Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
In my coverage of Controversial surveillance company Flock Safety And similar license plate trackers, such as Motorola’s VehicleManager, are reported to be one of the most effective steps American readers can take. Protect their homes and vehicles The goal was to encourage their representatives to pass the right privacy protection laws. This is even more important now then AI recognition capabilities The car is instantly recognizable, a The person’s face And other identifying information.
This raises a big question: what We are Best privacy protection laws? I wanted to provide more details for anyone wondering what to support or what their state is currently doing. One challenge is that every state is different, and there is no clear guide to which privacy laws work and which are flawed.
I spoke to the ACLU’s senior policy advisor and watchdog leader, Chad Marlowe, to find the best examples. These laws make the biggest difference to our privacy.
“Teamwork, not individual work, is required,” Marlow told me. “I would caution that while Flock is the most problematic ALPR in America, there are many other ALPRs, such as Axon and Motorola, that present serious privacy risks, so switching from Flock to Axon/Motorola ALPRs may at best represent minimal harm, but is far from a solution.”
Which of today’s laws is the best solution? This is a “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” situation. Let’s talk about what’s stuck.
The best laws are on the books to limit new surveillance technology
Details matter when it comes to anti-surveillance laws.
Current privacy laws focus on two modern capabilities for local law enforcement: ALPRs, or automatic license plate readers, that can identify and track cars, and Drone monitoring Equipped with artificial intelligence cameras. Security companies, such as Flock, have also begun offering more traditional cameras that can provide live views and track people from the ground.
With AI features like Flock’s “Freeform” technology that allows police to engage in any type of search they wish to see what cameras are showing, these are powerful tools, and new legislation is needed to address them. Let’s look at several categories of laws that make a difference.
Laws restricting the use of AI detection features
Some of the broader laws address what I have cameras Absolutely allowed. These laws do not specifically target ALPR cameras or drones, but they limit searches that can be conducted by police and commercial entities.
Illinois has long been the best example of these privacy laws through BIPA, or Biometric Information Privacy Act It protects personal identity such as fingerprints and facial data, and requires written consent if a company wants to use it.
This law is so far-reaching that some camera features like it Familiar faces of Google Nest The technology is completely banned in Illinois, along with some Fluke recognition features. Cities could pass similar legislation, too: Travel to Portland, Oregon, and you’ll find that some facial recognition features won’t work there either.
The only problem with such laws is that they do not include license plate and vehicle data, at least not yet. This information, which is closely linked to your name and address, needs to be protected by additional legislation or added to existing biometric laws. So far, the former is more common: California is the only state to have noticed Now includes ALPR data as “Personal Information” its own privacy laws.
Laws prohibiting details that police cameras can see
States are also passing new types of laws that allow the use of ALPR cameras, but prevent those cameras from being able to record and pass on personal information, or at least make that information secret in some way — including Florida and New Hampshire.
These laws could prevent cameras from seeing details like people inside a car, for example, and limit them only to the license plate. Companies like Flock advertise that their cameras can spot other descriptive details on top of a car like bumper stickers or roof racks, so such laws could hinder the use of such details. Artificial intelligence detection.
On a related note, states may add more stringent licensing steps for police cameras. For example, rules requiring the chief of police to sign off on any search using ALPRs reduce the potential for data to be misused when collected.
Police are free to control searches using AI unless constrained by laws and policies.
Laws that limit the use of ALPRs to certain police activities
A number of states have created laws allowing the use of license plate and AI cameras, but only for specific purposes, such as ongoing investigations related to a murder or kidnapping. Some states have very strict restrictions on how these cameras can be used, while others have much broader descriptions.
Such laws keep ALPR cameras out of the hands of companies and similar organizations, which may be able to contract with companies like Flock Safety. They may also prohibit the use of cameras in certain areas, such as public highways.
Laws require that any data collected by cameras be deleted within a certain period of time
One of the most effective surveillance laws to protect privacy is to require that any footage captured by these cameras be deleted unless it is actively used in a confirmed investigation. This means that police cannot conduct unauthorized searches or share that data with external organizations after a certain period of time.
