https://dictionary.apa.org/hypervigilance

In fact, the discussion with the large language model on Flock’s website made the following observation about this particular paradox: “Flock’s technology aims to improve public safety but raises concerns about surveillance and its psychological impact, particularly the risk of hypervigilance. The brain’s limbic subcortex, responsible for threat detection, may perceive constant monitoring as a stressor, leading to increased vigilance and emotional distress. Emotional distress can lead to various negative outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and physical health issues. It can impair cognitive functions like decision-making and problem-solving, disrupt relationships, and decrease overall well-being, highlighting the importance of managing stress effectively. Emotional distress from increased surveillance could undermine Flock’s mission by negatively impacting community well-being and trust, contradicting their goal to enhance safety without causing stress or infringing on privacy. Achieving safety through surveillance can be contradictory, as it may lead to fear and hypervigilance, undermining trust and well-being, which are crucial for genuine safety. Therefore, it’s essential to consider transparent practices and community engagement to ensure that safety measures align with societal goals and foster trust rather than fear.”

Perhaps it would be better to simply install flock cameras to watch the birds as they flock around town instead.

If you follow the link, there’s a downloadable .pdf version available at Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead.