Senator Bernie Sanders and allies introduce the Ban Flock Act to prohibit federal use of AI-powered license plate readers and cut funding for local ALPR use.

The intersection of artificial intelligence and public surveillance has reached a legislative flashpoint in Washington. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), alongside Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), has introduced the Ban Flock Act. This legislation aims to dismantle the federal government's reliance on automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), targeting a surveillance infrastructure that critics argue has evolved into a tool for mass tracking without public consent.

A legislative strike against ALPR systems

While the bill takes its name from Flock Safety, the largest vendor of ALPRs in the United States, its legal scope is broader. The text does not exclusively target one company but prohibits federal agencies from utilizing any ALPR system. This includes a ban on tapping into data harvested by private companies or local police departments. The proposed law is designed to sever the link between federal intelligence and the vast networks of cameras currently scanning American roads.

The legislation does not create a total vacuum, however. It provides specific exceptions for toll collection and any future uses explicitly approved by Congress. For those approved exceptions, the bill mandates a strict data retention limit of 48 hours, a sharp contrast to the longer storage periods currently employed by many surveillance vendors.

The scale of the surveillance machine

The urgency behind the bill is driven by the sheer volume of data being processed. According to data cited by Senator Sanders, Flock Safety has deployed more than 120,000 cameras across the country. The company, which venture backers value at over $8 billion, reported in February that its network processes more than 20 billion vehicle reads every month.

Lawmakers argue that this is no longer about simple law enforcement but about the creation of a surveillance state. Senator Merkley emphasized that the right to privacy includes the freedom to move through a community without constant monitoring. The concern extends beyond license plates; newer AI-powered cameras are capable of recording people and combining these images with databases of phone numbers, court records, and relatives to deanonymize individuals in real-time.

Financial pressure on local governments

Because the federal government cannot directly dictate local police budgets, the Ban Flock Act employs a financial lever to force compliance. If the bill becomes law, state and local governments that refuse to ban ALPR technology would face significant financial penalties. Specifically, they would lose grants from five federal departments, including the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.

This strategy aims to create a trickle-down effect, where the cost of maintaining surveillance contracts becomes prohibitively expensive for municipalities. To further ensure accountability, the bill would allow state attorneys general to enforce the law and grant private citizens the right to sue the federal government for violations of their privacy rights.

Abuse of power and the AI risk

The push for the Ban Flock Act follows a series of high-profile reports regarding the misuse of surveillance data. One notable case involved a former Milwaukee officer who pleaded guilty to misconduct after using the platform to search for his then-partner and her ex-partner 179 times, falsely labeling the searches as an investigation. Beyond individual misconduct, there are broader concerns regarding the weaponization of data against activists, including those supporting Palestinian rights or participating in No Kings demonstrations.

The widespread integration of this technology into American society is unconscionable, as AI-powered cameras keep track of our every move and weaponize this data against working people to make record profits.

Further alarms were raised when hackers allegedly accessed a roadside camera, discovering logs that contained three weeks of activity, including 1.6 million images of over 50,000 vehicles. Critics also point to the use of this data by federal immigration authorities and the potential for tracking individuals seeking abortions across state lines.

Corporate pivots and the double-key proposal

Facing escalating public anger and a wave of canceled contracts, Flock Safety has attempted to self-regulate. CEO Garrett Langley recently reduced the default data retention period from 30 days to seven days. The company also introduced an audit tool designed to lock officers out of the system if the AI flags unusual search patterns.

In discussions regarding further safeguards, the concept of a double-key system has emerged. This would require two separate individuals to approve a search before data is released, a measure Langley has indicated is under consideration. However, for the sponsors of the Ban Flock Act, these corporate adjustments are insufficient to address the fundamental violation of constitutional privacy.

Global implications for tech and business

For international entrepreneurs and tech firms operating in the US or UK markets, the Ban Flock Act signals a growing appetite for aggressive AI regulation. While the bill faces a difficult path to passage in the current US political climate, it represents a shift toward treating AI surveillance as a systemic risk rather than a tool for efficiency.

In the United Kingdom, where CCTV and ALPR usage is already deeply embedded in urban infrastructure, such a legislative move in the US could embolden privacy advocates and lead to similar challenges against AI-driven policing. For companies developing AI for the public sector, the lesson is clear: the era of unchecked data harvesting is ending. Businesses must now prioritize privacy-by-design and transparent data retention policies to avoid the risk of sudden legislative bans or the loss of government funding. The trend is moving toward strict limitations on biometric and vehicle tracking, mirroring the spirit of the EU AI Act, which categorizes certain types of real-time biometric surveillance as high-risk or prohibited.

FAQ

Q: What is the main goal of the Ban Flock Act? A: The bill seeks to prohibit federal agencies from using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and to block federal funding for state and local governments that continue to use this technology. Q: Does the bill only target Flock Safety? A: No. While named after the company, the legislation covers all ALPR systems regardless of the vendor. Q: What happens to local governments if the bill passes? A: They would lose grants from five federal departments, including the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, if they do not ban the technology. Q: Are there any exceptions to the ban? A: Yes, the bill allows exceptions for toll collection and any other uses specifically approved by Congress in future legislation, provided data is kept for no more than 48 hours.

---

Sources: TechCrunch, Sanders, Merkley ·