Guests - Warren Petersen, Laurie Moore, Jack Dona
Warren Petersen: The Attorney General’s Race and the Question of Accountability
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen is running for attorney general with a simple argument: the state’s top law-enforcement office needs new leadership. Kathleen Winn began with the controversy surrounding Attorney General Kris Mayes’ decision to close her investigation involving Gov. Katie Hobbs and allegations surrounding state contracts and the Department of Child Safety. Winn asked whether Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell could still pursue the matter separately.
Petersen said the status of Mitchell’s investigation was not clear to him. He recalled an early jurisdictional struggle in which Mayes appeared to want Mitchell’s office to stay out of the case, noting that law-enforcement resources are limited and investigations are generally handled by one agency or another. But with Mayes having publicly closed her investigation, Petersen said Arizonans now need to hear directly from Mitchell’s office about whether it intends to proceed.
The larger issue, Petersen argued, is the evidence that has emerged since Mayes announced her decision. He pointed to statements from a former assistant DCS director who, according to Petersen, said there was no need for the pay increase that figured prominently in Mayes’ explanation of the case. Petersen also referenced testimony alleging that the DCS director had been offered a bribe, information he said was not adequately addressed in the attorney general’s findings.
“It just seems like every day we hear new evidence,” Petersen said.
To Petersen, the significance is not partisan. He argued that Democrats, Republicans and independents alike should be troubled by the appearance of corruption or by evidence that contradicts the conclusions of the state’s chief law-enforcement officer.
“Nobody likes corruption,” Petersen said. “Democrats, independents, Republicans, I think all agree that they don’t like corruption.”
Winn said the unanswered questions become even more serious because the attorney general is supposed to be Arizona’s “top cop.” If evidence has been overlooked, minimized or contradicted by subsequent witnesses, she argued, voters have every reason to demand an accounting. Petersen’s answer ultimately returned to the ballot box.
“Hopefully the voters will make the right decision here,” he said.
What Should Arizona’s Attorney General Actually Be Doing?
Winn also challenged the priorities of the current attorney general’s office, particularly Mayes’ repeated legal confrontations with President Donald Trump and what Winn described as an insufficient focus on the concerns of Arizona residents and businesses.
Petersen said business owners have been among the most enthusiastic supporters of his campaign because they have experienced a regulatory atmosphere he considers adversarial.
“She calls corporations greedy and corrupt,” Petersen said, adding that the rhetoric misses an important reality: most Arizona businesses are not giant multinational corporations. They are small businesses, family operations and local employers. “They’re literally the backbone of our economy,” he said.
Petersen said business owners have contacted him after receiving investigative letters from the attorney general’s office that they found vague or intimidating. In his view, government regulation should clearly explain the law, clearly identify violations and clearly establish penalties. It should not operate as a series of traps.
“Government should be there to protect your rights, your property,” Petersen said. “It shouldn’t be witch hunts and gotcha situations.”
That distinction goes to the heart of his campaign. Petersen sees the attorney general as an official who should protect constitutional rights, enforce the law consistently and create an environment in which legitimate businesses understand the rules rather than fear arbitrary government action.
Campaign Money, Television Ads and the Democratic Fundraising Advantage
A listener raised a practical campaign question: Why were voters seeing advertisements for Mayes but comparatively little advertising for Petersen?
Petersen said that was about to change. His campaign had authorized a $100,000 advertising buy and planned to increase its presence as voting approached. Winn noted that political advertising is partly a matter of timing. Voters do not yet have ballots in their hands, memories are short, and campaigns that exhaust their advertising budgets too early can disappear precisely when voters begin making final decisions.
Petersen agreed, but he also made a direct fundraising appeal. Democratic candidates, he said, routinely outraise Republicans by large margins.
“For whatever reason, the Democrats out-raise us like two, three to one,” Petersen said. “You look at their campaign finance reports. I mean, they’re raising millions and millions of dollars.”
His message to supporters who want to see more Republican advertising was straightforward: campaigns cannot spend money they do not have. Petersen directed potential contributors to Petersen4AG.com and said donations would be used to expand television and radio advertising through Election Day.
Petersen Warns of a Socialist Shift Inside Arizona’s Democratic Party
The conversation then turned from the attorney general’s race to the ideological direction of Arizona Democrats. Winn asked Petersen whether the Democratic Socialists of America and the broader socialist movement are becoming a serious force in Arizona politics. She framed the concern in terms of states and cities that conservatives frequently cite as warnings: California, New Mexico, Colorado and Chicago.
Petersen said the shift is already visible among elected Democrats.
“I can tell you that’s where the majority of the elected Democrats are,” he said.
