Senator Sanders Proposes Nationwide Ban on Federal Use of Automated License‑Plate Systems

Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation that would prohibit the federal government from employing the surveillance platform known as Flock, while also extending the restriction to all automated license‑plate reader (ALPR) technologies used by federal agencies.

The bill, unveiled in a congressional filing, seeks to close a gap that critics say allows expansive, real‑time tracking of vehicles without adequate oversight. By targeting Flock specifically and then broadening the scope to any automated system that captures and stores license‑plate data, the proposal aims to curb what lawmakers describe as unchecked governmental surveillance.

Proponents of the measure argue that ALPRs, which can scan and log thousands of plates per hour, raise significant privacy concerns. Data collected by these devices can be combined with other databases to build detailed movement histories of individuals, potentially without their knowledge or consent. The legislation would require agencies to dismantle existing deployments and prohibit future acquisitions unless Congress enacts a separate, narrowly tailored exemption.

Supporters point to a growing body of research and civil‑rights advocacy that highlights the disproportionate impact of mass vehicle tracking on marginalized communities. They note that law‑enforcement agencies have increasingly relied on ALPRs for everything from locating stolen vehicles to monitoring protest activity, blurring the line between legitimate policing and pervasive surveillance.

Opponents, including several federal law‑enforcement officials, contend that the technology is a valuable tool for public safety and that a blanket ban could hinder investigations. They argue that existing privacy safeguards, such as data retention limits and audit requirements, are sufficient to address concerns without eliminating the capability entirely.

The bill now heads to committee, where it is expected to face a partisan split. If approved, it could set a precedent for broader restrictions on government use of emerging surveillance technologies, prompting similar legislative efforts at the state level. The debate underscores a larger national conversation about balancing security objectives with civil liberties in an era of increasingly sophisticated data‑collection tools.