The surveillance infrastructure that tracks American drivers has become much more sophisticated than most people realize. What started as simple plate recording technology has evolved into AI systems capable of identifying faces, reporting unusual movement patterns, and building detailed movement profiles, all without the knowledge of those being monitored. Companies like Flock Safety now operate in communities across 49 states, and their data is accessible to thousands of law enforcement agencies, including federal immigration enforcement, according to civil liberties groups. State legislatures are among the few institutions that actively write rules about how these systems can be used, and what those rules say (or don’t say) has real consequences for your privacy down the road.
This raises a big question: what is are the best privacy laws? I wanted to provide more details for anyone wondering what to support or what their state is currently doing. One of the challenges is that every state is different and there is no clear guide to which privacy laws work and which are flawed.
I spoke to Chad Marlow, senior policy advisor and head of monitoring work at the American Civil Liberties Union, to find the best examples. These laws make the biggest difference when it comes to privacy.
“Collective action rather than individual action is necessary,” Marlow told me. “I want to point out that while Flock is the most problematic ALPR company in America, there are many other ALPR companies, like Axon and Motorola, that pose serious privacy risks. Therefore, Flock’s move to Axon/Motorola ALPRs may, at best, be a minimal risk reduction, but it is far from a solution.”
Which of the current laws is the best solution? This is a “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” situation. Let’s talk about what sticks.
The Best Existing Laws to Limit New Surveillance Technologies
Details matter when it comes to anti-surveillance laws.
Lawrence/Getty glassCurrent privacy laws focus on two recent capabilities of local law enforcement: ALPRs, or automatic license plate readers, which can identify and track cars, and drone surveillance equipped with AI cameras. Security companies, such as Flock, are also starting to offer more traditional cameras that can provide live views and track people from the ground.
With AI features such as Flock’s ‘Freeform’ technology which allows police to carry out any type of search to see what the cameras reveal, these are powerful tools and new legislation is needed to address them. Let’s review several categories of laws that make a difference.
Laws Restricting the Use of AI Detection Features
Some of the broadest laws address what AI cameras are allowed to do at all. These laws do not specifically target ALPR cameras or drones, but they limit the searches that police and commercial entities can conduct.
Illinois has long been the best example of these privacy laws with its BIPA, or Biometric Information Privacy Act, which protects personal identification like fingerprints and facial data, and requires written consent if a company wants to use them.
This law is so broad that some camera features, like Familiar faces of Google Nest the technology is completely blocked in Illinois, along with some Flock recognition features. Cities may also pass similar legislation: Travel to Portland, Oregon, and you’ll find that some facial recognition features won’t work there, either.
The only problem with laws like these is that they don’t include license plate and vehicle data, at least not yet. This information, which is closely linked to your name and address, must be protected by additional legislation or added to existing biometric laws. So far, the first solution is more common: California is the only state I’ve noticed that now includes ALPR data as “personal information” for its privacy laws.
Laws that prohibit details that police cameras can see
States are also passing new types of laws that allow the use of ALPR cameras, but prohibit those cameras from being able to record and transmit personal information, or at least make that information confidential in some way — including Florida and New Hampshire.
These laws may prohibit cameras from seeing details like people inside a car, for example, limiting them only to a license plate. Companies like Flock advertise their cameras’ ability to notice other descriptive details on top of a vehicle, such as bumper stickers or roof racks, so laws like these may hinder the use of such items. AI detection.
On a related note, states could add stricter permitting steps for police cameras. For example, rules that require the police chief to approve any research using ALPRs reduce the likelihood that data will be misused when it is collected.
The police have carte blanche over searches carried out by AI, unless forced to do so by laws and policies.
EvgeniyShkolenko/GettyLaws that limit the use of ALPRs to certain police activities
A number of states have created laws allowing the use of license plates and AI cameras, but only for specific purposes, such as ongoing murder or kidnapping investigations. Some states have very strict limits on how these cameras can be used, while others have much broader descriptions.
Laws like these keep ALPR cameras out of the hands of businesses, HOAs, and similar organizations, who might otherwise contract with companies like Flock Safety. They can also prevent the use of cameras in certain areas, such as on public roads.