He cited a recent race in central Arizona in which, as he characterized it, a traditional Democrat lost to a far more radical Democratic candidate. Petersen said similar contests are occurring around the country, with socialist candidates gaining ground inside Democratic primaries.
If Democrats were to capture control of the Arizona Legislature, Petersen warned, those candidates and that ideology would become central to governing the state.
“If they somehow take the majority, that is who will run the state,” Petersen said. “And I think that’s very dangerous.”
He ended with a reminder aimed specifically at Southern Arizona: Pima County does not have to remain politically predetermined.
“Pima can absolutely be the difference in this election,” Petersen said.
Arizona Voters Should Look Beyond the Campaign Ads
After Petersen’s appearance, Winn expanded the argument from one race to the entire Arizona ballot. Her warning was direct: do not choose candidates solely because of political advertising.
Ads are designed to persuade, simplify and, increasingly, to define an opponent before that opponent has the money to answer. Winn urged voters to look at records, attend events, investigate candidates and ask whether the claims in political commercials correspond to the reality of the last four years.
“Please just don’t use ads to determine if you’re going to vote for someone,” Winn said.
She contrasted candidates who are traveling Arizona and meeting voters with Gov. Hobbs, whom Winn said has been largely absent except through advertising and social-media messaging. Winn also returned to the controversy surrounding state contracts, DCS and the attorney general’s decision not to prosecute, arguing that the public should pay attention when witnesses begin publicly contradicting official findings.
Winn broadened the indictment of state government further. She pointed to the Department of Public Safety, saying its budget had been depleted months ahead of schedule after money was redirected. She described DCS as “an absolute train wreck” and criticized state policies involving parents and grandparents who object to gender-transition procedures for minors. She also cited the continuing legal battle over diversity, equity and inclusion policies at Arizona State University.
Taken together, Winn said, the fights represent a fundamental choice about what kind of Arizona voters want. For decades, she argued, Arizona built a reputation around being pro-business, pro-family, pro-education and hospitable to faith and personal freedom. The policies being pushed now, she said, are increasingly the opposite.
“If you don’t want that brand of Arizona, you’ve got to change out the leadership,” Winn said.
Crime, Cost of Living and the Issues State Leaders Cannot Avoid
Winn also argued that Arizona’s election cannot be separated from public safety and affordability. She accused current Democratic leadership of focusing more heavily on opposition to Trump, Republican immigration policies and detention centers than on the daily concerns of residents dealing with crime, inflation and deteriorating quality of life.
Affordability, she said, is not abstract. Families are paying more for housing, groceries and everyday necessities, and voters should ask who has been governing while those costs increased. Public safety deserves the same scrutiny.
Winn referenced recent violent crimes in Arizona and argued that officials too often discuss guns, ideology or federal policy without giving sufficient attention to victims and the enforcement of existing laws. Her broader point was that selective enforcement has consequences. When officials decide that some laws deserve aggressive enforcement while others can be ignored for political reasons, the result is a breakdown in public confidence and, eventually, public order.
Winn contrasted current Democratic leadership with former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. She disagreed with Napolitano on many issues, but said she nevertheless respected her willingness to work across party lines and project a degree of competence.
“I don’t think we’ve had anybody in the Democrat Party be the caliber that she was,” Winn said.
Arizona, she argued, is now at a crossroads.
Pima County’s Local Races May Matter More Than Voters Realize
For Southern Arizona voters, Winn emphasized that the statewide races are only part of the ballot. Pima County Board of Supervisors seats are generally not up again for another two years, but District 5 presents an immediate opportunity for change. Andres Cano was appointed to fill the seat previously held by Adelita Grijalva, and that appointed term comes to an end.
Winn argued that electing a different supervisor could alter the dynamics of the board by giving Republican Supervisor Steve Christy someone willing to second motions and force public discussion. At present, she said, the four Democratic supervisors frequently move together, leaving little genuine debate.
“We don’t discuss anything at the Board of Supervisors,” Winn said. “The four Democrats are walking in lockstep.”
That has consequences for spending, housing policy and county priorities. Winn specifically objected to what she described as extremely expensive “affordable housing” programs and warned that Pima County is moving toward the same governing model seen in California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico.
Her message was not merely to vote Republican reflexively. It was to understand every race, proposition and tax question on the ballot.
“Be an informed voter,” Winn said. “At the end of the day, you’ve got to make a decision. What quality of life do you want?”
The Ballot Is Long, Complicated and Expensive
Winn warned voters that Arizona’s ballot will contain far more than the high-profile races dominating television commercials. There will be school-board races, legislative contests, bond measures, constitutional amendments and local spending questions. Some of those issues may have a more immediate effect on household finances than the races generating national attention.
