Last Wednesday, Lux Claridge planned to speak out against a proposed 1,000 acre data center in their town of Emporia, Kansas. They left in handcuffs after a city commissioner ordered them arrested for clapping.

On Wednesday the power flickered in homes from Washington DC to Chicago. The cause was a data center disconnecting from PJM — a massive power grid that connects 13 states including North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, and Michigan, a span that covers 67 million customers. The incident points to a larger problem with the compute warehouses fueling the AI boom: It’s physically and economically impossible to build power infrastructure fast enough to meet the demands of AI data centers and when problems occur, everyone will pay the price.

AI requires massive amounts of computer hardware to scale. That hardware is housed in data centers, and data centers demand shocking amounts of electricity. More data centers mean more demand on the grid which raises the costs of energy for everyone. This is one of the reasons people hate data centers and have begun to fight their construction.

To bypass the issue of grid demand, many data center builders have promised to power the buildings themselves. The problem with that plan is that it’s easy to build a warehouse full of GPUs. Building power plants and transmission lines to power those warehouses will take years and cost billions more than the data centers. A skilled and efficient builder can complete a data center construction in under a year. Building new energy generation to meet that data center's power needs could take a decade. 

Police arrested a high school physics teacher for clapping during a city council meeting last Wednesday. Teacher Lux Claridge went to a meeting of the Emporia, Kansas City Commission on July 22 with their spouse and brother. All three were there to speak out against a proposed hyperscale data center that would sit on 1,000 acres of rural land in Emporia. They left the meeting in handcuffs, dragged out by police on the orders of a city commissioner.

On Tuesday night, the city council of my small town of Irmo, South Carolina, voted to install 22 new Flock cameras. That’ll bring the total up to 33. With a population of only 12,000 or so, it means there’ll be one Flock camera for every 300 residents. That means there will be more Flock cameras in my town than police officers. The city council — the governing body consisting of the mayor and 4 councilpersons — voted for Flock expansion despite presentations from residents about the dangers of what they described as the creeping surveillance state.

The vote for the cameras was a hot topic in local news and South Carolina social media. The city council expected a lot of people to show and asked folks to sign up early if they wanted to talk. Since I work for a publication that has been on the cutting edge of reporting on the myriad problems with Flock cameras, I decided I should probably speak. I spent Tuesday refreshing myself on 404 Media’s reporting and wrote a presentation for the council.

Meetings like this are happening in hundreds of communities across the country and I want to give 404 Media readers a snapshot of what they’re like. There’s a nationwide debate on whether cities and towns want Flock cameras or not and this was my experience speaking at one of the small ones.

There was a hard 3-minute time limit and I had written three pages. I found details about Irmo’s Flock searches in the logs of other states, talked about the specific data security concerns with the cameras, and attempted to explain all the mistakes and false arrests Flock had caused. Three minutes goes by fast, and I ran out of time before I could say everything I had planned.

I wasn’t the only person who decided to speak. More than 10 other citizens went to the podium and spoke out against the cameras. “Is Irmo such a dangerous place that current law enforcement tools are not sufficient to keep the citizens safe without the use of this dangerous and controversial technology?” one guy said.

“I’m pretty enthralled by all the pushback you’re getting on the cameras you installed without asking a single member of the community if they wanted them installed,” said another resident, a man in a T-shirt and shorts. “If you give the government a tool, they will misuse it. Period. End of story. Get rid of them or we will get rid of them for you.”

The city council members looked its residents in the face. They maintained eye contact and appeared shocked when citizens talked about their concerns. For a bit, I thought it was possible that the town might not install these cameras. Then the police chief stood up and explained how he’d used Flock to capture pedophiles and I knew that was probably the end of it.

Police chief Bobby Dale has long been an advocate for the expansion of Flock in town. He told local outlet News19 that 33 cameras will allow him to see all the entrances and exits. “That would ultimately cover pretty much every nook and cranny, every entry point into the town,” he said. “That's what we want. As the chief of police, I've got to make sure our town is safe. I'm learning that with these cameras, with these license plate readers, we're solving crimes and solving them quicker.”

