Within a few days, Texas and Florida took two steps to limit the spread of automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks, in a move that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) considers a partial victory for efforts opposing mass surveillance. However, the decisions do not stop the use of these systems entirely, because a large portion of them falls outside the scope of the entities covered by the orders.
Two State-Level Decisions
On August 28, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive barring state agencies from spending public funds on Flock cameras. The decision came as The Texas Tribune was preparing to publish an investigation reporting that one state agency had quietly diverted at least $30 million to build an extensive surveillance network.
On August 31, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) issued a memorandum announced by Governor Ron DeSantis, ordering the removal of all ALPR systems located within the rights-of-way of state highways within 30 days. The memorandum also canceled previous permits for installing these systems and barred transportation officials from issuing new permits for them.
FDOT justified the action by citing what it described as the recent exponential increase in the deployment of cameras on roads, along with troubling reports of misuse, data privacy concerns, and surveillance schemes. Department officials said these factors warranted immediate action to protect the sovereignty and quality of life of Florida residents. After the memorandum was issued, local governments in the state canceled or suspended their contracts with suppliers of these systems.
What Changes in Practice?
The direct change in Florida affects only cameras located on state highways. Systems installed on city streets, county roads, residential driveways, and shopping center parking lots are not covered by the FDOT decision. Similarly, the Texas directive prevents state agencies from using their funds to purchase Flock cameras, but leaves local entities able to finance their installation with city and county funds or federal and private money.
EFF notes that these boundaries are important when assessing the impact of the two decisions. They halt specific funding and permitting channels, but do not create a comprehensive ban on collecting or retaining vehicle-movement data. The source also does not clarify whether the decisions will impose new restrictions on data storage, sharing, or retention periods.
Why Does This Development Matter?
The importance of the two steps, according to EFF’s interpretation, lies in demonstrating the executive branch’s ability to curtail the spread of surveillance technologies relatively quickly through funding and permitting decisions, rather than waiting for lengthy legislation or court rulings. This follows years of local campaigns that led dozens of cities to sever ties with surveillance companies. According to some indicators cited by the organization, three local jurisdictions on average terminated their contracts with Flock each day during the last 30 days.
However, this interpretation reflects EFF’s opposition to mass surveillance and is not a neutral, established finding about all the effects of the decisions. The source also calls on California Governor Gavin Newsom and the state’s Department of Transportation to take similar steps, beginning by removing the ALPR systems installed by U.S. Border Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Administration on California highways.
Limitations and Open Questions
EFF defines mass surveillance through ALPR as the continuous and indiscriminate collection and retention of location data on all drivers, regardless of whether there is suspicion. The organization believes that this type of surveillance should not continue, but acknowledges that the Texas and Florida actions are only a first step. Their ultimate impact remains tied to local governments’ ability to continue using other sources of funding, and to whether they will be followed by enforceable rules governing access to, use of, and retention of the data.