Pima County includes portions of legislative districts 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23, and Winn encouraged voters to research every candidate appearing on their particular ballot.
School funding is another major issue. Multiple districts are seeking bond authority or other tax-related approvals. Winn was not arguing that every school measure should automatically be rejected, but she stressed that voters need to understand the tax consequences before voting.
“Don’t not vote things that are going to affect you financially,” Winn said.
The complexity of the ballot, she argued, is precisely why voters should begin studying it before early ballots arrive rather than attempting to decipher pages of propositions on Election Day.
Laurie Moore: The Fight Against Mandatory DEI Moves to the Arizona Supreme Court
The debate over diversity, equity and inclusion provided the bridge to educator and longtime political activist Laurie Moore.
The Goldwater Institute has asked the Arizona Supreme Court to consider whether state employees can enforce Arizona’s statutory prohibition against certain mandatory DEI training requirements. The case involves Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson, who sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after being required to participate in ASU’s “Inclusive Communities” training.
Winn said the training included instruction involving “transformative justice,” race, sex, “whiteness” and “heteronormativity.” Anderson contends that the training violated Arizona law by compelling state employees to participate in programs that assign blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity or sex.
The underlying legal question is larger than one training program. Arizona can pass a law declaring mandatory discriminatory training illegal, but what happens when an individual employee has no ability to sue when that law is violated?
The trial court initially allowed Anderson’s claim to move forward. The Arizona Court of Appeals later concluded that the statute did not provide Anderson with an individual right to sue. That, Winn argued, creates an obvious problem: a legal protection with no practical enforcement mechanism can become little more than words on paper.
“Ultimately, the question now before the Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue,” Winn said in describing Anderson’s argument. “It’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when they violate the law.”
Moore Calls Arizona’s Anti-DEI Push “Common Sense”
Moore said she first encountered Arizona’s new anti-DEI protections during a Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting, when Chair Jennifer Allen criticized the law as discriminatory toward LGBT constituencies. Moore went home and read it herself.
Her reaction was the opposite.
“Oh, my gosh, it’s wonderful,” Moore said. “It’s just common-sense wonderful.”
Moore said the legislation deprives the political left of one of its most effective organizing strategies: sorting citizens into racial categories and then using government policy to reward or punish them differently. She argued that the debate should return to equal treatment rather than increasingly elaborate systems of identity-based preference.
Winn agreed and tied the court case to Proposition 142, which would place stronger anti-DEI protections into the Arizona Constitution.
Proposition 142 Would Put DEI Restrictions Into the Constitution
Winn urged voters to support Proposition 142. As she described it, the measure would prohibit state universities from forcing students to complete DEI coursework as a graduation requirement, restrict taxpayer spending on DEI offices and strengthen protections against race-based preferential treatment.
The proposed constitutional amendment is especially important, Winn argued, because the Anderson case has revealed the limits of a statute that courts may decide individuals cannot personally enforce. If voters place the protection directly into the Arizona Constitution, the legal foundation becomes much harder for bureaucracies to evade.
For Winn, the issue also involves the purpose of a university. Universities should be places for the exchange of ideas, she said, not institutions that demand ideological conformity from professors before they are allowed to teach. She questioned why colleges struggling with students who arrive academically unprepared would devote money and institutional energy to ideological programs rather than core academic skills.
“What is the good thing about DEI?” Winn asked.
Moore’s answer was characteristically blunt.
“It just lets inferior people jump to the head of the line,” she said.
Her language was intentionally provocative, but her underlying argument was about merit. Moore believes institutions become weaker when they replace objective standards with identity-based preferences.
Moore Says College Parents Should Follow the Money—and the Course Catalog
Moore drew on her own experience as a parent of students who attended the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. Her children, she said, sometimes registered late for electives and found conventional academic classes already full. What remained were courses centered on sexuality, diversity and other identity-related subjects.
Moore remembered wondering why families should pay thousands of dollars for classes they did not consider academically valuable.
“They’re going to have to not only protect, they’re going to have to increase viable courses and not give equal standing to this DEI stuff,” Moore said. “And parents better check before they write that check.”
She also recalled an earlier era in education when curriculum coordinators tracked the actual instructional materials teachers intended to use. New teachers had to identify books, workbooks and classroom resources, creating accountability for what students were being taught. That kind of oversight, Moore suggested, has been replaced by administrative growth and ideological programming that parents often discover only after the fact.
Immigration, Housing and the Economics of Scarcity
The discussion moved from DEI to immigration because Moore sees the two issues as connected through a political worldview that prioritizes group-based claims over orderly processes.