During the city council meeting, Dale explained that Flock cameras had been instrumental in a To Catch a Predator style sting operation Irmo PD conducted. “During an internet crimes against children operation hosted by a department, 15 adults traveled to our community believing they were coming to meet children for sexual activity," Dale said. “Fourteen of those 15 suspects were not from our jurisdiction.”

“So you lured them here. Into our town. Genius,” the T-shirt and shorts guy shouted from the back of the room. This was the guy who’d said the community would remove the Flock cameras if the city didn’t. The mayor had police escort him from the meeting. He left without a fight and Dale finished his speech praising Flock.

After a brief question and answer period with the police chief, the mayor spoke. The city’s leaders had just returned from the Municipal Association of South Carolina annual meeting — a yearly conference of local officials in the state. Mayor Bill Danielson opened his portion of the Flock discussion by talking about how he’d recently commiserated with other mayors at the conference about how mean people were on Facebook.

“I came back with a renewed vigor to be the mayor of this town,” he said. “And knowing that I’m not the only one being abused on Facebook, social media, by some people in this room. It’s going to take a whole lot more than that to sway any position I may or may not have on behalf of these citizens.”

The other thing the mayor learned is that everyone loves Flock. “There was not a mayor at that conference that I touched bases with […] that did not use Flock, did not use Motorola license plate readers,” he said, referring to another company that sells similar technology (we’ve reported ICE is offering demos to its agents to use a Motorola license plate reader app). “Every one of those mayors either wanted Flock, was trying to figure out how to budget for Flock, or had Flock and was figuring out how to increase their presence.”

Flock is not, in fact, universally popular among state and local officials. The Los Angeles Police Department just announced it wouldn’t renew its contact with the company after an internal audit found it led to 161 false accusations of car theft and “eroded public trust.” Bandera, Texas, voted to remove its cameras after months of outrage from its citizens. Dayton, Ohio wants their cameras gone but isn’t sure how to cancel the contract so it's covering the cameras with black trash bags. Flock seems unable to remotely disable its own cameras so cities that no longer want them have to find their own solutions.

Cops also often misuse Flock. There are dozens of cases around the country of cops using the system to stalk people. In nearby Greer, South Carolina, two police officers were just fired by the town after they were discovered using Flock to track people around town. 

Mayor Danielson said he’d met a leader from Greer at the conference. “I even spoke to a councilmember from Greer, the dreaded Greer […] whose two cops abused it,” Danielson said. “And I told him point blank, if that happened in the town of Irmo they would not only be fired they would never be a cop again and face charges.”

My city council voted 4 to 1 to increase the presence of Flock in this small town of 12,000 people. Police chief Dale will soon have more cameras than officers. And, if they can get money from the state, they may also purchase a drone from Flock to use as part of the company’s “drones as first responder” program. 

People weren’t happy. The mood in the room was sour. I’ve attached my entire speech to this story so you can see what I planned to say.

My Flock speech for the city council

Hello.

My name is Matthew Gault and I’m here today to talk about Flock cameras.

I’m a resident of Irmo and I am also an investigative journalist. I work at a publication called 404 Media that focuses on technology.

Over the past few years, my colleagues at 404 Media have written a number of stories about Flock cameras and, before you vote to install 22 more of them in our small town, I want to share the results of some of those investigations with you.

Mr. Ward, I understand you’re concerned about cyber security around the data these cameras collect.

Last month, 404 Media found Flock had accidentally exposed some of the searches performed by law enforcement in its automatic license plate readers. The searches were cached in search engine results. This meant that anyone was able to see what police were looking for. 404 Media conducted some of its own searches and found that Flock had exposed people’s license plate numbers and various search terms like “investigation” and “GTA,” which is short for Grand Theft Auto.

In December of last year, 404 Media found a different and more severe security issue in Flock’s systems. The company had left 60 of its AI-enabled Condor cameras exposed on the open internet.

That meant that anyone could watch them, download 30 days worth of video archives, change settings, see log files, and run diagnostics. My colleagues were able to access Flock’s cameras simply by typing a website into a browser. They did not need a username or a password. There was no great trick to it. Once inside the system they could see playgrounds, parking lots, and people doing their shopping.

