An increasing number of Pennsylvania state lawmakers are backing efforts to regulate the use of Flock cameras and automated license plate readers \u2013 a push that comes amid escalating anxieties around mass surveillance and government overreach linked to the technology.<\/p>\n
Flock\u2019s AI-assisted automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, are used by law enforcement, businesses and communities to capture vital vehicle information \u2013 including a vehicle\u2019s license plate number, make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, exact locations and timestamps. Flock customers can tap into a national network of 120,000 cameras that proponents say have been used to solve a range of crimes, including missing-person cases and vehicle thefts.\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, misuse of Flock cameras and ALPRs has led to mounting public pushback. The Washington Post reported<\/a> this month that more than 50 law enforcement officers across the country have been charged or accused of misusing ALPRs to stalk or surveil people. As Pennsylvania residents have become more aware of the prevalence of Flock cameras in their communities, they\u2019re urging<\/a> local<\/a> officials<\/a> to remove the cameras<\/a> and, in some cases, are doing it themselves, cutting <\/a>them down and replacing them with American flags<\/a> in acts of protest.\u00a0<\/p>\n Deepening apprehensions around Flock cameras<\/a> have prompted several state lawmakers to introduce proposals to regulate the use of Flock cameras and ALPRs statewide.\u00a0<\/p>\n Democratic state Rep. Tarik Khan is partnering with Democrats and Republicans on legislation<\/a> to establish guardrails for ALPR use and license plate data. In an interview, Khan told City & State that misuse of license plate data is tapping into the public\u2019s existing concerns about a \u201crapid expansion of tech without clear guardrails.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not just restricted to one state that\u2019s using it. This is everywhere, and there are no clear guardrails on this technology,\u201d Khan said. \u201cNo one wants constitutional rights to be violated, especially in terms of privacy.\u201d<\/p>\n According to DeFlock<\/a>, a nonprofit project that tracks ALPRs across the country, Pennsylvania has at least 1,752 ALPRs. Khan acknowledged that there are legitimate uses for ALPR data, but said lawmakers need to act to curb abuse of the cameras and data.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWith this technology, if they\u2019re using it to go after a stolen car, great,\u201d he said. \u201cBut if someone\u2019s using it to track how many times I\u2019m going to Insomnia Cookies for a late-night run, that\u2019s a problem.\u201d<\/p>\n Khan said his legislation, which has yet to be formally introduced, seeks to establish parameters on who can use ALPR data, what the data can be used for and how long the data can be stored. His bill also seeks to improve transparency around how ALPR data is used, while also establishing civil penalties for those who misuse data from Flock cameras and other ALPRs.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to make sure that there are clear guardrails in place so that people\u2019s rights are not being violated \u2013 that people are not being spied on and surveilled,\u201d he added.\u00a0<\/p>\n Other lawmakers in the General Assembly have proposals regarding ALPRs, including Republican state Reps. Brenda Pugh and Jamie Walsh, who plan to introduce a bill that would prevent private unauthorized disclosure of ALPR data by vendors.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cALPR systems have become valuable law enforcement tools for locating stolen vehicles, apprehending dangerous fugitives, locating missing persons, and solving serious crimes,\u201d the lawmakers\u2019 co-sponsorship memo<\/a> reads. \u201cMany law enforcement agencies, however, rely on private vendors to both operate these systems and store the resulting data. Without clear statutory safeguards, an ALPR system vendor could sell or transfer sensitive information \u2013 or enable third parties to access it \u2013 without the knowledge or authorization of the law enforcement agency that collected and owns the data, with the vendor serving only as its custodian.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Their legislation would \u201cprohibit a vendor from selling, disclosing, transferring, licensing, or otherwise providing access to ALPR data\u201d without authorization from the contracting law enforcement agency. Pugh and Walsh note in their co-sponsorship memo that their bill would not restrict legitimate information-sharing between law enforcement agencies, nor would it interfere with investigations, task forces or efforts to apprehend fugitives.\u00a0<\/p>\n Facing growing backlash across the nation, Flock Safety this week announced a slate of new safeguards, including shortening its data retention period from 30 days to 7 days.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n