She argued that voters who supported the Biden administration may not have understood the practical consequences of allowing millions of additional migrants into the country. Moore framed the issue through simple supply and demand.
“If you’ve got a hundred people vying for an apartment, that price goes up, not down,” Moore said.
If 100 people are competing for an apartment instead of 10, she argued, the price does not fall. It rises. More people competing for a limited stock of housing also affects low-income housing availability and the broader rental market.
Winn added that housing policy affects existing homeowners as well. When government subsidizes dense projects or places large developments in established residential areas, she argued, taxpayers should consider both the direct cost and the effect on surrounding property values.
For Moore, the contradiction is particularly frustrating because many of the same activists protesting high housing costs supported immigration policies that, in her view, increase housing demand.
Proposition 144: Government-Issued Identification for Voting
Winn then walked through several statewide propositions she considers important.
Proposition 144, described as the Arizona SAVE Act, would require voters to provide government-issued identification, including additional requirements involving mail voting, while making other changes to election administration and campaign-finance rules.
Winn found the need for such a measure remarkable. The principle, she argued, should not be controversial: election systems should be able to confirm that the person casting a ballot is legally entitled to cast it.
The measure is one of several constitutional amendments that reached voters after conflict between the Republican Legislature and Gov. Hobbs.
Proposition 141: No Mileage Taxes and No Government Tracking of How Far You Drive
Proposition 141 addresses vehicle-mileage taxes, fees and government monitoring of miles traveled. Winn and Moore connected the measure to concerns about “15-minute cities” and policies that could ultimately allow government to monitor, tax or restrict how residents travel.
Arizona is a large state. Residents frequently travel substantial distances for work, family obligations, medical care and basic daily life. A government structure that monitors every mile, Winn argued, creates both financial and privacy concerns.
Proposition 141 would prohibit taxes or fees based on vehicle miles traveled and restrict laws monitoring or limiting travel without consent. For Winn, the connection between Propositions 141, 142 and 144 is clear: each represents an attempt to place guardrails around government power.
The Legislature Went Around the “Veto Queen”
Winn noted that these constitutional amendments exist partly because legislation addressing the same subjects had been vetoed by Hobbs. She referred to the governor as the “veto queen.”
The Republican Legislature’s response was to send measures directly to voters, bypassing both the governor and the attorney general.
“These propositions came because of the actions of the veto queen,” Winn said.
She urged a yes vote on Propositions 141, 142 and 144. Moore viewed the broader battle as evidence of just how far the political divide has moved. She grouped the modern Democratic Party, democratic socialism and more openly socialist ideologies together, arguing that the distinctions voters once made among Democratic candidates are becoming less meaningful.
“How close we are to losing it,” Moore said, is what more Americans need to understand.
Political Fatigue Is Real—but So Are the Stakes
Winn acknowledged the exhaustion. Conservative voters have spent years hearing that the country is in crisis, that another institution has been politicized, that another election is decisive and that another policy fight cannot be ignored. She described it as a battlefield without conventional gunfire.
The fatigue is understandable. But for Winn and Moore, surrendering because political participation has become exhausting simply guarantees victory to the people they believe created the problem.
Their answer is not constant outrage for its own sake. It is sustained involvement in the mundane places where policy is actually made: school boards, county boards, legislative districts, budget hearings and ballot propositions.
Pima County Proposition 425 and the Fight Over a Bigger Spending Limit
Among the local questions, Winn expressed particular concern about Pima County Proposition 425. She described the proposal as allowing the county to raise its annual expenditure limit by roughly $70 million and warned that the change would not be temporary.
Her concern was not simply the immediate dollar amount. It was the removal of existing guardrails. Once a higher spending structure becomes permanent, future boards—made up of entirely different people—inherit the authority.
That makes the question similar to Winn’s later concerns about surveillance technology: never judge government power only by whether you trust the people holding it today. Ask who might control it 10, 20 or 30 years from now.
“Do we give the blank check to the Pima County Board of Supervisors?” Winn asked. “I’m a big no on that.”
She argued that the county has not demonstrated enough fiscal discipline to justify a permanent expansion of its spending authority.
Bonds, School Districts and the Local Tax Burden
The ballot also includes a long list of local financial questions. Winn referenced a Tucson Electric Power franchise renewal, a sales-tax extension involving Reid Park Zoo, measures involving the Vail School District and Northwest Fire District, and proposed bonds from multiple educational entities.
Among the larger requests discussed were roughly $250 million connected with Pima JTED and another substantial request involving Pima Community College. Measures also involve the Amphitheater, Sahuarita and Tanque Verde school districts, while Oro Valley voters face a long-term general-plan question.
