- Michigan political candidates in key races for governor, US Senate are weighing in on use of automated license plate readers
- The readers, most of which are operated by Flock Safety, have grown more controversial amid public outcry over privacy concerns
- Many candidates and officials are pushing for statewide regulation of how the data collected from the readers is used and retained
As public concern grows around the use of Flock Safety cameras and other automated license plate readers, Michigan political candidates are calling for increased scrutiny and guardrails around the technology.
On Wednesday, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson became the latest to weigh in, arguing that “Michiganders deserve to know when government is collecting information about them, where that information goes, and who has access to it.”
The readers — typically nondescript cameras perched near busy roadways — snap a picture every time a car drives by and are touted by police as a speedy way to help locate missing people or catch criminals.
A majority of the cameras in Michigan are operated by Flock, an Atlanta-based company that has contracted with at least 125 Michigan local government agencies.
But privacy advocates and residents in communities large and small are increasingly raising concerns, arguing the technology infringes on citizens’ privacy rights, relies too heavily on artificial intelligence and can lead to data getting shared well beyond local boundary lines.
“Right now, we’re not getting that basic transparency,” Benson said in a statement, promising to work with the Legislature to approve clear statewide rules for how the cameras are used, who can access the data, when it can be shared and when it must be deleted.
“I hear from people across Michigan who drive past a Flock camera every day and have no idea what happens to that picture after it’s taken: who sees it, how long it’s kept, or whether it’s shared with agencies they’ve never heard of.”
Her Republican opponent, John James, told reporters in a recent press call that, when it comes to Flock cameras, it’s important to balance constitutional rights to privacy with the need for public safety.
“Our right to privacy is non-negotiable,” he said. “But we also need to make sure that we are working within the Constitution to keep innocent people safe and put bad actors away … I’ll be doing everything that I can to protect the privacy of Michiganders and also enforce the law.”
In Michigan’s US Senate race, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has protested the “mass proliferation” of Flock cameras, making a pitch for voters to support him “if you believe, like me, that you shouldn’t just be surveilled because you’re driving along the street.”
“We’ve got to stand up to this massive surveillance apparatus that is being built behind closed doors and behind our backs,” he said in one recent campaign video.
El-Sayed has claimed Republican rival Mike Rogers is part of a “regime” pushing for the proliferation of Flock cameras, citing his past work as chair of the US House Select Committee on Intelligence. But Rogers was no longer in Congress when Flock cameras were created in 2017.
Last week, a Rogers campaign spokesperson told Fox News he “vehemently opposes unchecked use of Flock cameras to track law-abiding citizens.”
“Security and liberty aren’t enemies,” the spokesperson said. “Good government protects both.”
Why it’s an issue
In most communities with license plate readers, the devices are placed at or near major public intersections. As vehicles pass by, the reader takes a photo of the back of the car, collecting the license plate number that can be used to look up the vehicle registration.
Law enforcement agencies using the devices tout the technology as a speedy way to help locate missing people or catch criminals, with many agencies crediting the tool with arrests in high-profile cases.
But critics contend that the cameras amount to 24/7 surveillance of drivers, the vast majority of whom will never be charged with a crime, posing major privacy concerns.
Throughout the state, heated debates over the use of license plate readers have erupted in town halls and city meetings as local officials weigh whether to introduce new cameras or keep existing ones.
Community pushback “really exploded” starting in summer 2025 as reports emerged about the data being used for immigration-related searches, people seeking abortions and more, Sarah Hamid, director of strategic campaigns for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for digital privacy rights, previously told Bridge.
Flock has said it does not directly share data with any federal agency, but system lookup data analyzed last year by 404 Media showed local and state police across the country have frequently performed searches for federal partners, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, a former software engineer who is running as the Democratic nominee for Secretary of State, sees the issue as part of a broader fight for data protection.
Gilchrist told attendees of last week’s state Democratic Party convention that he’d stand up to the federal government and anyone else aiming to take undue advantage of residents’ voter records, driving history and other personal information that should remain confidential.
Last month, Flock Safety introduced its own new safeguards in response to backlash, announcing requirements for law enforcement to label searches with a criminal case number, automatic reviews of abnormal search activities and a new seven-day default for records retention, down from 30 days.
A Flock Safety spokesperson told Bridge Friday that the company supports “thoughtful, bipartisan legislation that puts strong privacy, transparency and accountability guardrails in place while preserving law enforcement’s ability to use technology responsibly to keep people safe.”
Where things stand now
Though some communities are exploring other options for license plate reader technology or have rejected the cameras outright, many others have approved new contracts or re-upped existing ones, and cameras are peppered throughout the state.
At least 16 states have adopted policies aimed at regulating the use and retention of data collected by license plate readers, which capture pictures of vehicle license plates every time a car drives by.
Legislation is pending in both the state House and Senate to implement some form of statewide regulation, with supporters aiming to require a 14-day limit on data retention and limit use of the license plate reader system to specific law enforcement actions, including:
- Finding missing people
- Locating stolen vehicles
- Locating people with outstanding arrest warrants
- Identifying uninsured or unregistered vehicles
- Parking and tolling enforcement
- Criminal investigations
Sen. Jim Runestad, a Republican lawmaker who sponsored the Senate bills, told Bridge it’s currently “the wild, wild west” when it comes to how data is retained and used across different municipalities, and whether it’s shared with other entities. He’s not convinced that legislative leaders will be motivated to take action before the end of the year, however.
“There is no oversight,” said Runestad, who also chairs the Michigan Republican Party. “We should be having people coming in, all the stakeholders, and really going through what is the best practice, what do we need to modify…and they’re not doing anything.”
Several law enforcement organizations, including the Michigan Sheriffs’ Association, have said they’re not against statewide regulation but are concerned about limiting record retention, as criminal investigations or missing person searches can take longer than two weeks to complete.
They’ve argued a limited window to access the data could limit the effectiveness of the tool.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.