> 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”
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).
I don't think any entity (including but not limited to the government) should be allowed to create or maintain data sets of people's near or real time location data. Think about all the ways this data can be misused.
We are truly creating the chains that will bind us by allowing these kinds of tools to exist. And for what? We managed for generations to do policing without LPRs. Are we so drowning in crime that we should create universal surveillance as a solution?
Not only are we not drowning in it, virtually all crime is at historic lows. The world has never been safer, the problem is every bad thing now is reported on every major news feed and shot across every social media algorithm. People have paradoxically never been safer, and never been more terrified.
And none of this is helped at all by greaseball politicians who use fear of the Other to line their pockets and increase their power.
>And we're not going to hide from them through Cyber-Libertarianism.
Like we did for over 230 years? I'm not entirely sure why you choose to call that period before vast ALPR networks "cyber-libertarianism", I'm not a serious historian as perhaps you are but that's a label for the first few centuries of American history I haven't encountered before. But it sorta feels like we somehow made it through it and in fact did pretty well in much of it? Despite us simply forbidding cops from using certain tools or techniques. So what precisely do you think has changed such that if we don't enable an unaccountable panopticon, it'll mean things will be worse? And have you maybe considered that we should pursue your noble dream of "more accountability from agents of the state" first, and see success BEFORE we give them vast new powers? Like, how about the new powers after that works?
The problem is the people. The people have no goddamn principals.
Everyone wants "privacy" but nobody is willing to give up the government's ability to cheaply go after whatever class of petty deviant they personally hate to get it. So we get this stupid situation where the sum total of the political will is enough to keep these programs alive even if the cumulative result is indefensible.
The HN demographics are a prime example. They'll complain about data dragnets in the ICE thread and coo about how savvy the IRS or the EPA or whatever other agency they like are for using their own data haystack to comb for deviants. Now multiply by every other demographic and every other issue. That's why this stuff sticks around.
If people had some goddamn principals and said "this is wrong even if causes I care about are advanced by it" over time politicians would get elected in part by pandering to those people and at the margin some amount of shit would get done. But they don't, so it doesnn't.
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!
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.
People always talk about "no expectation of privacy in public." Ok, so would you support total universal surveillance of 100% of public space? Or a drone that perches outside your house when you are inside, and then follows and surveils you everywhere you go when you leave?
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.
We’ve never had a central data store that would make it practical to achieve such a feat. Now we have one that could answer questions like this, forever.
Mass surveillance at scale is not a trivial problem to solve, but Flock is both making it happen and making it clear that they are fine with enabling bad actors to take advantage of it.
> I am not harmed when I go through a toll plaza or an express lane.
Yet. The jewish people had no problem that the government had detailed lists including the religion. It helped the Nazis killing many jews. Total surveillance will always be abused like every other invasive law.
First it’s against child abuse and terrorist, then organized crime, then crimes like theft, then littering and jaywalking, then swearing in public
You are trying waaaaaay too hard on this topic today. Your HN account is already bombed out and likely rate limited. Go take a break from posting and go outside. Maybe wave to a flock camera. After all, you have nothing to hide.
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.
When a set of banal traffic observation cameras turn into surveillance of a particular individual, then you’re being unreasonably searched/tracked/stalked.
This should require a probable cause and proper warrant "we want to identify this individuals movements because …"
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).
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."
It also would essentially have blocked all traffic enforcement cameras (red light, speed, bus lane, school bus passing, etc.) too.
"Harry, I already said I liked it. You don't need to sell it to me!"
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?
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”
"LPR", used 16 times in the article (including the title), stands for "License Plate Recognition"
AI slop article.
Okay so it reads:
> A recipient of assistance under title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.
Okay, I'm glad that's killed. I love the speed cameras near my home. And hopefully the future has every red-light backed by a red-light camera.
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.
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...
No, it’s available to anyone. Most tow trucks and parking garages have them, and there are massive private networks.
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.
I don't think any entity (including but not limited to the government) should be allowed to create or maintain data sets of people's near or real time location data. Think about all the ways this data can be misused.
We are truly creating the chains that will bind us by allowing these kinds of tools to exist. And for what? We managed for generations to do policing without LPRs. Are we so drowning in crime that we should create universal surveillance as a solution?
> Are we so drowning in crime
Not only are we not drowning in it, virtually all crime is at historic lows. The world has never been safer, the problem is every bad thing now is reported on every major news feed and shot across every social media algorithm. People have paradoxically never been safer, and never been more terrified.
And none of this is helped at all by greaseball politicians who use fear of the Other to line their pockets and increase their power.
> and punish cops who misuse it
Cops, who commit domestic violence that rate at least twice that of the general public, misuse ALPR's to stalk women.
But I will accept an example of any punishment for any misuse as a sign that such punishment could actually happen.
> punish cops
just say you're not being serious and save us the time.
This is such a silly perspective and it stands in the way of making things better.
Cops are not going away. And we're not going to hide from them through Cyber-Libertarianism.
We can either accept the status quo or, yes, push for more accountability from the agents of the state.
>And we're not going to hide from them through Cyber-Libertarianism.
