Everyone wants to be safe. No one wants to be the victim of a crime. And each time a loved one gets hurt or dies, we wish we could have prevented it.

That does not mean we should have cameras everywhere.

For several years, agencies and municipalities have installed cameras at intersections, along busy roads and in work zones to increase safety — to prevent death. 

But this year, Flock cameras have changed the conversation, and it’s time for each American to ask themselves a question: do you want to risk privacy for a chance at increased safety? 

Flock’s network of cameras has grown to more than 120,000 nationwide within about 6,000 communities. Maybe I’m a George Orwell fan who has read “1984” too many times, but I don’t like anything that reminds me of Big Brother.

Advocates for this technology might argue that automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems can help law enforcement locate stolen vehicles, investigate hit-and-runs and identify vehicles connected to violent crimes. 

Flock says its cameras don’t use facial recognition and are designed to identify vehicles rather than individual people. Those capabilities can make the technology a valuable tool for law enforcement.

But I don’t trust Flock, and I don’t like opening the door for the technology that will come after Flock’s current cameras. 

Flock cameras aren’t 100% accurate. Law enforcement can still arrest the wrong person, and officers can also abuse the power Flock gives them. According to an August report by the Washington Post, at least 50 law enforcement officers have been accused or charged with misuse of Flock or similar tools. 

In many instances, they were men spying on women. It’s creepy stuff, and it’s not worth it to possibly improve safety.

Some state and local transportation agency leaders have listened to concerns about Flock cameras and taken them down or revoked permits for the technology. Other agencies have installed more cameras.  

To those agency leaders, I ask: Should roads and bridges be part of a nationwide vehicle-surveillance network?

Roads exist to move people and goods. Transit systems exist to move people. They shouldn’t become infrastructure for monitoring people.

The argument isn’t that Flock cameras never provide value. They can. Nor is it that law enforcement shouldn’t use technology to solve crimes. It should. The question is whether the incremental improvement in public safety is worth creating another mechanism through which the movements of ordinary people can be recorded, stored and searched.

For me the answer is no. We need rules and regulation regarding the use of cameras on public infrastructure. Privacy must be protected.

We also need rules and regulation regarding artificial intelligence. But that’s another column.