These are just two of the security issues we know about. 

It’s also worth telling the council how, exactly, Flock’s systems work.

Many of Flock’s license plate reading cameras are connected to local, state, and national networks. When an Irmo police officer runs a search for a specific license place, they may not just be searching the cameras in their jurisdiction. The search can run through the national network of Flock cameras, if configured to do so. This works two ways. Meaning law enforcement officers at a state and federal level searching Flock cameras may have access to Irmo’s data too.

In fact, because many of these cameras are networked and interconnected, I have access to some of the current records about how Irmo, PD is using them.

I know that Irmo, PD has conducted at least 7,576 searches of Flock’s networks since 2023. If you were curious, most of the searches are conducted around 5 PM. Most of the searches happen on Monday. I know that, for some reason, Irmo PD ran 489 searches on December 21, 2025. 

I know that on June 30 at 4:36 PM, the Irmo PD ran a search of the Flock system related to a stalking case.

Two days before, on June 28 at 6:45 PM, the police searched Flock in relation to a case of property damage.

On May 22, just before noon, police searched Flock in relation to a financial crime, something that was marked as “embezzlement or fraud” in the system. For this search in particular, Irmo PD accessed cameras outside of its jurisdiction — it widened the search to footage recorded by cameras nation-wide.

Why do I know all this? How is this possible? Because some police departments in the Flock network conduct routine audits of Flock’s search logs. All three of the searches I just noted were in an audit conducted by the city of Twin Falls, Idaho, a city on the other side of the country. I found information about Irmo’s historical Flock use in audits conducted by police in Georgia, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and California. 

Calling Flock’s cameras “license plate readers” is technically true, but can sell the system short. The basic model is recording the license plate of vehicles, automatically logging information about the make and model of the car as well as stickers and any other distinguishing features. Much of this information is recorded by an AI system. It makes mistakes.

This system has led to false arrests or traffic stops. Earlier this month, a journalist for a car magazine was pulled over by police in Minnesota. The cops said they’d been tracking him for days and that the car he was driving was stolen. The tip came from Flock’s systems, which had been alerted to the theft of a car in California. But the AI system had transcribed the license plate incorrectly.

In Colorado, a woman was accused of stealing packages off people’s porches.The police’s evidence that she’d committed the crime was footage pulled from Flock cameras. Bodycam footage published by 404 Media showed how confident officers were that they had their thief.

“I have you on camera doing this […] I get that this is a shock to you, but I am telling you, this is a lock, 100 percent no doubt she did this,” an officer in Colorado said.

The woman had not committed the crime. She had ample evidence she had not committed the crime, but the police in Colorado insisted that Flock cameras do not lie and do not make mistakes. But they had. Her own dashcam exonerated her and police dropped the charges.

Last week, the Los Angeles Police Department announced it would not renew its contract with Flock. In a two month period, LAPD pulled over 161 innocent people acting on tips from Flock cameras.

“Subsequent investigations determined the vehicles were not stolen,” LAPD said in an investigation into its Flock cameras. “In addition to creating an inconvenience for vehicle owners, these inaccuracies can affect individual liberties, erode public trust, and potentially create substantial legal and financial liability concerns.”

These stories are just a small selection of the issues with Flock and I hope the council will consider them before its vote today.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) looked at ways to arm quadcopter drones with weapons, according to a draft version of its drone manual shared with 404 Media. A draft version of the manual, which was live on the NOPD website in June, said that the department’s drones could only be equipped with weapons with written approval from the Superintendent of Police.

The current version, live as of July 1, has different language: “The sUAS shall not be equipped with weapons or hazardous materials of any kind,” referring to small Unmanned Aerial Systems, or drones. According to the NOPD, the operations manual it published to the internet with the rules for weaponized drones was an early draft.

“The manual published on July 1 is the current published version of the policy. Earlier versions were draft versions that were presented for review before adoption of the current policy,” NOPD told 404 media. “NOPD has made it clear we are not and will not be equipping drones with weapons or other hazardous materials.” NOPD didn’t answer follow-up questions about how or why the draft version of the manual was published.

