Poll finds most Pa. voters see license plate readers as civil liberties threat

Pa voters skeptical of automatic license plate readers as House approves regulation bill

Pa voters skeptical of automatic license plate readers as House approves regulation bill

Republican, Democrat, independent — it didn’t matter — many Pennsylvanians believe automatic license plate reader cameras are a risk to civil liberties.

A new Franklin & Marshall College poll finds most Pennsylvania voters see the cameras, known as ALPRs, as surveillance.

The poll, which you can read in its entirety here, found 61% called the readers surveillance that threatens civil liberties and said they oppose their use by local police. Another 32% said they approve of the cameras because they help police solve crimes and protect communities. Seven percent were unsure.

A separate question measuring intensity of opinion found opposition was not only broad, but strong. Overall, 15% strongly favored the cameras, while 41% were firmly opposed.

Franklin & Marshall pollster Berwood Yost said the opposition crosses party lines.

“Maybe it's the same backlash we're seeing with data centers,” Yost said. “It's the use of technology that in ways people don't like and they're rebelling against that and it's very clear that people don't want to see these things in their community.”

Distrust beyond the cameras

The distrust extends beyond the cameras themselves. Ninety percent said they were not very confident or not confident at all that private companies would keep data collected by internet-connected devices private. Not one person polled said they were very confident.

Half said they believe both local governments and technology companies could misuse private information. Another 37% pointed to technology companies alone.

“More people say they distrust the technology companies to maintain privacy than say local governments,” Yost said. “I think there is some concern about the way large technology companies are using the information they have about us.”

House passes regulation bill

The debate comes as the Pennsylvania House has approved legislation intended to regulate automatic license plate readers.

Supporters say the cameras can help police solve serious crimes and find missing people. But state lawmakers are questioning how the information is protected, shared and searched.

“We do need guardrails in place for this technology," said State Rep. Jennifer O'Mara, a Democrat representing the 165th district in Delaware County. "It is our job as legislators to both respond to the need and the desires of our constituents to act, to protect their privacy and to respond to the ever-changing technology.”

The House passed House Bill 2771 with bipartisan support.

It would not ban cameras like Flock, but would limit their use to specific purposes, including homicide and felony investigations, missing people, stolen vehicles and certain traffic or parking enforcement.

What the bill would do

Data would generally have to be deleted within 72 hours. Historical searches and sharing would generally require a probable-cause warrant. Facial recognition would be prohibited, as would identifying vehicle occupants and personal or political searches.

The bill also requires training, encryption and public audit records, and creates criminal penalties and civil liability for misuse.

Rep. O'Mara said, “A resident in my community came to me with some concerns because he had been tracking how out-of-state agencies were using ALPR and, frankly, how they were accessing cameras within our own state.”

You can read the bill's full text here.

Flock Safety responds

Those concerns were addressed last month as the legislation moved forward. State lawmakers questioned Flock Safety’s director of government relations, Kevin Kane, who said Flock supports regulation.

“We believe it must be used in concert with strong policy and guardrails,” Kane said. “That's why we're calling on the legislature to pass a bill that would establish clear data-retention standards, prohibit the selling of data, require regular audits, require industry-leading cybersecurity practices and certifications, and require consequences for any misuse of ALPR data.”

Lawmakers also questioned whether the company should be making the rules itself.

State Rep. Lindsay Powell, a Democrat from the 21st district in Allegheny County, said the rules governing sharing and retention can differ among communities, and lawmakers need to know whether information could be exposed by someone who doesn’t follow the law, for example through a cyberattack.

Kane said, “I want to be very clear that there was no cloud data accessed in that alleged theft and attack of a Flock camera. So the system was never accessed.”

Powell asked, “Could you clarify that? If the network wasn't hacked, they were still able to pull images. So what were they actually taking, then?”

Kane said, “The images of vehicles in a public setting were taken on the camera itself before they were sent via secure network to the cloud.”

Kane also said, “There's no facial-recognition technology. Second, there is nothing that is tied to any names, dates, Social Security numbers, addresses—any personally identifiable information. This is a still image of a vehicle in a public setting.”

Powell said, “I still have a lot of concerns about the security of these devices and these systems. It was not made entirely clear to me that, if these cameras—these ALPRs—are hacked, that the public can have confidence that the images they recover won't be connected to people's personal information and data.”

Bill is a start, not the end

Powell said the proposed legislation is a necessary beginning, but not the end of the debate.

Going back to the Franklin & Marshall poll, Powell said the fact that 61% who think the cameras are a threat reflects real concern.

“People are abusing these technologies currently,” Powell said. “And this isn't extrapolating—'Well, maybe in the future.' It's happening currently. And so I completely agree with the majority of Pennsylvanians who have deep concerns about being traced, being tracked, and what responsibility we have as a government to keep people's privacy private.”

Powell said, “There are still a lot of questions that I believe we need answers to, and the public deserves answers to. Our legislation is a great starting point, but we have the opportunity—and must go further—to protect people's privacy.”

Powell voted yes on House Bill 2771.

What's next

Lawmakers are now trying to draw a line between targeted police investigations and widespread tracking.

The House bill now moves to the state Senate, but with limited voting days remaining, it is not yet clear whether the proposal will reach the governor’s desk before the legislative session ends.

In the meantime, the cameras remain up and functioning, with guardrails left to the individual agencies that use them.