Featured Image: yourNEWS Media Illustration
Despite mounting concerns over warrantless tracking, false identifications and misuse of automated license plate readers, Congress had no introduced legislation as of Wednesday that would prohibit Flock-type surveillance systems outright.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Congressional scrutiny of automated surveillance is growing as lawmakers raise alarms about privacy, constitutional protections and government tracking, but none of the legislation introduced so far would completely outlaw automated license plate readers, including cameras operated by Flock Safety.
Several House Republicans have introduced measures seeking warrants, funding restrictions or limits on federal use of the technology, while other lawmakers have announced plans for additional legislation. Yet as of Wednesday, Congress still had no introduced bill that would impose a nationwide prohibition on Flock cameras or automated license plate readers, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The legislative gap comes as lawmakers and civil-liberties advocates point to instances of false identifications, alleged improper searches and surveillance systems being misused to track private citizens.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said July 22 that she was developing legislation to ban Flock cameras. No such bill had been introduced as of Wednesday, and Luna’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation when asked when the legislation would be filed or why it had not yet been released.
Other Republican lawmakers have taken narrower approaches.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., introduced the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act in July. His proposal would prevent federal agencies from buying or operating Flock cameras or other automated surveillance systems that “identify, track, or record individuals.”
Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act in April, legislation their offices said was intended to impose new warrant requirements on government surveillance. The lawmakers announced the measure as a proposal that would require federal and local agencies to obtain warrants before surveilling American citizens.
The measure would prohibit warrantless facial-recognition scanning by federal and local law enforcement in public places and would place restrictions on automated license plate readers, including Flock cameras.
Massie has also said he intends to introduce separate legislation aimed at federal money flowing to jurisdictions that operate the systems.
“I’ll soon be introducing a bill to withhold all federal funding for cameras used to track American citizens,” Massie said.
Reps. Keith Self, R-Texas, Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., took another approach in July by introducing legislation focused on Fourth Amendment protections. Their proposal would require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing or querying information held by state and local surveillance systems such as automated license plate readers. It would also restrict federal funding from being used to purchase or install such technology.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., has likewise pledged to pursue restrictions on Flock cameras after a police officer stopped him when a Flock camera flagged his license plate. His legislation remains in preliminary stages.
Stutzman said both inaccurate matches and widespread tracking are central to his concerns.
“The repeated misidentification of innocent Americans and warrantless surveillance of millions are my two largest concerns with Flock cameras,” Stutzman told the DCNF. “No matter who you are or what you do, areas with Flock cameras are tracking you. While many localities are taking the right step in reevaluating their use of these cameras, more serious steps must be taken on the federal level to restrict any unregulated AI surveillance from taking place.”
The offices of Luna, Burchett, Massie and Boebert did not respond to requests for comment from the DCNF.
Flock Safety has opposed an outright federal prohibition and instead urged Congress to establish nationwide rules governing how the systems may be used.
“We believe public safety, privacy, and Fourth Amendment rights can and must coexist,” a Flock spokesperson told the DCNF. “More than 40 courts across the country have considered LPRs in the context of the Fourth Amendment and ruled overwhelmingly that the use of these tools in public spaces does not require a warrant. Rather than banning a critical public safety tool, Congress should consider strong, clear safeguards that ensure accountability, oversight, and responsible use are enshrined in law.”
“We do not have to choose between protecting privacy and giving law enforcement the tools it needs to keep communities safe. We can — and should — do both,” the spokesperson continued.
Critics argue that the consequences of incorrect automated matches can be severe.
Mike Fox, a legal fellow with the CATO Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, told the DCNF Friday that Flock cameras have produced what he described as “abysmally high false positive rates,” potentially exposing innocent people to police encounters based on incorrect data.
“In many circumstances, they have abysmally high false positive rates … How many people is this going to happen to? What is someone gets killed? What if an officer gets a false positive from someone who’s armed and one of them dies? Because that’s a real possibility. It’s only a matter of time before either a citizen, a cop or both get killed because of this,” Fox said.
Recent examples have intensified those concerns.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, identified 30 reported instances in which officers used license plate reader systems to “stalk romantic interests.”
In Milwaukee, a former police officer was accused of secretly querying the Flock system 124 times to determine the location of his romantic partner.
In Wisconsin, an innocent motorist was held at gunpoint in early August after a camera generated an erroneous identification.
Concerns surrounding the technology have prompted some cities to cancel their Flock contracts.
Questions about automated license plate readers are also unfolding against a broader history of disputes over federal surveillance authorities and whether statutory safeguards are sufficient to prevent misuse.
Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty in 2020 to sending an altered email to an FBI agent that was then used as part of an application seeking authorization from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act judge to surveil President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Separately, the FBI improperly used Section 702 surveillance authorities nearly 300,000 times from 2020 into early 2021, according to an unsealed FISA court document released in May 2023.
The database was queried 23,132 times in connection with individuals associated with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. It was also used in searches involving congressional campaign donors and people arrested during Black Lives Matter riots.
According to the court document, an FBI official conducted a June 2020 search for people arrested “in connection with civil unrest and protests between approximately May 30 and June 18, 2020.”
An analyst also “conducted a batch query for over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign.”
Despite documented compliance failures involving Section 702, congressional Republicans largely supported extending the authority. Nineteen House Republicans, including Burchett, Massie and Boebert, voted against its reauthorization in June because the legislation did not impose a warrant requirement on the government. Seven Senate Republicans opposed a procedural vote on reauthorization.
Democrats have also supported Section 702 in previous debates, though multiple Senate Democrats indicated they would not support the authority after Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton took office.
Flock Safety has attracted Democratic scrutiny as well.
In November, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., requested an investigation of Flock Safety, accusing the company of “failing to implement cybersecurity protections, allowing Americans’ personal data to be exposed for hackers, criminals, and spies to steal.”
Neither lawmaker introduced legislation addressing the issue.
As congressional interest in Flock has increased, the company’s lobbying and political activity has also drawn attention.
Flock spent $920,000 on federal lobbying during 2025 and another $430,000 during the first six months of 2026, according to OpenSecrets. Seven lobbyists have worked for the company so far.
Individual Flock employees have separately contributed to political candidates and political action committees.
CEO Garrett Langley gave $1,000 in April 2024 to Health Jobs Justice, a Democratic leadership PAC affiliated with Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., according to OpenSecrets donor records.
Ossoff has not made widely public statements about Flock cameras or automated license plate readers. Flock Safety is headquartered in Atlanta, and communities across Georgia have used the company’s systems in criminal investigations.
Ossoff has previously raised concerns about other surveillance technologies. In December 2022, he joined fellow lawmakers in launching a congressional inquiry into FBI facial-recognition policies and practices, citing Fourth Amendment concerns.
Ossoff’s office did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
Political contributions attributed to Flock Safety employees totaled $17,260, with more than $15,000 going to Democratic candidates, campaigns and PACs, including former Vice President Kamala Harris and Fair Fight, a Georgia voting-rights organization, according to an analysis of the contributions citing OpenSecrets.
Some Flock employees also made smaller donations to the Make America Great Again PAC, Donald J. Trump for President and Patrick Witt for Congress, according to OpenSecrets.
Trump weighed into the national debate Monday, saying the surveillance cameras come with benefits as well as drawbacks. He said Flock cameras have “pros and cons.”
Original article
Comments