But the publication of a police drone manual that opens the door for weaponized quadcopters is important, and comes as drone companies and police flirt with the idea of putting weapons on their drones. New Orleans has long been a pioneer of camera and drone driven policing and the cops have used controversial tactics to get around public scrutiny and regulations. It shows that what the police are circulating amongst themselves and thinking about privately, what they perhaps want to happen, does not match public policy.

NOPD has a history of finding creative ways to work around public policy and scrutiny when it comes to surveillance tech. A private company called Project New Orleans operates a network of cameras that provide live facial recognition to the city’s cops. The company operated in secret cooperation with NOPD for two years before the Washington Post exposed it in 2025. According to the ACLU, NOPD has continued to use Project New Orleans in contravention of local laws and has stonewalled public records requests.

Federal Aviation Authority regulations prohibit the operation of drones equipped with a “dangerous weapon.” Matthew Guariglia, a senior policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told 404 Media that he didn’t see how the police arming drones could possibly be legal. But the FAA regulation was written in 2018 and things have changed a lot in just the last few years. Last month, Guariglia argued that “we have precious little time” to stop police from arming their drones, and that the industry was moving that way.

One of the companies selling NOPD its drones is Skydio. The US-based manufacturer of quadcopter drones has done very well since the Trump administration banned the sale of foreign-made drones last year. Skydio has always marketed itself as a drone company for first responders and had a cozy relationship with police departments around the country.

In 2020, Skydio wrote “we will not put weapons on our drones and will oppose fully autonomous lethal weapons systems.” 

But Skydio CEO Adam Bry walked this back in a June 15 interview on Decoder. “So this is an area where I think I’ve gotten some things wrong. We’ve said some things previously that led some folks externally and internally to believe that, for example, we would prevent the military from putting weapons on our drones,” Bry said.

“It’s not our place to tell them what they can and can’t do,” he said. “It should be up to the folks who’re putting their lives on the line to decide how to use it.”

He added that terrorists don’t follow terms of service. “They don’t care what our policy says,” he said. “I think when you start trying to draw these bright lines and say: this is good, this is bad, more often than not you’re going to end up on the wrong side of moral questions.” 

Guariglia also pointed to a planned pilot project in Georgia that will test “less lethal” armed drones to nominally stop school shootings. He noted that in recent years many drone regulations have been ignored or relaxed.

“You used to have to have line of sight of your drones and now law enforcement [...] are phasing that out or offering exemptions,” Guariglia said. “If you want to police divisions a few years ago, they were selling drones capable of flying miles and miles in a couple of minutes and you’d ask them about the line of sight rule and they would just shrug. They are preparing for the day when law enforcement gets whatever they want.”

“Clearly they’re thinking about it,” Guariglia said of the NOPD manual that included a provision for armed drones. “Drones have always been a bit of a solution in need of a problem. There are few things that police say they need drones for that they cannot get by other means, and I think by putting other tools on them, they are still on a quest to figure out what drones are really good for.”

Arming drones could lower the bar for police to use force. “We have seen how consequence-free it can be for officers to deploy force at somebody who’s standing in front of them when they have to confront the fact that it’s a fellow human and they still have to draw their night stick or their Taser or their gun,” Guariglia said. “That would become so much easier and so much less emotionally and physically burdensome if they can deploy force by pressing a button.”

All this tech costs a lot of money. “Cities are spending an astronomical amount on drones and for maintenance of the drones. They're hiring all these drone pilots. They have to have special infrastructure to fly all these drones, and companies are getting rich. But really, there is no problem in policing that drones have straight up solved yet,” Guariglia said.

On June 24, the New Orleans city council approved a $250,000 budget request to expand Skydio’s reach in the French Quarter. The funds will purchase a massive docking station and support a “drones as first responders” (DFR) program, meaning that people who call 911 in the French Quarter may see a quadcopter drone before they see a police officer. NOPD told the city council that these drones won’t run facial recognition software and will not be armed.

