HARRISBURG — A bipartisan backlash against Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers is mounting in Pennsylvania, with lawmakers introducing bans and restrictions and both candidates for governor coming out against them.
The cameras, installed on both public and private property and roads, capture images, then use AI to determine vehicles’ plate numbers, makes, and models. That data can then be used to create a searchable vehicle location database accessible to law enforcement.
The technology has existed for years, but has been under increased scrutiny due to its rapid spread and use by law enforcement to provide information to ICE and, in at least one case, investigate a woman suspected of having an abortion.
The stampede of opposition in Pennsylvania and across the country comes amid a widespread anti-tech backlash on top of longstanding civil libertarian concerns around the expansion of government surveillance in the digital age.
As of early September, lawmakers in both major parties had introduced at least nine bills to restrict the use of or outright ban automated license plate readers — seven in the past six weeks.
Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro voiced his opposition to the tech during an unrelated news conference in late August, telling the Center Square that the tech was “not something in the public interest.”
“I think law enforcement needs to have tools to keep communities safe,” Shapiro said. “Flock cameras are not a tool that I support.” Shapiro spokesperson Rosie Lapowsky said in a statement that the administration is “working with the General Assembly on what piece of legislation could make it to the Governor’s desk in order to protect Pennsylvanians’ privacy.”
His gubernatorial opponent, Republican Stacy Garrity, also said she supports a ban, calling the cameras an “intrusive invasion of privacy.”
A spokesperson for Democrats who control the state House said leaders “will review any bills that will keep the public safe, protect privacy and ensure accountability.” She did not directly address whether such proposals will be on the table this fall, when lawmakers return to finish the current two-year session.
A spokesperson for Republican leadership in the state Senate did not provide comment by Spotlight PA’s deadline.
A key feature that separates automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, from other automated enforcement technology, like speed cameras, is the scale of the data they capture. Speed cameras are designed to capture images that show someone violating a speed limit, which can be used to prosecute that single case.
But ALPRs record constantly. Under a Flock policy, a law enforcement agency can agree to share its footage to a database accessible to other agencies that do the same in almost any state. Other readers, like those designed by Motorola, have this feature too, though their networks aren’t as big.
Purveyors of the cameras, alongside law enforcement groups, argue that this data can assist in solving crimes, from simple property infractions to kidnappings and murders.
Scott Bohn, head of the Pennsylvania police chiefs association, told Spotlight PA in an email that license plate readers have “become an important investigative tool for law enforcement, assisting agencies in locating stolen vehicles, identifying vehicles associated with serious crimes, locating missing or endangered persons, and developing investigative leads.”
But critics argue that the technology's track record isn’t as stellar as the sales pitch and creates a web of mass surveillance with little accountability for those with access to the data.
There have been instances in which police officers have misused ALPRs to track people in their personal lives, or in which ALPR data has provided false positives that have led cops to pull over innocent people. And while Flock doesn’t officially work with federal officials, Border Patrol and ICE officials have accessed the network through local law enforcement partners, and used it to track people as part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Reporting by 404 Media also suggests that police may search ALPR data for people, not just vehicles.
Over time, this surveillance creates “a map of your life,” Liz Randol, legislative director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. That includes “our religious practices, medical visits, political activities, personal relationships, and daily routines.”
“It doesn’t matter which company has its creepy cameras in your neighborhood, they all have the same problems: a lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation into how they collect, store, and use our data, and how to hold public and private actors accountable if they abuse it,” Randol said.
The ACLU has for years warned about the proliferation of ALPR cameras and has circulated model regulations. If lawmakers don't pursue an outright ban, Randol said they should prioritize regulation of how long data from ALPRs are retained, who that data is shared with, and how it can be used by law enforcement.
Flock’s website states that “data deletes automatically after a set time. … In most communities, that’s 7 days unless local law requires otherwise.” Until last month, the firm’s retention policy defaulted to 30 days, but the company reduced it in response to criticism. It also began allowing agencies to filter their data-sharing settings by, for instance, blocking immigration-related searches.
Sixteen states already have policies on the books restricting ALPRs, per the National Conference of State Legislatures. New Hampshire’s is among the strictest, requiring the deletion of recordings after three minutes unless the recording “resulted in an arrest, a citation or protective custody or identified a vehicle that was the subject of a missing or wanted person broadcast.”
No state has yet passed an outright ban. Florida took executive action to remove the cameras from its state’s highways last month.
In Pennsylvania, state Sen. Dan Laughlin (R., Erie) has introduced a bill to ban the technology, saying that “once the surveillance network is built, there is no guarantee it will only be used in ways we find acceptable today.”
Other lawmakers have instead called for regulation that would still allow the tech to be used. State Reps. David Rowe (R., Union) and Josh Bashline (R., Clarion), for instance, want to require warrants to search ALPR data and give local governments the ability to ban the tech in their jurisdictions.
“The goal is not to stifle emerging technologies,” Rowe told Spotlight PA. “The goal is to create accountability on the government side about how those technologies are used.”
Lawmakers who were previously eager to adopt the technology also say they’re paying attention to ALPR concerns. Before he left the legislature last year, former state Rep. Josh Siegel (D., Lehigh) sponsored a bill that would have made it easier to install the cameras on state infrastructure. But he told Spotlight PA he’s now more skeptical and wants guardrails.
“I've listened to concerns around the technology,” Siegel, now the Lehigh County executive, told Spotlight PA, “and I really think it's one of those things where we've got to get ahead of it first.”
State Sen. Joe Picozzi (R., Philadelphia), who sponsored a similar measure last year, told Spotlight PA that he’d be “happy to have a conversation" about data retention and usage of the tech.
The exact number of ALPRs deployed in Pennsylvania is difficult to tally. A Flock spokesperson declined to say how many of its cameras operate in the commonwealth; DeFlock, a grassroots group opposing the technology, has counted thousands of cameras from several manufacturers in the state.
The proliferation of the technology is its power, experts note, because every additional jurisdiction using the cameras means more information is recorded that can then be shared with other users.
“Every single time this data is just being transferred to a different agency in a different entity, it's getting spread further,” Lisa Femia, an attorney with the California-based digital privacy rights think tank Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Spotlight PA, “and there's less control over it and less meaningful ways to make sure it's being used responsibly.” The organization opposes the cameras.
No Flock cameras are on state roadways or property, according to the Shapiro administration. But Flock cameras were available in COSTARS, a state contracting portal which lets almost 10,000 local governments, public agencies, and nonprofits get discounted contracts. Flock registered with COSTARS in 2025; products from competing brands of automated surveillance tech were available through dozens of other third-party security vendors.
In a statement, the Department of General Services told Spotlight PA that just one municipality had purchased a contract with Flock through the portal.
Sandra Aguilera, acting secretary of the agency, added that “following the Governor’s public comments expressing concern about this technology,” the agency is “immediately taking steps to remove Flock” from COSTARS and reviewing all other ALPR technologies available on the platform.
EXCLUSIVE INSIGHTS… If you liked this reporting from Stephen Caruso, subscribe to Access Harrisburg, a premium newsletter with his unique insider view on how state government works.