In the trade-off between privacy and security, it helps to know the extent of your local surveillance infrastructure. There are now easy ways to find out.

I didn't tell anyone I was meeting Michelle Dahl, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a watchdog group. But by the time I greet her in Brooklyn, New York, the system knows we're together.

"It's kind of invisible if you're not looking for it," says Dahl, pointing up to a lamppost, where two tiny cameras labelled New York City Police Department hide in black plastic domes.

They're part of the NYPD's massive AI surveillance platform: the Domain Awareness System (DAS). "Every police officer in the city can access it on their phones and pull up a profile of basically anyone walking around," she says.

The platform connects more than 80,000 cameras with drones, social media data, even systems that follow cars when you drive to another state. Dahl says it can unveil who I've seen and everywhere I've been in the last week. My whole life: tracked.

Every day, across the US, your life is also being recorded by a growing system of mass surveillance that reaches far deeper than many of us may realise. Controversy around an American surveillance company called Flock Safety exploded in recent months, but it's only one player in a giant industry.

Flock and other advocates say we need to strike a compromise between privacy and safety. 

Is it worth the trade-off? To decide for yourself, it's worth understanding how comprehensive the surveillance really is. So I went looking for cameras in my own neighbourhood. You can too, and you don't even need to leave the couch to find them.

'The more you start looking, the more you'll see'

Some of those concerned about surveillance seem to think Flock is the whole issue. New York City demonstrates why that's not true. The company doesn't operate here, but we're still being watched.

Dahl is taking me on a surveillance tour to the BBC's Manhattan office, pointing out cameras and other devices along the way. I've covered privacy for 10 years, but even I was stunned by the infrastructure following our every move.

After just a few steps, we stop and look around. I count 16 different cameras.

"I would assume these are owned by businesses, buildings and renters," she says. These are additional to cameras run by the city, she says. "But the NYPD likely has easy access. They often just ask the owner if there's an investigation, and people hand over the footage." 

Some camera vendors, like Amazon's Ring, even have automated systems to make it easier for police to request and receive footage directly from users.

Cameras in public are now so ubiquitous I barely notice them anymore. But with Dahl's help, my eyes refocus: small pill-shaped cameras hanging in front of stores, ageing grey devices on the corners of buildings, advanced dual-camera systems run by the city that pan, tilt and zoom to laser in on people of interest.

I try to count as we walk, but there are so many it's impossible to keep track and hold up a conversation. "The more you start looking, the more you'll see," Dahl says.

Why the Flocklash?

These systems can capture and store your every move, and Flock has become the posterchild for surveillance. In recent months, there's been nation-wide, bipartisan backlash against the company.

On reason is Flock's staggering power. The company says it operates more than 100,000 cameras spread across 6,000 American communities. It's best known for tools that track drivers, scanning cars 20 billion times a month, according to Flock. But it also makes facial recognition tools to track your body.

Such technology allows law enforcement to look far beyond its jurisdiction. A Texas sheriff reportedly accessed more than 83,000 Flock cameras across the US to hunt for a woman in an abortion case, including in states where abortion is legal.

Flock says their tools keep people safe and that every day it helps solve crimes that would otherwise go unsolved. Yet in at least 46 cases, law enforcement officers have reportedlyused Flock's systems for unauthorised purposes, including to stalk partners, exes and strangers. (After months of bad press, Flock implemented safeguards to root out abuse. A Flock spokesperson says the misuse is a "betrayal of the tool's purpose and completely unacceptable" and that officers who abuse the system should be held accountable.)

The backlash includes waves of people destroying and even urinating on Flock cameras. Over 50 cities have cut ties with Flock this year alone.

But again, Flock doesn't operate everywhere, and it isn't the only company in the businesses. Some cities that cancelled Flock contracts just quietly hired other surveillance firms instead.

"Communities continue to choose Flock at a rate far outpacing those that leave," a Flock spokesperson says. "We're adding new customers at roughly 10 times the rate of churn."

Safer, or just more surveilled?

Behind the growing world of surveillance infrastructure is a wider argument about how to police.

"Every day, Flock helps solve crimes that would otherwise go unsolved – from finding missing children to solving murders, violent crime, and recovering stolen vehicles," a company spokesperson says.

They also note Flock is "actively asking for clearer state and local regulation", so it isn't the sole decider on law enforcement's use of the tools.

The NYPD makes similar points. A spokesperson says their surveillance systems keep the city safe, and the department publishes transparency reports on its tools. "We are committed to using technology with care and precision, and ensuring our use is consistent with the law," the spokesperson says.

However, experts question the data and methodology Flock – and others –use to their promote crime-solving approach.

"The idea that surveillance makes us safer keeps being used as an excuse," says Rindala Alajaji, associate director of state affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights group. In fact, she says, this technology makes the world more dangerous.

"Surveillance has been used to criminalise people for being bystanders, with stories of innocent people being pulled over and having guns drawn on them because a licence plate reader read a letter wrong," Alajaji says.

This isn't just a US issue, either. Facial recognition systems are expanding in the UK, which police credit with thousands of arrests, while critics describe an alarming and "significant expansion of the surveillance state". Across the globe, cameras are spreading.

Dahl and I walk nearly a mile and get on the subway. Cameras stare us down as we swipe at every stage, and document us when we exit. As we emerge onto the street in Midtown Manhattan, we're greeted by – you guessed it – more cameras.

"I would encourage people to take a minute to pay attention to where you're being watched and tracked and learn where the data is going," says Dahl. "The more that people are aware, the more you can join in efforts to exert legislative pressure."

For example, one reason some communities have cancelled Flock contracts was people pressuring leaders at city council meetings – including by dressing like Darth Vader.

Dahl and I have been together over an hour, and barely a moment has passed that we weren't being surveilled. I say goodbye and walk to the BBC's office.

I step into the building and hit a button for the elevator. The doors open with a ding, and there, staring me in the face, is a gleaming black camera.? Like everywhere else, it seems, someone is watching. ?