One signal

A California intelligence centre warned police to watch for “suspicious activity” at city council meetings about Flock surveillance cameras, despite saying it had found no specific, credible threats connected to them, 404 Media reports.

The July bulletin cited possible large turnouts, emotional confrontations and media coverage as potential public-safety concerns. It also listed behaviours such as “excessive clothing” and “unusual questions or behavior” as things to look out for. That puts routine public participation about surveillance under an unusually broad security lens. The practical question is whether such warnings help keep meetings safe, or risk casting ordinary dissent as suspicious.

Discuss: When a police bulletin acknowledges no credible threat, should it still flag ordinary signs of protest as suspicious activity?

Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.