Synthesis Essay 2: The Mesh Network, When A Lightbulb Becomes a Camera - Personal Essay
It’s 2025, and smart lightbulbs can detect when people are sleeping. This is made possible through a technology called “device-free passive localization,” which tracks motion as objects move in between routers and IoT devices such as printers, TVs, gaming consoles, and more by measuring changes in signal strength. While this technology is generally harmless when used within a single home for security, connecting multiple networks across neighborhoods, cities, or states creates a mesh network capable of easily monitoring the movements and habits of large populations. These interconnected mesh networks can generate detailed records of daily routines without the knowledge or consent of those being tracked, raising significant concerns about privacy. One example of a mesh network is Flock Safety, a nationwide camera system reportedly only used by law enforcement to monitor individuals over large areas and extended periods of time. Although these surveillance technologies can be extremely useful, the large-scale meshing of networks creates serious privacy concerns, demonstrating the urgent need for regulation and oversight.
In Flock’s article, “Setting the Record Straight: Statement on Flock Network Sharing, Use Cases, and Federal Cooperation” they consistently defend themselves by emphasizing they are just providing tools to support local law enforcement. The company points out that it does not control or misuse the data collected through its cameras. Each local police department retains full authority over the data collected. Flock has no control over the rules that govern these tools, as its systems cover the entire United States. The company stresses that “As a private technology company of around 1500 people, Flock cannot determine the criminal codes or what is enforced. We rely on democratic processes to determine what is and is not acceptable in cities and states.” (Flock Safety). Flock positions itself as a neutral party that develops tools for public security and states that it’s up to the public to determine its use cases.
With Flock’s stance essentially being “Creators Can’t Control Creations”, it is an irresponsible position to be in for a company that is developing “Emerging Surveillance Technologies”. This stance is wrong and can easily be seen as a blatant attempt to relieve the company of all societal and ethical consequences due to their development and deployment of their mesh surveillance technology. There is an immediate need for oversight by independent parties that have no economic ties to the data collected through these mesh networks. While many agree there is a definitive need to improve technologies used by law enforcement, many agree there is also a limit to how much tracking is too much tracking. Flock’s “neutral” stance on the use of its technology creates significant risks to the public by failing to provide guidance or safeguards for responsible use, highlighting the urgent need for regulations and accountability.
In direct opposition to Flock, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) article, “Flock Safety’s Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe,” challenges Flock and claims that the company’s new features fail to address the core issues which involve mass data collection practices without consent. The EFF warns that these camera systems track not only suspected criminals but also ordinary people, recording their movements, routines, and associations. This is what creates vulnerabilities that could be misused by those with bad intentions. The article points out “The intimate details of people’s daily routines, their associations, and their political activities may become available to anyone with malicious intent” (The EFF). The EFF pushes for public awareness to limit the spread of surveillance technology it believes threatens basic rights of Americans.
While the EFF raises legitimate concerns regarding mass data collection and the risks of abuse, the complete removal of automated license plate readers (ALPR) ultimately would result in a less safe society than in one where it’s implemented properly. When integrated into large scale mesh networks, ALPRs can pose serious privacy risks if left unregulated. However, with correct oversight and regulations, these tools can be extremely useful in not only protecting the privacy of citizens but also in enhancing public safety. They can assist in finding missing persons, locating stolen vehicles, reverse engineering time frames for crime scenes, and much more. Current systems are already in place that require warrants for accessing different types of data regarding citizens, and we can adopt newer standards that include advancing technologies.
In “Data on the move: The Intersection of Automated License Plate Readers and Privacy in Indiana”, Isabella argues that the rapid growth of ALPRs in Indiana is outpacing the privacy protections being put into place for civilians. She emphasizes, “By establishing clear guidelines, checks, and balances for the use of surveillance technologies like ALPRs, we can protect our individual freedoms and maintain the delicate equilibrium between security and privacy” (Page 474). Isabella requests lawmakers be proactive in updating legislations to ensure accountability for those who develop, maintain, and use these mesh networks before the privacy violations become too large.
Isabella’s argument that the rapid deployment of ALPRs reflects a “Move fast, break things” approach, where development outpaces regulations, is correct. While these devices enhance law enforcement capabilities, their expansion into large scale mesh networks without clear safeguards risks significant privacy vulnerabilities. By prioritizing non-stop growth without oversight or accountability, law enforcement agencies and technology developers create dangerous conditions for both misuse and exploitation. Each of these systems is extremely vulnerable to hackers and other bad actors, especially when security and usage protocols are not developed.
By allowing Flock Cameras to be integrated as part of large-scale mesh networks, it has major consequences for privacy. By connecting devices across neighborhoods and cities, Flock’s camera system can monitor movements and routines of entire populations, creating significant potential for misuse or exploitation of sensitive information. To prevent these risks, Flock must implement internal oversight, establish clear guidance for responsible use, and cooperate with independent regulators to ensure that its technology respects privacy while supporting public safety. Lawmakers should create regulations and security requirements for mesh networks to protect citizens from unauthorized tracking. By combining corporate accountability, independent oversight, and legislative safeguards, society can harness the benefits of Flock’s surveillance technology without compromising privacy or exposing communities to large-scale abuse.
Works Cited
Flock Safety. “Statement on Flock Network Sharing, Use Cases, and Federal Cooperation.” Flock Safety, 19 June 2025, https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/statement-network-sharing-use-cases-federal-cooperation.
Hamid, Sarah, and Rindala Alajaji. “Flock Safety’s Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, 27 June 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe.
Page, Isabella. “Data on the Move: The Intersection of Automated License Plate Readers and Privacy in Indiana.” Indiana Law Review, vol. 58, no. 2, Oct. 2024, pp. 449–74. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=d30f5676-2680-3532-ae89-13d0b4bc77ce.