The existence of the draft that was “presented for review” stands out. On February 7, 2024, NOPD first published an operations manual for drones. It was unequivocal: “The sUAS shall not be equipped with weapons of any kind.” 

Two years later, in 2026, NOPD asked for money for more Skydio drones and the city council questioned the cops about the program in a public meeting on April 16.

“Are these drones or any current drones in the French Quarter armed with any type of weapons?” Councilman Freddie King asked.

“No,” NOPD captain Samuel Palumbo said.

On June 24, 2026, the city council voted 4 - 3 to fund the expansion of the DFR program in the French Quarter.

Around that time, a revised version of the NOPD drone manual that allowed for the use of weaponized drones with the Superintendent’s written permission was live on the NOPD website. The revised version of the manual is dated June 21, 2026. The new manual caught the attention of Eye on Surveillance, a Louisiania activist group. The group said it started calling city council members to alert them to the new language.

Then, on June 30, the operations manual with the weaponization language vanished and a third version of the manual appeared. “The sUAS shall not be equipped with weapons or hazardous materials of any kind,” a revised version of the drone manual dated July 1, 2026 said.

It’s an odd sequence of events from a police department that hasn’t been forthcoming about its use of surveillance tech. “Police have yet to demonstrate that they can responsibly handle the data collection and surveillance capabilities of drones. Choosing to arm already unaccountable sky cameras is a threat on top of a threat, a misuse of public resources, and risks introducing more unaccountable weapons into a city enjoying a decline in gun violence,” Kelsey Atherton, Chief Editor at Center for International Policy — a non-profit that studies emerging technologies — told 404 Media.

Skydio did not return 404 Media’s request for a comment.

Fiction written by artificial intelligence is easy to detect because it struggles with complex story structure and tends to moralize in clunky ways, according to a preprint study from researchers at University of Maryland, College Park and Google DeepMind. They found that AI fiction has tells that go beyond stereotypical overuse of em-dashes and other obvious AI tropes and have more to do with the formulaic nature of the text itself.

“AI stories over-explain themes and favor tidy, single-track plots while human stories frame protagonists’ choices as more morally ambiguous and have increased temporal complexity,” the study, which looked at more than 50,000 AI-generated short stories, found. “Claude produces notably flat event escalation, GPT over-indexes on dream sequences, and Gemini defaults to external character description. We find that AI-generated stories cluster in a shared region of narrative space, while human-authored stories exhibit greater diversity. More broadly, these results suggest that differences in underlying narrative construction, not just writing style, can be used to separate human-written original works from AI-generated fiction.”

Meta has filed a patent for a system that records your voice and surroundings all day, then uses an AI to analyse your mood. The patent’s stated, theoretical goal is for Meta, a company that makes billions of dollars targeting ads at its users based on their data, is to sell users a wearable that tailors workouts for them based on whether they’re happy or sad. 

Patentlyze first noticed the patent which was published on July 2 after Meta filed it back in December of 2025. The filing described an “apparatus” that surveilled a user and their surroundings constantly to craft a better workout. “The audible communications may be associated with contextual factors such as time of day, location, user activity, or digital interaction,” the patent said. “The audible communications may be transcribed, and an emotional-state machine learning model may interpret verbal and nonverbal cues to determine emotional indicators.”

On June 26, the County Manager of Henrico County, Virginia, John Vithoulkas, sent an email to thousands of county employees asking them to help the local government conserve electricity. “Beginning July 1^st, the rate we pay for electricity used in all Henrico County government and school facilities will increase dramatically — by 25%, increasing costs by an estimated $5 million next fiscal year. We anticipate more rate increases for electricity in the years ahead,” a copy of the email obtained by 404 Media said (emphasis his).

Henrico County is a community of more than 350,000 people in eastern Virginia just outside of Richmond. It also hosts 37 data centers and there are plans to build 17 more, including plans to convert hundreds of acres of Civil War battlefields into data centers. Thanks to its proximity to DC and vast amounts of land, Henrico County became a data center hub seemingly overnight and its services clients big and small. Meta built a data center there in 2017.

