Legislation Killed Would Have Effectively Blocked Police LPR, Including Flock (ipvm.com)

54 points by jhonovich 3 hours ago

firefoxd an hour ago

Is there an easier way to make this statement?

So did we kill a legislation that would have blocked Police license plate readers and Flock?

Or because the legislation is killed, we can block Police license plate readers and flock?

bee_rider 28 minutes ago

From the article,

> IPVM verified that a bipartisan amendment that would have effectively blocked police LPR programs nationwide was killed at a House committee markup on May 21, 2026.

Maybe the minimal edit is something like:

“Killed Legislation Would Have Effectively Blocked Police LPR, Including Flock”

Lonestar1440 2 hours ago

Good riddance.

Just yesterday, flock helped police catch a dude who shot two women and was on the run https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/napa-road-rage-sho....

There's no expectation of privacy on public roads, but there are angry people behind 2 ton death machines.

"Kill switches" are too much, but license plate readers are not.

torpfactory 2 hours ago

The problem is right now LPR data is available to just about everyone who wants it for any reason as long as they are part of law enforcement. They are using it, for example, to crack down on dissent, to stalk ex lovers, and to enforce abortion restrictions that are constitutionally dubious.

If we are to maintain our liberty, the vast power such a surveillance apparatus should either not exist or only be accessible through an adversarial court system (i.e. a search warrant).

(1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-flo...

(2) https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...

(3) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas...

torpfactory an hour ago

Just to expand on my ideas above about how we might manage them:

(1) Entities creating these data sets should require licenses to do so. (2) Creation of real-time location data sets would itself be a criminal offense without a license. (3) Data would need to be encrypted and stored according to a set of best practices. Failure to do so would be a criminal offense. (4) Access to data would be available through a court, ideally with the judge literally controlling access to the cryptographic keys. (5) Accessing the data without permission would be a criminal offense. (6) You would probably need to add civil penalties not subject to sovereign immunity. Otherwise cops would just ignore the law about unauthorized access and then also fail to prosecute themselves.

Or you know we could just make them illegal altogether (including the ones the cell phone company creates for advertisers). Much simpler!

Lonestar1440 an hour ago

We need to tighten the legal guardrails around this data and punish cops who misuse it.

This would move society in a positive direction.

Making the data itself a Taboo, just to avoid jailing bad cops, does not.

torpfactory an hour ago

Zigurd 30 minutes ago

arvid-lind an hour ago

torpfactory an hour ago

impossiblefork 29 minutes ago

The question though, surely can't be whether there's an expectation of privacy on public roads, but the total effect of knowing where people are at essentially all times through a combination of things like location data from phones, license plate readers, facial recognition etc.

Whether there is an expectation of privacy can't be what matters, what matters has to be whether the total effect allows a level of control that is dangerous or might have chilling effects on speech or on participation in things that are controversial.

lokar 29 minutes ago

A better compromise is to require a warrant from a judge

Lonestar1440 9 minutes ago

Your terms are acceptable.

That's not what the killed legislation did, though.

K0balt 2 hours ago

Idk. Collective small harms vs individual harms.

Along a similar line, speed limits should be reduced to 35mph maximum for non-emergency traffic, it would save thousands of pointless deaths every year.

But the small harm of time wasted in traffic is -worth- the. sacrifice of thousands of lives, as it turn out.

Lonestar1440 an hour ago

I am not harmed when I go through a toll plaza or an express lane.

Nor when I pass a flock camera.

You are boxing with phantoms, I think.

macintux an hour ago

croes 44 minutes ago

croes an hour ago

How about GPS tracking for every step outside your house.

Would also help prevent and solve crimes. No privacy on public roads.

There is also something like proportionality.

Lonestar1440 5 minutes ago

How about we eliminate Police entirely, since they will inevitably misuse any power we give them?

Of course we have to strike a balance. We just disagree on where "cameras on a public road" fall on the scale.

rectang 23 minutes ago

> Just yesterday, flock helped police catch a dude

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

— Benjamin Franklin

Lonestar1440 21 minutes ago

I don't regard complete anonymity on a public roadway to be an "Essential Liberty" and neither would the Founders.

nullc 2 hours ago

Wrong metric-- the person caught would have almost certainly been caught absent it, making it easy to overstate the benefit.

When someone with access-- potentially LEO but the access set is much larger-- uses the data to stalk and harass someone you'll usually never know that the ALPR camera was the data source.

So its easy to overstate the contribution and understate the harm.

But if you talk a step back you can see the dramatic change being made to our world: making it impossible to go about your life without being constantly tracked, cataloged, and having your history made available to who knows who, for who knows what purpose, for who knows how long (but probably forever).

bklosky 30 minutes ago

You're making a strong statement about the counterfactual here; how could you know? Clearance rates for most crimes in the US are abysmal, the expected outcome for most crimes is "unsolved."

Lonestar1440 an hour ago

Why would they "almost certainly" have been caught otherwise?

This is a load bearing component of your argument and it seems thin.

From my perspective, you are synthesizing a harm while ignoring the clear and concrete contribution.

lelandfe an hour ago

AlienRobot 43 minutes ago

You don't have an expectation of privacy. I do. I don't want to go outside and have my every move recorded. There is something deeply disgusting about that notion.