Drone Video Shot by Chula Vista Police
Can’t All be Secret
Appeals Court Rules

“Well, wait a minute. If giving it to me is a violation of somebody’s privacy, then that means they already violated somebody’s privacy by recording it in the first place.”

Arturo “Art” Castañares of Eastlake
Editor and Publisher of La Prensa San Diego

“This decision ensures that the public can learn more about how and why police use drones in their communities, including to check on whether police are living up to their promises regarding drone use.”

Aaron David Mackey, Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation


Sharing photos of your kids?
Maybe not after you watch this deepfake ad
Good Morning America

There are some venues that are requiring that if you are on their premises, they can take video/audio of you and own it in perpetuity… and do whatever they want with it. No sign off from you on specific recordings. Just anything they take of you they own and can use for advertising… or whatever they want. There may be an online notification during ticket purchase. Or a website notification.

They know who we are. But, mostly we don’t even know who these individuals are who are controlling the ownership of these recordings.

Government surveillance via streetlamps… Was the city of San Diego allowing 3rd party ownership of the audio/video via their original contract with General Electric? Was there conflict of interest on the city council that approved that? After that was uncovered, they’re still trying to move forward with surveillance streetlights by making a privacy commission?

City of San Diego decides tomorrow.

8/1/2023 San Diego City Council Gives
Final Approval for ‘Smart Streetlights’ and License-Plate Readers

Zoom’s new Terms and Conditions allow them to unilaterally create a DEEP FAKE of YOU…

San Diego Children’s Discovery Museum
“Please note that guests may be photographed or recorded by Museum staff or media for marketing and educational purposes. Entry into the Museum grants permission for the use of these images.”

Do they think they can use video/audio of visitors for advertising, websites, or whatever they want… in perpetuity?

In the past, photographers ALWAYS had to get a written release. This was just standard policy. But, Americans have become so accustomed to having their privacy invaded. Maybe these folks just figure they can get away with this and there won’t be ANY pushback. Maybe most people won’t even read the policy. So they won’t even know.

Activists Successfully Sue California Sheriff for
Illegally Sharing ALPR Data

“Since a majority of federal license plate tracking data comes from state and local law enforcement, laws banning or even restricting ALPR use are essential. As more states pass such laws, the end result becomes more clear. No data equals no federal license plate tracking program.”

Mike Maharrey


[t]he right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Cornell Law School

Committee advances
SDPD’s Surveillance Technology Proposal
amid heavy criticism

“Mayor Todd Gloria campaigned on ending excessive surveillance in all communities, but has flip-flopped and supports this proposal.

While campaigning for Mayor in June 2020, Todd Gloria promised to ‘end excessive surveillance in all communities.’ Gloria added that, ‘the rapidly expanding and secretive use of digital surveillance of community members is unconstitutional, and it should end.’

But Gloria’s position has completely changed.”


San Diego City Council Guts Surveillance Ordinance
to Protect Federal Task Forces

“The push for surveillance oversight began two years ago after revelations that the city’s new ‘energy-efficient’ streetlights came equipped with cameras and microphones.”

Mike Maharrey


Defunct Streetlight Cameras
Still Costing San Diego $1M Annually

The city is paying roughly $2,740 a day for equipment that hasn’t technically been in use since 2020. And now, officials want to spend more on a new streetlight surveillance system.


Critics Warn of ‘a Dragnet of Surveillance’
as U.S. Pushes Ahead With Plans for More ‘Smart’ Cities

“Re-stocking security apparatus with AI-driven mass surveillance is a dangerous political project which could lead to broad violations of human rights. Every action in a public space will get sucked into a dragnet of surveillance infrastructure, undermining fundamental civic freedoms.

Officials who control the designations of ‘abnormal or suspicious’ activities in societies also have the power to exacerbate a chilling effect on dissent and protest, and to supercharge discrimination against communities already targeted.”

Agnes Callamard, secretary general
Amnesty International

the Defender

This next article is one example of how repressive a surveilled “smart city” can be. Does San Diego really want to move in that direction?

Israel/OPT: Israeli authorities are using facial recognition technology to entrench apartheid

The reality is streets full of surveillance cameras, which are mounted on the sides of buildings, lampposts, surveillance towers and rooftops…

as one resident, Neda, explained: ‘I’m being watched the whole time… it gives me a really bad feeling everywhere in the street. Every time I see a camera, I feel anxious. Like you are always being treated as if you are a target.’ “

Amnesty International

50+ Israeli Soldier’s Expose the Truth

Chris Hedges
Israel is Shutting Down its Human Laboratory in Gaza

How East Germany’s Stasi Perfected Mass Surveillance

“It is not only traditional totalitarian regimes but also Western democracies that have learned only too well the lesson that privacy violations and widespread surveillance are much more effective than open violence in safeguarding power.”

Andrea Togni
Philosophy and history teacher
Liceo Medardo Rosso


We the Targeted
How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance
to Silence Its Critics

“The Church Committee, the Senate task force charged with investigating COINTELPRO abuses in 1975, concluded that the government had carried out “secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power.’

…Moreover, there is a repressive, suppressive effect to surveillance that not only acts as a potentially small deterrent on crime but serves to monitor and chill lawful First Amendment activity, and that is the whole point.”

John & Nisha Whitehead

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

President Harry S. Truman


“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Did Covid-19 pandemic start
as a smokescreen for the CCP?

Libertarian Europe

Did the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) feel the need to shut down mass protests in Wuhan and Hong Kong in 2019?

Were there huge political protests in Hong Kong in 2019? Were surveillance cameras used by the government to capture political opponents? And were the cameras getting taken out by the people? But, the COVID scare quieted all of that down?

Despite Massive Backlash and Resistance
LAPD Implements Robot Police Dogs