We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom,” he said, “and it will last for a very, very long time.” He added that he was “very proud of our history there”.

Was Sir Keir right to dismiss those concerns? I want to answer that question not with anecdotes, of which I have a great many, but with numbers.

Arrests, charges and convictions

Let’s start with a new report from Big Brother Watch, entitled Britain’s Free Speech Problem. Its headline finding is that between January 1st 2021 and December 31st 2025, 62,199 people were arrested in the UK on suspicion of committing just three communications offences. These are section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which criminalises sending a “grossly offensive” message over a public electronic network; section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023, the new “false communications” offence.

That’s a shocking figure, but it’s an underestimate. Several police forces didn’t respond to Big Brother Watch’s Freedom of Information requests, including Police Scotland. Big Brother Watch estimates the true figure is 73,023. So on a conservative estimate, the police are arresting an average of 34 people a day for things they’ve said, the vast majority online, and the true figure is closer to 40 a day. Russia, incidentally, is thought to arrest around 400 people a year for similar offences.

Of those 62,199 people, 18,520 were charged and 12,292 were convicted. That’s more than 12,000 people with criminal records for speech offences in five years. And that number is likely to go up if the proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury, first put forward by David Lammy when he was Justice Secretary, become law. Research by the Free Speech Union found that in the year to June 2025, 14% of people tried for speech offences in a magistrates’ court were acquitted, compared with 33% in the Crown Court, where the case was heard by a jury. Twelve ordinary men and women, it turns out, are less likely than a district judge to conclude that an intemperate tweet merits a criminal conviction. Leave the decision to them and more people will be convicted.

Is it getting worse?

But is the number of people being arrested for speech offences actually increasing? Yes, it is, as a similar piece of research by the Times established last year. It FoI’d every police force in England and Wales and asked how many arrests they’d made relating to just two of those three offences: section 127 of the Communications Act and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act.

Keep reading

UK’s Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule, and That Means Trouble for the U.S.

Here we go again: leftists have shown us again and again that they hate dissent and debate, which are the foundations of any free society. Now the U.K. is heading decisively toward authoritarianism as its crazy-left prime minister, Andy Burnham, has just announced that he plans to establish a “National Centre for Information Defence” in order to fight — you guessed it — “disinformation.”

The “National Centre for Information Defence“ is a canny name. It beats Old Joe Biden’s abortive “Disinformation Governance Board” in couching the whole totalitarian move as “defense” (as we spell it in the land of the free and the home of the brave) rather than “governance.” This is intended to give Burnham’s hapless citizenry the impression that what’s being done to them is not more control from the ruling elites, but protection from the evil machinations of deceivers.

Yeah, Andy, the Mafia offered protection, too. Anyway, GB News reported Wednesday that Burnham, “the Prime Minister, addressing the United Nations, announced the centre to improve ‘community cohesion’ and prevent a ‘distorted and untrue narrative about Britain.’” As a result, Burnham “ordered security chiefs to set up the quango, which will detect, attribute and disrupt ‘hostile information attacks’ and ‘deepfakes’ which hurt British interests.”

A “quango” is an organization that receives government financing but is ostensibly an independent group. And we all know that the far-left British government will stay fastidiously out of the affairs of an organization that is charged with stamping out “hostile information attacks” that supposedly “hurt British interests,” now, don’t we?

Keep reading

Sydney man becomes first jailed under Nazi salute laws

A Sydney man has been jailed for performing a Nazi salute and publishing offensive online posts under new mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Nathan Ballesty was arrested in December after the Australian Federal Police (AFP) launched an investigation into a post in which he called for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to be kidnapped.

After searching his home on Sydney’s Northern Beaches, authorities found Nazi paraphernalia, including a uniform and a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and seized his electronic devices.

Among the content found on his devices were violent messages aimed at Mr Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, and a recording of a video call in which he performed a Nazi salute.

Ballesty pleaded guilty to performing a Nazi salute, as well as six counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend and one count of contravening a police order after he refused to provide investigators with his device passwords for weeks.

On Friday, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment — including a non-parole period of 18 months — backdated to January, when he was first remanded into custody.

The sentence includes a mandatory minimum of 12 months’ imprisonment for performing a Nazi salute, making Ballesty the first person to be sentenced under the laws introduced in February 2025.

He will be eligible for parole in May 2027.

Keep reading

Cops Fingerprint an 11-Year-Old Boy, Tow His Electric Dirt Bike With a City Wrecker, and Threaten a WARRANT After He Rode 300 Feet From Home to Go Fishing

An 11-year-old’s ride to a fishing spot in Oviedo, Florida, ended with police stopping him, fingerprinting him, towing his electric dirt bike, and ordering him to appear in court.

Cade Kirchner, a sixth grader, was riding toward a nearby pond with his fishing pole on Labor Day, September 7.

His father, Chris Kirchner, said Cade was about 300 feet from home and traveling on the road’s shoulder.

The family says the bike was limited to 20 miles per hour. FOX 35 Orlando reported that police classified it as a motorcycle under Florida law.

They say the 4,500-watt machine has pegs instead of pedals, so Florida law classifies it as a motorcycle, not an e-bike, meaning it needs registration, insurance, a motorcycle endorsement, and a licensed adult rider.

The citation was issued under Florida Statute 320.02 for an unregistered vehicle, which requires a court appearance.

Because Cade had no driver’s license, they put his fingerprint on the ticket to satisfy ID rules. The bike was towed because it “is not legally allowed on the roadway.”

Oviedo Mayor Megan Sladek called Cade a “good kid” but said officers’ hands were tied by state definitions. Police added they could have piled on more citations and chose only one.

“The State of Florida regulates motorcycle use, and the definition of what counts as a motorcycle and what counts as an e-bike,” Mayor Sladek said.

“Even if it has two wheels, if it doesn’t have pedals, the State of Florida will classify that as a motorcycle and not as an e-bike.”

Body-camera footage shows an officer warning Cade that he had to appear in court or “they’re going to put out a warrant.”

The hearing is scheduled for a school day, meaning the sixth grader will have to miss class. ClickOrlando reported that his father plans to ask prosecutors to dismiss the case.

According to the news outlet, Cade got his e-bike after raising $900 through his summer business selling squirrel tables.

Keep reading