Laws like these also prevent police departments from creating long-term files on people they want to monitor and note their routines and behaviors. As Marlowe said, “The idea of keeping a file on everyone’s location in case one of us turns out to be a criminal is the most un-American approach to privacy I can imagine.”
New Hampshire has the strictest laws here, requiring the deletion of collected data Within 3 minutes If not used, it would be a much shorter timeline than most, but one the ACLU agrees with.
“For states that want more time to see if captured ALPR data is relevant to an ongoing investigation, retaining data for a few days is sufficient,” Marlowe told me. “Some states, such as Washington and Virginia, recently adopted 21-day limits, which is the maximum acceptable.” The longer police keep this data, Marlowe warned, the easier it is to build patterns of life “that could take away individual privacy.”
I’ve also seen states with laws that require ALPR data to be deleted after several years, but at that point it’s pretty much useless, as the data could easily be aggregated and moved to other platforms by then.
Laws that prohibit police from sharing out-of-state data
States like Virginia and Illinois have passed laws that make it illegal to share any ALPR or related data outside of the state, including with federal agencies. These laws typically target the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, which (along with the FBI and other agencies) have been known to request data from local police’s Flock cameras or give backdoor access to Flock’s search systems.
Laws that prevent data from going out of state prevent that — as long as there are ways to track data transfers and enforce the law, which “Ideally, no data should be shared outside of a collection agency without a warrant,” Marlow said. “But some states have chosen to prohibit out-of-state data sharing, which is better than nothing, and limits some of the risks.”
States like Minnesota have also added requirements to make ALPR searches public so citizens can verify searches conducted by police, an important step for accountability that is still rare for this technology.
State laws are on the rise to limit the use of surveillance drones as well.
Laws requiring state approval and office certifications for any ALPR camera
There is another option for managing these high-powered cameras – putting them through a state approval process before contracts and installation. The tricky part is that the approval process can look very different depending on the state.
In Texas, for example, a license is required but seems relatively easy to obtain — Although not everyone followed this law.
However, Vermont has enacted a series of laws to create a lengthy approval process to ensure that ALPR cameras can only be used in certain circumstances and that the data is tightly controlled. This approval process was so comprehensive that local organizations decided to pass it in its entirety: by 2025, Lack of law enforcement agency in the state He was using ALPR cameras.
Laws requiring court orders before surveillance drones can be launched
Last year I saw new concern about the rise in neighborhoods as well as ALPR cameras. There are now surveillance drones equipped with cameras that can recognize vehicles or human features (beards, hats, shirt colors, etc.) and follow people automatically. These issues required another set of laws to address them.
States, including Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Texas, have laws that specifically require obtaining a warrant before using drones for surveillance. Technically, this is supposed to prevent Flock’s automatic drones from being used for things like gunshot detection or 911 calls, but local law enforcement appears to have done just that. I found ways around these laws due to exemptions and other loopholes.
It is worth noting that my state has almost implemented the drone memo requirement With new legislation in 2025which ultimately failed to pass, is a reminder that rules are always subject to change.
Monitor the legislation in your state
State legislation can be changed, repealed, or added to—and the details matter.
New laws are subject to frequent challenges, including Companies like Fluke or Local police departments Completely ignore them. This requires extensive legal procedures to process and a backlog of case law that can take years, not to mention investigative and enforcement methods by the state that may not currently exist.
Proposed legislation could also undergo many changes, even if it is likely to pass, so the details could change. This means that if you want to see specific bans or privacy requirements in your state, you should track ongoing legislation as it goes through the approval stages, and continue to contact your senators and representatives.
If you are not sure what the law includes, it is important to read it carefully or seek analysis by a legal expert to learn more. Many of the lesser laws that I haven’t included in this list have so many exceptions, exceptions, and scope for how surveillance cameras can be used that they are toothless for privacy purposes.
But that’s not all you can do. I have also seen the emergence of advocacy initiatives such as Painting project from the Justice Institute You can join, contribute or just read to do more. And don’t forget the local level – voicing concerns in a city council forum can help limit surveillance contracts before they even start.
For more information, check out If your landlord can watch you using a security cameraAnd if so Legal to record audio and video in your home.