There’s a line buried in the San Francisco audit story that stopped me mid-scroll. It notes that civil liberties groups argue people may avoid attending protests, seeking reproductive health care, or participating in political activities if they believe their movements are being tracked.

One commenter on the thread put it plainly: that is entirely the point.

I think they’re right. And that’s what makes this particular technology conversation different from most of the noise around privacy. We’re not talking about a data breach, or a company selling your purchase history to advertisers. We’re talking about a system where the chilling effect on lawful behaviour is arguably the intended outcome, whether anyone says so out loud or not.

There’s a story doing the rounds about the Flock AI licence plate reader system, and how at least 18 police officers in the US have been arrested for using it to stalk romantic partners. Eighteen that we know of. Arrested. Meaning the actual number of people who used it that way is almost certainly higher, because most of them didn’t get caught, and some who got caught probably didn’t get arrested.

There’s a story doing the rounds that perfectly encapsulates everything that frustrates me about the current intersection of AI hype, security theatre, and policing in America. A teenager was swarmed by eight police officers with guns drawn at his school. His crime? Having a bag of Doritos in his pocket that an AI-powered camera system flagged as a weapon.

Let me repeat that: a bag of chips was mistaken for a gun by artificial intelligence, and the response was to point multiple firearms at a child.