Like we did for over 230 years? I'm not entirely sure why you choose to call that period before vast ALPR networks "cyber-libertarianism", I'm not a serious historian as perhaps you are but that's a label for the first few centuries of American history I haven't encountered before. But it sorta feels like we somehow made it through it and in fact did pretty well in much of it? Despite us simply forbidding cops from using certain tools or techniques. So what precisely do you think has changed such that if we don't enable an unaccountable panopticon, it'll mean things will be worse? And have you maybe considered that we should pursue your noble dream of "more accountability from agents of the state" first, and see success BEFORE we give them vast new powers? Like, how about the new powers after that works?
Why not also require that cell companies share up to the second location data with authorities? It would be so much easier to catch criminals!
The problem is the people. The people have no goddamn principals.
Everyone wants "privacy" but nobody is willing to give up the government's ability to cheaply go after whatever class of petty deviant they personally hate to get it. So we get this stupid situation where the sum total of the political will is enough to keep these programs alive even if the cumulative result is indefensible.
The HN demographics are a prime example. They'll complain about data dragnets in the ICE thread and coo about how savvy the IRS or the EPA or whatever other agency they like are for using their own data haystack to comb for deviants. Now multiply by every other demographic and every other issue. That's why this stuff sticks around.
If people had some goddamn principals and said "this is wrong even if causes I care about are advanced by it" over time politicians would get elected in part by pandering to those people and at the margin some amount of shit would get done. But they don't, so it doesnn't.
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!
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.
A better compromise is to require a warrant from a judge
Your terms are acceptable.
That's not what the killed legislation did, though.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
warrants are handed out like candy already
Not if the reason is "I want to stalk my ex".
Then write down a different reason? There are no consequences for being dishonest.
People always talk about "no expectation of privacy in public." Ok, so would you support total universal surveillance of 100% of public space? Or a drone that perches outside your house when you are inside, and then follows and surveils you everywhere you go when you leave?
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.
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.
> Nor when I pass a flock camera.
You are not, or at least, you think you are not.
How far removed are we from the federal government revoking the passports of everyone who attended a No Kings rally, anywhere in the country?
> How far removed are we from the federal government revoking the passports of everyone who attended a No Kings rally, anywhere in the country?
Many trans people have already had their passports revoked, for some there is no path to obtaining one again, and it is deeply unsettling to me.
... And what do you think stops them from revoking the passports, today?
Do you think it is Courts and the looming Midterms; or are they just flummoxed by the lack of good surveillance data?
It's really a fantasy and a silly Taboo.
Our Democracy will live or die by politics, not silly rules on data collection at the margins.
Global entry privileges have been revoked for people present at protests already based on facial recognition.
Not a fantasy and the taboo has already been broken.
While losing access to global entry without due process isn’t the same thing as revoking a passport, it’s awfully close.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-30/minnesota...
We’ve never had a central data store that would make it practical to achieve such a feat. Now we have one that could answer questions like this, forever.
Mass surveillance at scale is not a trivial problem to solve, but Flock is both making it happen and making it clear that they are fine with enabling bad actors to take advantage of it.
The FBI has been an IBM customer for a very long time.
Like maybe the "cheap cameras everywhere" part is novel + important, but "central data store" truly is not.
Slippery reasoning like this is how silly taboos get perpetuated.
> I am not harmed when I go through a toll plaza or an express lane.
Yet. The jewish people had no problem that the government had detailed lists including the religion. It helped the Nazis killing many jews. Total surveillance will always be abused like every other invasive law.
First it’s against child abuse and terrorist, then organized crime, then crimes like theft, then littering and jaywalking, then swearing in public
Were the lists really the problem though?
Or was it the Genocidal Intent?
The first mass killings, on the Eastern Front, made no use of such sophistication and had no need of it.
It's always Politics.... Terrible ones in the case of WW2 Germany.
By that logic, why bother requiring search warrants? As long as government doesn't have bad intent, it should all be fine.
Yes, the lists where the problem because it is a lot easier to find your victims if you have a list of their addresses.
You‘ll never know when the next group with bad intent get access to surveillance data.
Every crime organization would be glad to have the opportunity to find witnesses in witness protection. Was a lot harder back then.
> 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
I don't regard complete anonymity on a public roadway to be an "Essential Liberty" and neither would the Founders.
You are trying waaaaaay too hard on this topic today. Your HN account is already bombed out and likely rate limited. Go take a break from posting and go outside. Maybe wave to a flock camera. After all, you have nothing to hide.
Is a dozen replies on a forum really so much?
And yes, I will wave to the SF speed cameras I pass today.
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.
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.
How about implementing proper limitations first for the abused powers they already have?
If someone proved he can’t handle a car you wouldn’t give him a truck, would you?
Fair point. I'll never argue against greater police accountability.
This would indeed be the best outcome. A framework of accountability we all trust and modern tools to do their job.
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.
When a set of banal traffic observation cameras turn into surveillance of a particular individual, then you’re being unreasonably searched/tracked/stalked. This should require a probable cause and proper warrant "we want to identify this individuals movements because …"
This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
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).
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."
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.
Synthesize no longer: https://ij.org/police-have-reportedly-used-license-plate-rea...