Winn joked that the sheer number of requests made it feel like government was holding a yard sale. But the serious point was that bonds are not free money. They are debt instruments paid over time, ultimately through taxpayers and public revenue.
Voters should therefore ask what each entity is buying, why the expenditure is necessary, what existing resources are being used for and what the total long-term cost will be.
Proposition 318 and Protecting Girls’ Sports
Winn also highlighted Proposition 318, the Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act. The measure is part of a larger national debate about biological sex and women’s athletics.
For conservatives, Winn argued, the issue is straightforward: female athletic categories exist for a reason, and allowing biological males to compete in those categories undermines fairness and the opportunities Title IX was designed to create for women and girls.
The proposition gives Arizona voters an opportunity to place protections directly into state policy rather than leaving the question to administrative rules that can change with elections.
Proposition 320: Put More Education Dollars Into the Classroom
Another measure drew immediate support from Moore. Proposition 320 would require 60 percent of operational education spending to go toward direct classroom instruction.
Moore said the idea should have been adopted years ago.
“We have so many administrators,” she said. “I don’t even know what they do.”
Her criticism came from experience as a teacher. She contrasted current administrative structures with the leaner systems she remembered earlier in her career, when school personnel had defined functions tied directly to teachers, classrooms and curriculum.
Moore recalled curriculum coordinators who reviewed what teachers planned to use and held them accountable for instructional materials. That position, in her view, had an obvious relationship to education. What frustrates her today is the growth of administrative layers whose contribution to classroom achievement is much harder to identify.
For Moore, Proposition 320 asks a basic question: if taxpayers approve education funding because they want children educated, shouldn’t most of that operational money reach the classroom?
Jack Dona: Flock Cameras, Artificial Intelligence and the Surveillance Question
The final major discussion turned to a technology already spreading rapidly across American communities: artificial-intelligence-assisted license-plate reader cameras.
Winn used “Flock cameras” as shorthand because Flock Safety has become one of the most visible companies in the market. Jack Dona, a retired Army master sergeant with decades of experience in military intelligence and electronic surveillance, immediately made an important distinction.
Flock is a company, not a generic technology. Motorola, Genetec, Axon and other companies manufacture related systems. The broader category is automated or AI-assisted license-plate reader technology, commonly referred to as LPR or ALPR cameras.
That distinction matters because the debate is larger than one corporation. The real issue is the architecture being built behind the cameras.
Dona’s Four Decades in Intelligence Shape His View of Civilian Surveillance
Dona spent roughly four decades in the military intelligence community and worked on surveillance systems long before artificial intelligence became a household phrase.
He began on Special Electronic Mission Aircraft, or SEMA platforms, working with manned surveillance aircraft and later unmanned systems. He said he began working with computers in the late 1970s and later spent five years at the National Security Agency from 1997 to 2002. His specialties included electronic warfare engineering, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance.
That background is why he does not dismiss the usefulness of surveillance technology. He understands exactly why law enforcement wants it. He also understands exactly why the public should be cautious.
Dona’s Rule: No Mass Surveillance Without a Predicate
Winn offered the strongest argument for license-plate cameras: a missing child, an abduction, a dangerous fugitive or another genuine emergency. Dona said technology can be extraordinarily useful in those circumstances.
His objection is to leaving systems running continuously and collecting information on innocent citizens who are suspected of nothing. His proposed solution is judicial authorization.
“Keep these systems off until a judge says there is a predicate,” Dona said. “There is an abduction. Something has happened. Turn the systems back on for a set period of time.”
That creates a bright line between targeted surveillance and mass surveillance. A specific crime creates a reason to use extraordinary tools. A judge reviews the evidence. The technology is activated for a defined purpose and a defined period.
What concerns Dona is the opposite model: collect everything first and decide later how government might use it.
“To have these surveillance systems on constantly gathering and capturing people’s license plates and other information,” he said, “that is…problematic.”
Safety Is the Argument Every Surveillance System Uses
Dona compared the rhetoric surrounding automated license-plate readers to other technological changes sold to the public as necessary for security, efficiency or accuracy.
He invoked the transition toward electronic voting systems after the 2000 presidential election and the controversy over hanging chads in Florida. The argument then was that human systems were outdated and technology would eliminate problems.
“Be careful what you wish for,” Winn said.
Dona’s concern is not that every new technology is inherently bad. It is that citizens often evaluate what technology can accomplish before asking what power it creates.
“In order to keep you safe, you need these electronic systems,” he said, summarizing the argument.
That is precisely when he believes the public should begin asking more questions.