Laws requiring all data collected by cameras to be deleted within a certain time frame
One of the most effective surveillance laws to protect privacy is the requirement to delete all images captured by these cameras unless they are actively used as part of a confirmed investigation. This means that the police cannot carry out unauthorized searches or share this data with outside organizations after a certain period of time.
Laws like these also prevent police departments from creating long-term records on people they want to surveil and noting their routines and behaviors. As Marlow said: “The idea of keeping a location file on every person in case one of us turns out to be a criminal is about the most un-American approach to privacy I can imagine.” »
New Hampshire has the strictest laws here, requiring collected data to be deleted within 3 minutes if not used, a much shorter time frame than most, but one that the ACLU agrees with.
“For states that want a little more time to see if the ALPR data captured is relevant to an ongoing investigation, simply retain the data for a few days,” Marlow told me. “Some states, such as Washington and Virginia, have recently adopted a 21-day limit, which is the most extreme acceptable limit.” Marlow warned that the longer police keep this data, the easier it is to construct patterns of life “that can eviscerate individuals’ private lives.”
I’ve also seen states with laws requiring ALPR data to be deleted after several years, but at this point this is largely unnecessary because the data could then easily be compiled and moved to other platforms.
Laws prohibiting police from sharing data out of state
States such as Virginia and Illinois have passed laws prohibiting the sharing of ALPR or related data outside of the state, including with federal agencies. These laws generally 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 Flock cameras or be granted backdoor access to Flock search systems.
Laws that prevent data from moving out of state prevent this – as long as there are ways to track data transmission and enforce the law – which is difficult. “Ideally, no data should be shared outside of the collecting 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 risks.”
States like Minnesota have also added requirements to make ALPR searches public so citizens can verify police searches, an important step in accountability that is still rare for this technology.
State laws are also increasing to limit the use of surveillance drones.
photo alliance/Contributor/GettyLaws Requiring State Approval and Bureau Certifications for Any ALPR Camera
There is another option for handling these high-powered cameras: putting them through a state approval process before contracts and installation. The tricky part is that the approval process can be completely different depending on the state.
In Texas, for example, a license is required, but it seems relatively easy to obtain – although not everyone has followed this law.
Vermont, however, passed 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 closely controlled. This approval process was so thorough that local organizations decided to adopt it: by 2025, no law enforcement agencies in the state were using ALPR cameras.
Laws requiring warrants before launching surveillance drones
Over the past year, I have noticed a new growing concern in neighborhoods in addition to ALPR cameras. There are now surveillance drones equipped with cameras capable of recognizing vehicles or human characteristics (beard, hat, shirt color, etc.) and automatically tracking people. These problems we t required an additional set of laws to address it.
States like Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Texas have laws specifically requiring a warrant before drones are used for surveillance. Technically, this should prevent Flock’s automatic drone launches from being used for things like gunshot detection or 911 calls, but local law enforcement appears to have found ways to get around these laws due to exemptions and other loopholes.
It’s worth noting that my state nearly eliminated its drone mandate requirements with new legislation in 2025, which ultimately did not pass, serving as a reminder that the rules are always subject to change.
Keep an eye on your state’s laws
State laws can change, be repealed or added – and the details are important.
John Elk/GettyNew laws are frequently challenged, including by companies like Flock or local police departments who flat out ignore them. This requires numerous court actions and an accumulation of case law that can take years, not to mention methods of investigation and enforcement by the state that may not currently exist.
The proposed legislation may also be subject to many changes, even if it is likely to pass, so the details may change. This means that if you want to see specific bans or privacy requirements in your state, you should follow the current legislation as it moves through the approval stages and continue to contact your senators and representatives.
If you are unsure of the content of a law, it is important to read it carefully or seek analysis from a legal expert to learn more. Many minor laws that I haven’t included in this list have numerous exclusions, exceptions, and latitudes for how surveillance cameras can be used, making them defenseless for privacy purposes.
But that’s not all you can do. I’ve also seen the rise of advocacy initiatives like the Institute of Justice’s The Plate Project, which you can join, contribute to, or simply read to do more. And don’t forget the local level: Raising concerns at a city council forum could help limit monitoring contracts before they even begin.
For more information, see if your landlord can monitor you with a security cameraand if it is legal to record audio and video in your own home.
