HARRISBURG \u2014 A bipartisan backlash against Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers is mounting in Pennsylvania, with lawmakers introducing bans and restrictions and both candidates for governor coming out against them.<\/p>\n
The cameras<\/a>, installed on both public and private property and roads, capture images<\/a>, then use AI to determine vehicles\u2019 plate numbers, makes, and models. That data can then be used to create a searchable vehicle location database accessible to law enforcement.<\/p>\n The technology has existed for years, but has been under increased scrutiny due to its rapid spread and use by law enforcement<\/a> to provide information to ICE and, in at least one case, investigate a woman suspected of having an abortion.<\/p>\n The stampede of opposition in Pennsylvania and across the country comes amid a widespread anti-tech backlash on top of longstanding civil libertarian concerns around the expansion of government surveillance in the digital age.<\/p>\n As of early September, lawmakers in both major parties had introduced<\/a> at least nine bills<\/a> to restrict the use of or outright ban automated license plate readers \u2014 seven in the past six weeks.<\/p>\n Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro voiced his opposition to the tech during an unrelated news conference in late August, telling the Center Square<\/a> that the tech was \u201cnot something in the public interest.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI think law enforcement needs to have tools to keep communities safe,\u201d Shapiro said. \u201cFlock cameras are not a tool that I support.\u201d Shapiro spokesperson Rosie Lapowsky said in a statement that the administration is \u201cworking with the General Assembly on what piece of legislation could make it to the Governor\u2019s desk in order to protect Pennsylvanians\u2019 privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n His gubernatorial opponent, Republican Stacy Garrity, also said she supports a ban<\/a>, calling the cameras an \u201cintrusive invasion of privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Democrats who control the state House said leaders \u201cwill review any bills that will keep the public safe, protect privacy and ensure accountability.\u201d She did not directly address whether such proposals will be on the table this fall, when lawmakers return to finish the current two-year session.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Republican leadership in the state Senate did not provide comment by Spotlight PA\u2019s deadline.<\/p>\n A key feature that separates automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, from other automated enforcement technology, like speed cameras, is the scale of the data they capture. Speed cameras are designed to capture images that show someone violating a speed limit, which can be used to prosecute that single case.<\/p>\n But ALPRs record constantly. Under a Flock policy, a law enforcement agency can agree to share its footage to a database accessible to other agencies that do the same in almost any state. Other readers, like those designed by Motorola, have this feature too, though their networks aren\u2019t as big.<\/p>\n Purveyors of the cameras, alongside law enforcement groups, argue that this data can assist in solving crimes, from simple property infractions to kidnappings and murders.<\/p>\n Scott Bohn, head of the Pennsylvania police chiefs association, told Spotlight PA in an email that license plate readers have \u201cbecome an important investigative tool for law enforcement, assisting agencies in locating stolen vehicles, identifying vehicles associated with serious crimes, locating missing or endangered persons, and developing investigative leads.\u201d<\/p>\n But critics argue that the technology’s track record isn\u2019t as stellar as the sales pitch<\/a> and creates a web of mass surveillance with little accountability for those with access to the data.<\/p>\n There have been instances in which police officers have misused ALPRs<\/a> to track people in their personal lives, or in which ALPR data has provided false positives<\/a> that have led cops to pull over innocent people. And while Flock doesn\u2019t officially work with federal officials, Border Patrol and ICE officials have accessed the network<\/a> through local law enforcement partners, and used it to track people as part of the Trump administration\u2019s immigration crackdown. Reporting by 404 Media also suggests that police may search<\/a> ALPR data for people, not just vehicles.<\/p>\n Over time, this surveillance creates \u201ca map of your life,\u201d Liz Randol, legislative director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. That includes \u201cour religious practices, medical visits, political activities, personal relationships, and daily routines.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t matter which company has its creepy cameras in your neighborhood, they all have the same problems: a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation into how they collect, store, and use our data, and how to hold public and private actors accountable if they abuse it,\u201d Randol said.<\/p>\n The ACLU has for years warned about the proliferation of ALPR cameras<\/a> and has circulated model regulations. If lawmakers don’t pursue an outright ban, Randol said they should prioritize regulation of how long data from ALPRs are retained, who that data is shared with, and how it can be used by law enforcement.<\/p>\n Flock\u2019s website<\/a> states that \u201cdata deletes automatically after a set time. \u2026 In most communities, that\u2019s 7 days unless local law requires otherwise.\u201d Until last month, the firm\u2019s retention policy defaulted to 30 days, but the company reduced<\/a> it in response to criticism. It also began allowing agencies to filter their data-sharing settings by, for instance, blocking immigration-related searches.<\/p>\n Sixteen states already have policies on the books restricting ALPRs, per the National Conference of State Legislatures<\/a>. New Hampshire\u2019s is among the strictest, requiring the deletion of recordings after three minutes unless the recording \u201cresulted in an arrest, a citation or protective custody or identified a vehicle that was the subject of a missing or wanted person broadcast.\u201d<\/p>\n No state has yet passed an outright ban. Florida took executive action<\/a> to remove the cameras from its state\u2019s highways last month.<\/p>\n In Pennsylvania, state Sen. Dan Laughlin (R., Erie) has introduced a bill to ban the technology, saying that \u201conce the surveillance network is built, there is no guarantee it will only be used in ways we find acceptable today.\u201d<\/p>\n Other lawmakers have instead called for regulation that would still allow the tech to be used. State Reps. David Rowe (R., Union) and Josh Bashline (R., Clarion), for instance, want to require warrants to search ALPR data<\/a> and give local governments the ability to ban the tech in their jurisdictions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe goal is not to stifle emerging technologies,\u201d Rowe told Spotlight PA. \u201cThe goal is to create accountability on the government side about how those technologies are used.\u201d<\/p>\n Lawmakers who were previously eager to adopt the technology also say they\u2019re paying attention to ALPR concerns. Before he left the legislature last year, former state Rep. Josh Siegel (D., Lehigh) sponsored a bill<\/a> that would have made it easier to install the cameras on state infrastructure. But he told Spotlight PA he\u2019s now more skeptical and wants guardrails.<\/p>\n \u201cI’ve listened to concerns around the technology,\u201d Siegel, now the Lehigh County executive, told Spotlight PA, \u201cand I really think it’s one of those things where we’ve got to get ahead of it first.\u201d<\/p>\n State Sen. Joe Picozzi (R., Philadelphia), who sponsored a similar measure<\/a> last year, told Spotlight PA that he\u2019d be \u201chappy to have a conversation” about data retention and usage of the tech.<\/p>\n