The Surveillance Principle Predates Artificial Intelligence
Dona traced the philosophy of surveillance back nearly a century. He described an early Soviet effort under Joseph Stalin to develop remote-viewing technology capable of monitoring public gathering places.
The political purpose, in Dona’s telling, was not catching ordinary criminals. Soviet leaders wanted awareness of what citizens were doing in public spaces as the new regime consolidated power.
The connection to modern technology is not the hardware. A primitive camera and an AI license-plate reader obviously have little in common technically. The connection is the governing principle: people who hold power have always wanted the ability to observe people who might challenge that power.
For Dona, that is why the First Amendment’s protection of assembly matters so much. If citizens cannot gather privately, organize freely or communicate without being watched, political freedom exists only on paper.
Iran Shows Why Freedom of Assembly Is Not an Abstract Right
Winn connected Dona’s historical discussion to Iran. Whatever technology an authoritarian government uses—cameras, paid informants, snipers, communications intercepts or human surveillance—the purpose can be the same: prevent citizens from organizing against the state.
Dona said damaged communications infrastructure can push a regime back toward older methods of human intelligence. Governments can place observers in public areas, use informants and physically monitor places where citizens gather. That model has been used repeatedly in authoritarian societies.
It also helps explain why America’s founders protected assembly. Dona reached back to the Revolutionary War and the Culper spy ring, whose operatives gathered intelligence and passed information to George Washington. Taverns and other gathering places were essential because revolutionaries needed locations where information could be exchanged.
The lesson, Dona argued, is timeless: a population that cannot assemble cannot organize, and a population that cannot organize cannot meaningfully resist tyranny.
From Closed-Circuit Television to AI License-Plate Readers
Dona described earlier closed-circuit television systems as fundamentally different from the surveillance networks being deployed today.
Traditional CCTV required human beings. A few people sat in a room looking at a limited number of screens. The number of cameras that could be meaningfully monitored was constrained by the number of humans available to watch them.
Dona cited an early British law-enforcement operation in which authorities used primitive camera technology to monitor an alleged illegal betting operation. The imagery was poor, and investigators ultimately relied heavily on people in the area to help identify suspects.
That old model contained a natural limitation: humans can only watch so much. Artificial intelligence removes that limitation.
Public Resistance to Flock Cameras Is Growing
Winn noted that the expansion of license-plate reader networks has produced a visceral public reaction in some communities. Cameras have appeared along streets, near businesses, in neighborhoods and around other public areas. Activists have protested them, and some cameras have reportedly been damaged or removed.
Winn did not frame destruction of property as the solution. The more important question is why so many Americans across the political spectrum are reacting negatively to the technology.
The answer, she suggested, is privacy. People who have committed no crime increasingly object to the assumption that government should be entitled to build a permanent record of where they travel.
That concern becomes more serious when the data is retained, shared and combined with other databases.
False Matches Show the Technology Is Not Infallible
Winn raised reports of innocent motorists being stopped, detained or confronted after automated camera systems allegedly produced incorrect vehicle matches.
Dona said there are multiple ways image quality can degrade. A camera can be improperly aimed. Weather can affect visibility. Desert dust and sand can damage or obscure lenses. Rain or environmental conditions can reduce image clarity.
The critical point is what happens next. The image does not simply remain inside the camera. It is transmitted to a server, then routed into a larger processing architecture.
That is where Dona says the most important part of the system begins.
The Camera Is Not the Real Power. The AI Data Center Is.
“The real threat is not the cameras,” Dona said. “The real threat is the artificial intelligence data centers.”
A metropolitan area could deploy thousands of cameras that continuously capture license plates. Under an old-fashioned surveillance model, processing that volume of information would require an army of employees sitting in buildings filled with monitors.
Artificial intelligence changes the economics completely. A computer system can process immense quantities of images, identify patterns, compare records and generate alerts without requiring thousands of human observers.
Dona described the system as having two primary components. The AI data center processes the information, while the fusion center is where human beings receive and act upon it.
The combination is far more powerful than either one standing alone.
How a Fusion Center Can Turn an Ordinary Trip Into an Intelligence Alert
Dona offered a hypothetical example involving Albuquerque. Imagine an AI system has access to thousands of cameras across the city. A van leaves Albuquerque and travels south. Nothing illegal has happened, but the AI notices the movement anyway.
Hours later, another license-plate reader records that same vehicle in El Paso. The system recognizes that the vehicle has not previously traveled there or perhaps has never crossed state lines. An alert is generated, and the trip has now become an anomaly.
That anomaly is sent to a fusion center. Inside that fusion center may be representatives of the FBI, ATF, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, local sheriff’s offices, police departments and other agencies.
