The Safety Sell: How Connectivity Tools Become Surveillance Dragnets

For years, tech vendors and carriers have marketed connectivity and 'safety' tools as essential infrastructure for public security. But as I've often argued, these tools are only as ethical as the people wielding them. When oversight vanishes, 'safety' becomes a euphemism for a surveillance dragnet used to punish those who dare to hold power accountable.

Consider the case of Napoleon Jones, a U.S. Navy veteran. As Reason first reported, Jones witnessed a traffic stop on May 4, 2025, while standing in a private parking lot in Sussex, Wisconsin. Exercising his First Amendment right, Jones recorded the encounter from a safe distance. The result was not a professional police interaction, but a retaliatory strike. According to TMJ4 News, a Waukesha County Sheriff’s deputy named Brandon Shayhorn initiated a second stop of Jones' vehicle, claiming a temporary license plate was unreadable, and subsequently arrested Jones for resisting and obstructing.

While Jones was released after five hours with no charges—and a supervisor later informed Shayhorn the stop was illegal—the real horror began after the arrest. Through a federal lawsuit, attorney Nate Cade discovered that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office had utilized Flock Safety cameras to track Jones' white BMW.

Reason reports that investigation revealed more than 100 Flock searches for Jones' vehicle in the weeks following the arrest. Some of these searches were conducted by Deputy Shayhorn himself. When questioned during a deposition, Shayhorn and others claimed a lieutenant ordered the searches in connection with a citizen's complaint Jones had filed, according to TMJ4 News.

This is the systemic failure of the 'safety' promise. Jones was not a suspect in a crime; he was a citizen who filmed a police officer. Yet, the tools designed to catch criminals were allegedly repurposed as a weapon of retaliation. Jones' amended complaint alleges the searches lacked a 'legitimate law enforcement purpose,' a requirement of the county's user agreement.

When we allow these surveillance networks to expand without rigid, transparent accountability, we aren't buying safety—we are funding a system that can be turned on any of us for the 'crime' of recording a public servant. If a lawful act of filming can trigger a weekslong surveillance campaign, the technology is no longer serving the public; it is policing the public's rights.