- A new bipartisan bill, the Ban Flock Act, has been introduced in Congress to prohibit federal agencies from using automated license plate reader (ALPR) data.
- The legislation would block federal funding for state and local governments that continue using ALPR systems.
- Private data brokers and homeowner associations would be covered under the ban on federal data acquisition.
- The bill creates a 48-hour maximum data retention requirement for any authorized use, with exceptions only for toll collection.
- Florida Governor Ron DeSantis ordered Flock cameras removed from state highways in August, signaling growing conservative opposition to surveillance.
The Surveillance State under fire
A growing bipartisan coalition in Congress has introduced legislation that would sever the federal government’s access to the vast, privately operated network of automated license plate readers that critics say has transformed American streets into a dragnet. The Ban Flock Act, filed Oct. 2 in the House by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and expected in the Senate from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley, would bar all federal agencies from acquiring, possessing or using data from automated license plate readers, including those operated by private security firms like Flock Safety. The bill arrives amid mounting public anger over a technology that processes more than 20 billion vehicle reads each month across 120,000 cameras nationwide, raising fundamental questions about mass surveillance and the erosion of the Fourth Amendment in an age of artificial intelligence.
The scope of federal prohibition
The legislation, formally H.R. 10691, targets not only direct federal use of ALPR cameras but also data collected by private security networks, homeowners’ associations, commercial parking operators and data brokers. Federal officials would be prohibited from accessing such information without an explicit act of Congress authorizing the use, which must mandate that data be deleted within 48 hours. The bill’s sponsors described the measure as a necessary check against what they characterized as a mass surveillance system operating without public consent.
State and local governments that continue using ALPR systems would face financial penalties under the bill, losing eligibility for grants from the departments of Justice, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Homeland Security. Evidence obtained in violation of the proposed law would be inadmissible in federal court, and individuals could sue for actual and punitive damages.
Growing anti-surveillance consensus
The Ban Flock Act represents an unusual moment of bipartisan alignment on privacy rights. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, has launched his own investigation into Flock and other ALPR vendors, holding a Sept. 24 hearing on surveillance industry practices. In August, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered Flock cameras removed from state highways within 30 days, reversing a $4.6 million investment in 440 devices approved just a year earlier.
This convergence of conservative and progressive opposition reflects a shared concern that automated surveillance networks have outstripped legal and democratic accountability. Sen. Sanders captured the anxiety when he observed that every trip to the doctor or school drop-off is now potentially recorded and databased by private companies that profit from government access.
Privacy risks in a data-breach era
The debate over ALPR surveillance parallels warnings from health privacy advocates about government tracking systems. Florida’s immunization registry, Florida Shots, has drawn criticism for collecting Social Security numbers and other sensitive data without true opt-out consent, and for creating maps of religious exemption requests. Critics note Florida has ranked fourth in data breaches over the last decade, and that children’s identities are particularly vulnerable because the usual financial checks—credit card freezes or loan denials—do not apply.
Scientists have demonstrated that even anonymized data can be re-identified, adding urgency to concerns that massive surveillance databases create irresistible targets for hackers and government overreach alike.
From privacy to panopticon
The current legislative push echoes earlier battles over warrantless surveillance and data collection that intensified after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Patriot Act era normalized federal access to private records, including library borrowing and phone metadata. Now, artificial intelligence has supercharged the capacity to aggregate and analyze location data, enabling real-time tracking of individual movements across jurisdictions.
The Ban Flock Act would restore a principle that once seemed settled: the government should not track citizens without judicial oversight. By prohibiting federal access to private surveillance networks and cutting off grant money to noncompliant states, the bill seeks to starve the surveillance economy of both its customers and its funding.
A test of priorities
The Ban Flock Act faces long odds in a Congress where surveillance industry lobbying remains powerful and where state and local law enforcement rely on ALPR data for investigations. Yet the bill’s bipartisan sponsors—Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez on the left, Hawley and DeSantis on the right—suggest a rare political consensus that the technology has overstepped. Whether Congress can translate that agreement into law remains uncertain, but the debate itself marks a significant shift: for the first time in a generation, lawmakers are openly questioning whether efficiency and crime-solving justify a surveillance system that watches every citizen, everywhere, all the time.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