One database may identify the vehicle owner. Another may show a driver’s-license photograph. Another may contain firearms-related records. Another may contain address information.
The revolutionary capability is not any single record. Government has possessed many of those records for decades. The revolutionary capability is the speed at which previously separate information can be assembled into a single profile.
“You no longer need thousands of people with paper files,” Dona said.
The Problem Is Who Controls the Data
Winn identified what she sees as the central issue.
“The problem isn’t the data,” she said. “The problem is how the data is used and how it’s applied and who’s in charge.”
Dona agreed. A surveillance network controlled by officials who respect constitutional limits may be used narrowly and responsibly. The same network does not disappear when those officials leave office.
Dona repeatedly used Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels as his example. He considers Dannels honorable and trustworthy.
But Dannels will not be sheriff forever.
“He’s just an election away from being gone,” Dona said.
That is the question citizens should ask before approving any government power: would you still support the system if your political enemy controlled it tomorrow?
The NSA, Political Surveillance and the Warning From the Trump Years
Dona pointed to controversies from Trump’s first presidency as evidence that highly sophisticated surveillance powers can become politically consequential.
He referenced former NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers and former Rep. Devin Nunes, who played prominent roles in raising concerns about surveillance involving Trump and his associates.
Dona described the NSA as technologically unmatched and argued that Americans should never assume a powerful intelligence capability cannot be turned inward.
“There is no organization on the planet that can beat the National Security Agency,” Dona said.
He also referenced January 6 investigations and the use of cellphone records, location information, facial or spatial recognition and license-plate data to identify people after the event.
His point was not that investigators should never use technology to solve crimes. It was that extraordinary capability inevitably invites broader use once it exists.
More Than 100,000 Cameras—and Growing
During the discussion, a listener sent Winn information estimating that more than 100,000 Flock cameras had been deployed around the United States, with Flock itself claiming a network of roughly 120,000 cameras across 49 states.
Winn cited the figures as evidence that the debate is no longer hypothetical. The infrastructure already exists.
The question is what laws, oversight requirements and constitutional protections will govern it. Citizens are not deciding whether America should someday create a nationwide network. Large portions of the network are already being built.
Civilian LPR Systems Borrow From Military Surveillance Concepts
Dona stressed that modern automated license-plate reader networks did not appear from nowhere. Military intelligence has used progressively more sophisticated surveillance techniques for generations.
He cited Civil War balloons as an early example: an observer went into the air with binoculars, surveyed activity below and passed information to commanders on the ground. The technology changed from balloons to aircraft, from aircraft to unmanned systems, from human observers to sensors, and from isolated intelligence reports to automated digital analysis.
Modern civilian LPR systems, Dona said, are essentially lower-cost descendants of military surveillance concepts.
“These LPR cameras, they are cheap knockoffs of military-grade surveillance systems,” he said.
The real change came when artificial intelligence became capable of processing data automatically at scale.
Intelligence Oversight Used to Be Taken Seriously
Dona’s most important argument was not for eliminating technology. It was for restoring oversight.
During his military intelligence career, he said, installations were subject to intelligence-oversight inspections specifically designed to ensure that systems intended for foreign or military intelligence were not being used improperly against American citizens.
Inspectors examined sensors, systems and technical safeguards. They made sure equipment was not aimed at surrounding communities and that restrictions existed to prevent unauthorized collection.
“They were constantly climbing up our rear ends to make sure that there was oversight and that these systems were not going to be used in any capacity against the public,” Dona said.
What troubles him today is how rarely he hears the same language used around civilian AI surveillance.
“I can’t remember, Kathleen, when the last time I even heard someone say the words, ‘We need intelligence oversight of these systems,’” he said.
For Dona, that is the missing conversation.
Elected Officials Cannot Outsource Their Responsibility
When Cochise County established its fusion center, Dona said he attended the public meeting and urged county supervisors to take personal responsibility for oversight.
He told them that if they voted to fund the system, they also needed appropriate clearances, training and procedures that allowed them—or properly qualified representatives—to inspect what the system was doing.
“You people need to be going into those fusion centers, into those data centers, those AI data centers, and make sure you’re reviewing laws,” Dona recalled telling them.
Years later, Dona asked an official how many supervisors had actually followed through. According to Dona, only one had done so—and that supervisor was a Democrat.
The detail mattered to both Dona and Winn because privacy should not be a partisan issue. Conservatives may distrust surveillance because of abuses directed at Trump supporters. Civil libertarians on the left may distrust it because of police power or corporate data collection. The reasons may differ, but the constitutional principle does not.
The Fusion Center Architect Gave Dona a Warning
Dona recalled that after his public comments about oversight, a man approached him and identified himself as an architect involved in designing the fusion center. The two spoke in technical terms about the system.
