Frank Scott Spies on the Rock

A Look at the Little Rock Mayor’s Mass Surveillance Initiative and Militarization of the LRPD

Little Rock, AR—As the wealth gap continues to grow in the United States, a new dimension of control is emerging: mass surveillance as a means to manage and suppress dissent.

Over the past few decades, economic conditions in America have worsened, driven by skyrocketing inflation, stagnant wages, and soaring housing costs. In Little Rock, as in many other cities, homelessness is rising at an alarming rate—up by 12% last year alone.

With public dissatisfaction over economic hardship mounting, the Eyes on the Rock surveillance initiative appears less like a public safety measure and more like a preemptive strike against potential unrest.

Historically, social movements tend to gain momentum during periods of economic instability. The growing economic precarity faced by working-class Americans, combined with rising dissatisfaction over government policies, creates a perfect storm for political mobilization. Leftist movements, often fueled by demands for economic justice, historically posed a significant threat to the status quo during such times.

The establishment is well aware of these dynamics, as is reflected by billionaires like Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, who believes a vast AI surveillance apparatus will keep the common people on their best behavior. Initiatives like Eyes on the Rock reflect a deliberate strategy to monitor and preemptively neutralize these movements before they gather force.

In the late 19th century, Coxey’s Army, a group of homeless and unemployed workers, organized a march on Washington, D.C., demanding economic reforms during a period of severe economic depression. Rather than address the legitimacy of their grievances, Coxey was beaten and arrested and his movement dispersed.

Today, the deployment of surveillance technologies, under the guise of public safety, apparently serves to preemptively manage and suppress dissent. In addition to today’s economic crisis, public outrage over U.S. foreign policy fuels dissent. The genocide in Gaza, widely criticized both domestically and internationally, has galvanized a growing opposition movement within the U.S.

In Little Rock, roughly 67% of voters support a ceasefire in Gaza, a figure that highlights the extent of public discontent with government policy. As protests and political organizing around this issue grow, surveillance systems like Eyes on the Rock provide authorities with a powerful tool to monitor and potentially suppress these movements.

The timing of Eyes on the Rock is not coincidental. It reflects a broader trend: the use of advanced surveillance technologies to control populations in times of economic and political instability. By expanding surveillance networks, law enforcement agencies gain the ability to track not only criminal activity but also the movements and activities of those who challenge the state. This is particularly dangerous in a democratic society, where dissent and protest are fundamental rights.

Ultimately, the expansion of surveillance is about more than just policing crime—it’s about managing the growing discontent stemming from widening economic inequality and unpopular government policies.

By framing surveillance as a tool for public safety, the government avoids addressing the poverty, homelessness, and political dissatisfaction with genocide at the heart of the unrest. Instead, it invests in technologies designed to control the fallout from these issues, ensuring that the status quo remains intact.

As the wealth gap widens and public dissatisfaction grows, initiatives like Eyes on the Rock signal a shift toward increased state control. Without proper civilian oversight and public resistance, these programs risk turning Little Rock and other cities into apparatuses for suppressing dissent rather than spaces for democratic participation.

The focus should not be on expanding police power through surveillance, but on addressing the underlying social and economic inequalities that drive unrest in the first place.

The origins of policing in the United States trace back to slave patrols in the South and strike- breaking forces in industrialized cities. These early iterations of law enforcement were designed not to serve public safety as we conceive of it today but to protect the interests of wealthy elites—whether by capturing escaped slaves, removing the homeless from public spaces, or suppressing labor movements.

This history explains why modern policing and surveillance efforts disproportionately target activists and organizers. The use of surveillance to control and monitor potential dissent is an extension of long-standing practices aimed at maintaining the status quo.

While early forms of policing relied on physical presence and human observation, the 20th and 21st centuries saw rapid advancements in technology that transformed surveillance capabilities. In the aftermath of 9/11, the U.S. experienced mass expansion of domestic surveillance under the guise of national security.

Programs like the Patriot Act enabled mass data collection through fusion centers, designed to share intelligence data between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and their private sector partners.

New technologies like license plate readers, facial recognition, and Pegasus (spyware designed to access and control a target’s smartphone) are now standard tools for law enforcement.

Predictive policing emerged during this period as a way to use historical crime data to forecast future criminal activity. These systems, however, often replicate racial biases inherent in the data they were trained on, leading to disproportionate targeting of Black, Brown, and low-income communities. Despite these flaws, predictive policing technologies are nearly ubiquitous, driven by the promise of efficiency and cost savings.

Companies like Axon Fusus have capitalized on this trend, offering integrated surveillance networks, linking public and private cameras to centralized law enforcement systems in real time. While marketed as tools for enhancing public safety, these systems raise serious concerns about privacy, racial bias, and the militarization of local police forces.

In Detroit, for example, the city’s adoption of facial recognition technology led to multiple wrongful arrests of Black residents based on faulty AI matches. Predictive policing systems in Chicago targeted minority neighborhoods, resulting in increased police presence and heightened tensions with no crime reduction. These examples demonstrate that AI surveillance often fails to deliver on its promises of improved safety and more often worsens existing social inequalities.

Frank Scott Jr.’s Eyes on the Rock initiative follows this same trajectory. By adopting Axon Fusus’s real-time surveillance network, the city embraces a model of prioritizing monitoring over addressing the root causes of crime and unrest, such as poverty, low wages, and housing costs.