Music streaming service Tidal announced it won’t pay royalties for AI-generated music in an email to users and an announcement on its website published Monday. “Tidal’s priority is ensuring royalties go to original works directly produced, written, and performed by people,” the announcement reads. “We will therefore not knowingly attribute royalties to music we identify as wholly AI-generated.”

Like much of the internet, music streaming services are awash in AI-generated slop. Spotify promised to fight AI spam with labeling and filtering but also embraced the broader trend of AI music. AI-generated bands like The Velvet Sundown and Breaking Rust have millions of listens on Spotify and make the service money. In May, Spotify announced a deal with Universal that would let fans create “covers and remixes of their favorite songs.”Soon Spotify customers will be able to push a button and discover what Metallica would sound like if it were a reggae band. 

Tidal is trying something different. The streaming service isn’t a giant in the field — Apple Music, YouTube, and Spotify dominate the charts — but it’s built a reputation by collaborating with artists, giving them a bigger cut of the streaming profits, and focusing on delivering high quality versions of audio. Tidal is the streaming service for listeners obsessed with bit-rate and FLAC. It’s for people who have $200 digital-to-analog converters next to their computer.

The company said it won’t pay for “wholly” AI-generated music but it also said it won’t remove AI-tainted music from the platform entirely. Like Spotify before it, Tidal said it’s going to work to identify the AI slop on its platform, label it, and hold AI-generated music to a “higher standard of content integrity.” Spotify said something similar last year, but there are still plenty of unlabeled AI-generated tracks on the platform.

Tidal also said it won’t remove AI-tainted music entirely. “Artists should have the freedom to create with AI tools, and listeners should have the autonomy to choose the type of content they consume,” it said. As of this writing, The Velvet Sundown and Breaking Rust are both live on Tidal. Breaking Rust’s bio identified it as AI-generated country music, but The Velvet Sundown had no bio at all.

“Tidal will not allow music that is 100% AI-generated to be monetized. No royalties will go to such releases, nor will AI-generated uploads be eligible for direct-to-fan sales,” the company said in an email to its users.

It elaborated on its website. “Starting today, AI-generated music will not be monetizable,” it said. “We are only in the beginning of the era of AI-generated music. We acknowledge the ongoing debate regarding whether certain AI-generated music (e.g. AI-generated music developed from fairly and properly licensed models) should be entitled to earn royalties. This debate will continue as the technology advances and rightsholders and AI music platforms develop licensing models.”

It’s unclear if The Velvet Sundown and other bands like it will keep making money on Tidal. The company told 404 Media that it’s working with an external partner to manage detection and that “wholly AI-generated” was defined as a song where every component of the track was made using generative AI. “Our detection tools will determine how specific tracks and artists will be treated from July 15,” Tidal told 404 Media in an email. “The impact to royalties comes into effect starting July 15 so we don't have numbers to share just yet.”

On June 28, the day before Tidal’s announcement, The Velvet Sundown released a cover of Dolly Parton’s “I Will Always Love You” on Spotify and Tidal. It’s atrocious and it’s not labeled as AI-generated on either service.

“We exist to confuse music journalists, comfort robots, and help Spotify executives sleep at night,” says the frontpage of The Velvet Sundown’s website. “We were basically built for it, engineered to fill playlists, avoid royalties, and haunt your Discover Weekly like a ghost with good taste. Is it art? Is it a loophole? Either way, it streams beautifully."

Update 6/29/26: This story was updated to include comments from Tidal.

In February, police in Claremore, Oklahoma arrested farmer Darren Blanchard for speaking a little too long during a community meeting about data centers. The city charged Blanchard with criminal trespass, a crime with a $200 penalty, but he’s vowed to fight the charge. He recently shared video of the bodycam footage for the first time with 404 Media and answered our questions about the moment cops arrested him for going over his time at a February 17 community meeting of the Claremore City Council.

The plan in February was for the City Council to listen to the concerns citizens had about a planned data center called Project Mustang. The residents of Claremore don’t want the data center and largely feel like the construction project was approved without their input. City officials signed non-disclosure agreements on behalf of the project’s developers and haven’t been forthcoming with details about its construction.