According to Dona, the architect told him his concerns were correct: without procedures, oversight and accountable elected officials, surveillance systems could become extraordinarily dangerous if they ever fell into the wrong hands.
That is the nightmare scenario. The cameras themselves do not create the police state. The combination of cameras, databases, artificial intelligence, interagency sharing and political power does.
Dona argued that such a network could create surveillance capabilities that historic authoritarian governments could only have imagined.
From Flock to Minority Report
Winn invoked the film Minority Report, in which authorities attempt to stop crimes before they occur.
Dona said the analogy becomes disturbingly useful if one removes the science-fiction element of human beings who can literally see the future and replaces them with predictive artificial intelligence.
As AI systems ingest more behavioral information, governments and corporations can increasingly create risk scores and predictions based on patterns rather than proven criminal acts.
“We can predict that this person will probably commit a crime,” Dona said, describing the direction he fears the technology could take.
That moves government into an entirely different relationship with citizens. Traditional law enforcement investigates what a person did. Predictive surveillance asks what a person might do.
Dona Calls the AI Data Center “The Watcher”
Dona has a term for the shift that occurred when artificial intelligence became capable of processing mass surveillance. He calls the AI data center “the watcher.”
In the old model, the watcher was a person staring at a screen. In the new model, the AI never gets tired, never looks away and can process information from thousands of sources simultaneously.
“It is the AI data center that is the watcher,” Dona said.
He dates the practical transition to approximately 2017, when advances in artificial intelligence began transforming what could be done with networked civilian surveillance systems.
That distinction is crucial because focusing exclusively on pole-mounted cameras may already be technologically outdated.
Taking Down the Camera Does Not Take Down the Surveillance Network
Dona said companies already have another option: drones. He pointed to airborne camera systems capable of providing surveillance without requiring a permanent pole on a street corner.
A drone can operate thousands of feet above a neighborhood and carry high-resolution optics.
“You don’t like these cameras on poles?” Dona said. “They got a backup plan.”
That means the political debate cannot simply be about where a city council allows a particular company to install a camera. The real question is whether government may systematically collect, analyze and retain information about innocent citizens regardless of the sensor being used.
A camera is only one sensor.
Surveillance Does Not Even Require a Photograph
Dona closed by explaining that modern intelligence systems can draw conclusions from far more than images.
He referenced measurement and signature intelligence—the use of technical sensors to identify patterns or characteristics that reveal activity. As a simple example, he said sophisticated systems could analyze electrical consumption inside a home and potentially infer where activity is occurring based on changes in power usage.
That prompted some humor from Winn, who noted that her household would confuse the system because she turns lights off while her husband turns them back on.
The joke highlighted the larger point. Once powerful AI systems can process enormous streams of information, almost any sensor can become part of a surveillance architecture.
“They can use any sensor, not just a camera,” Dona said. “They can use any sensor to analyze the data and know who you are.”
Privacy May Be One Issue That Still Crosses Party Lines
For all of Winn’s concerns about the cameras, she found one development encouraging: Americans with very different politics appear to be arriving at the same instinct.
“I want my privacy. I want my freedoms,” she said.
That reaction is crossing partisan lines, and Winn considers that healthy. Citizens do not need to agree on every issue to agree that government power requires limits, that surveillance demands oversight and that constitutional freedoms should not depend upon trusting whoever happens to hold office today.
Dona agreed but warned that surveillance organizations naturally prefer systems the public cannot easily observe or understand. The less transparent the technology, the harder it becomes for ordinary citizens to know what is being collected and how it is being used.
That makes legislative oversight increasingly urgent.
Congress Needs to Catch Up With the Technology
Dona argued that Congress should modernize federal privacy and wiretap laws to account for artificial intelligence, persistent automated surveillance and new categories of sensors.
Existing legal frameworks were created for a world in which a wiretap meant listening to a telephone call and surveillance usually required a human being to physically watch someone. That is no longer the world Americans inhabit.
AI can combine travel histories, photographs, license plates, public records, law-enforcement databases and sensor information at a speed no investigative team could have matched a generation ago.
Dona believes the legal safeguards need to evolve just as quickly.
“We desperately need Congress to begin doing intelligence oversight,” he said.
Without that oversight, the same technology capable of finding a kidnapped child, locating a violent criminal or disrupting a drug-trafficking operation can be repurposed for mass political surveillance. That tension cannot be solved by pretending one side of the technology does not exist.
The tools can make citizens safer. They can also make government vastly more powerful. The responsibility of a constitutional republic is to preserve the first without surrendering to the second.