Surveillance tech proponents often justify their adoption by appealing to efficiency and public safety. Little Rock Police Chief, Heath Helton argues that staffing shortages can be compensated for through AI- driven tools, providing more comprehensive coverage with fewer officers.

Proponents of surveillance technologies give justification for its adoption by appealing to efficiency and public safety. The Little Rock Police Department consumes 27% of the city's budget, despite only about 20% of the department's time being spent addressing actual crime.

"We are down roughly 60 officers right now," said Chief Helton at the Little Rock Public Service Commission meeting in December. "We're slotted for 595. When you lose that many people, it changes the dynamics of your organization and how you operate."

But with such a bloated budget and minimal focus on serious crime, why does Helton cry about efficiency? Notwithstanding that studies have show increased surveillance does not lead to reduced crime.

Community Backlash

In November 2024, during a packed Little Rock City Board meeting, community organizer Dawn Jeffrey questioned the board's decision to renew funding for the Real-Time Crime Center, expressing concerns about potential surveillance overreach and its impact on civil liberties.

This meeting came on the heels of Little Rock voters crushing Mayor Scott’s proposed $100 million budget increase for the LRPD. Still, despite unanimous popular opposition, the board voted to renew a nearly $1 million private contract for The Real- Time Crime Center, a consolidated data platform linking cameras, license plate readers and more into a single police data center.

Just over a month later at a Public Safety Commission meeting, Jeffrey questioned Chief Helton about the Little Rock Police Department's surveillance of activists in 2020, during the George Floyd protests. At the time, Jeffrey was actively involved in organizing demonstrations in Little Rock.

Chief Helton, however, was a lieutenant at the time of the protests and stated he had no knowledge of such surveillance. However, in an email on May 30, 2020, then-Lieutenant Helton specifically mentioned Dawn Jeffrey in regard to an upcoming protest event. A story by The Nation stated, “Jeffrey is by far the most mentioned activist in the law enforcement emails we reviewed.”

This contradiction between public statements and internal communications raises concerns about the transparency and honesty of the police department regarding its surveillance practices.

The targeting of activists like Jeffrey exemplifies how surveillance tools are misused to suppress dissent and monitor lawful activities, in an attempt to deter individuals from taking part in protests or engaging in political activism for fear of being targeted by authorities. This incident underscores the need for stringent oversight and transparency in the deployment of surveillance technologies.

In light of these revelations, it is imperative for the Little Rock community to demand accountability and ensure that surveillance initiatives like Eyes on the Rock are not used to target individuals based on their political activities or to suppress activism and community organizing.

To strike this balance, Little Rock must implement safeguards that prevent surveillance overreach:

Transparency: The public must be informed about what data is being collected, how it is used, and who has access to it.

Oversight Committees: Independent civilian oversight committees should be established to monitor the use of surveillance technology and ensure it is not abused.

Clear Limits on Data Use: Policies must be in place to prevent law enforcement from using surveillance data to monitor lawful activities such as protests or political organizing.

Regular Audits: Regular, independent audits should be conducted to ensure that surveillance systems are operating within the bounds of the law and respecting civil liberties.

Helton’s blatant dishonesty and disregard for public concerns highlight the imperative of civilian oversight, not only of the city’s surveillance apparatus but law enforcement itself. The lack of transparency in Eyes on the Rock reflects a broader disconnect between the city government and its residents.

Ultimately, public trust cannot be built through secrecy and unilateral decision-making. It requires open communication, accountability, and a commitment to respecting the democratic process.

Building a Playbook for Resistance in Little Rock

To effectively challenge Eyes on the Rock, local activists and concerned residents can adopt a multi-pronged approach:

Public Education and Awareness: The first step in resisting mass surveillance is raising awareness about its implications. Organize community meetings, create informational materials, and use social media to inform residents about the risks posed by Eyes on the Rock.

Coalition Building: Build alliances with local civil rights organizations, advocacy groups, and community leaders. A united front strengthens the legitimacy of the movement and provides access to resources, including legal support and media outreach.

Engage with City Council: Attend city council meetings and voice concerns during public comment sessions. Demand greater transparency about how surveillance technology is being used, who has access to the data, and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.

Demand Public Oversight: Advocate for the creation of an independent oversight committee that includes community representatives. This committee should have the authority to review surveillance policies, audit data usage, and hold law enforcement accountable.

Legal Action: If necessary, consider pursuing legal avenues to challenge the implementation of surveillance technologies. Work with civil liberties attorneys to explore potential violations of privacy laws and civil rights.

Media & Advocacy Campaigns: Use local media to amplify concerns about Eyes on the Rock. Write op-eds, participate in interviews, and engage with journalists to ensure the issue remains in the public eye.

Ultimately, the question is whether Little Rock should implement advanced surveillance technologies at all. History shows that safety isn’t achieved through control; it comes from addressing the root causes of crime and by fostering trust between the city government and the community.

For Little Rock to thrive, our leaders have to prioritize the voices of residents, particularly marginalized voices. The city has to commit to transparency, accountability, and equitable investment in public welfare. That’s how they can build a city where everyone feels not only safe but also empowered.

Resistance to mass surveillance requires sustained effort, unity, and vigilance. Becuase it’s also resistance to wealthy elites. But it’s a necessary effort if Little Rock is to become a place in which democracy thrives and civil liberties are respected.

As residents face this critical juncture, one thing is clear: the fight for a just, equitable, and free society begins here. Whether through public education, coalition building, or direct action, the people of Little Rock have the power to shape their future—a future that prioritizes people over policing, community over control, and trust over technology.