WASHINGTON, D.C. (Michigan News Source) – Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of Michigan wants to put the brakes on police surveillance technology. But her newly minted legislation raises an interesting question: If government surveillance is so troubling, what about Washington’s own massive collection of information about Americans?
Introduced October 13, the Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act (H.R. 10807) would prohibit federal agencies from using covered “automated mass surveillance systems” within the United States and restrict certain federal law enforcement funding to state and local governments that use the technology.
MORE NEWS: Whitmer Touts $21 Million in Medical Debt Relief. What’s the Cost to Taxpayers?
The legislation targets technologies such as automatic license plate readers, facial recognition and biometric surveillance systems. It also establishes deadlines for removing certain federally funded surveillance systems and deleting covered surveillance data.
Big Brother Is Watching – But Who’s Watching Big Brother?
The bill broadly defines “automated mass surveillance” to include systems that collect, analyze, retain or use information about an indefinite or large number of people.
That raises some questions because the bill contains no exceptions or carve-outs for ordinary administrative databases.
What about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and IRS databases containing sensitive information about millions of Americans? While ordinary government “record keeping” might not be considered by some to be “automatic mass surveillance,” Americans might think otherwise and reasonably wonder why some massive databases are considered acceptable while others are considered threats to privacy.
And what about the Transportation Security Administration’s facial recognition technology at airports? Or the FBI’s fingerprint and biometric identification databases used in criminal investigations? Those systems raise more direct questions about which federal technologies would fall under the bill’s restrictions. And what happens during a national emergency? Tlaib’s legislation contains no explicit blanket exception for wartime, terrorism investigations or national security emergencies.
That raises questions about how federal agencies such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security could use covered surveillance systems to identify suspected terrorists, track dangerous fugitives or respond to threats on American soil.
Washington to Local Police: Ditch the Technology or Risk Your Funding
MORE NEWS: Whitmer Kidnapping Plot Judge Busted for Years of Misconduct – After He Retires
Here’s where things get particularly oppressive and controlling. Under the legislation, state and local governments would have to certify compliance with surveillance restrictions to qualify for certain federal law enforcement grants.
That means Washington could use federal funding to pressure local communities into abandoning investigative technology their police departments and citizens consider useful.
What About Criminals, Missing People and Terrorists?
Automatic license plate readers aren’t just collecting information on ordinary motorists driving by for the fun of it. Police use the technology to do something important and useful – like tracking down stolen vehicles, locating wanted criminals, finding missing people, and solving crimes. Companies such as Flock Safety promote these capabilities as important public safety tools.
According to the company’s 2025 Impact Census, based on responses from nearly 700 law enforcement agencies, Flock technology assisted in an estimated 20% of solved cases in jurisdictions using its systems, supported approximately one million investigations and public safety incidents, and helped locate more than 10,000 missing people. Additionally, 42% of responding agencies reported that Flock helped recover at least half of the stolen vehicles in their jurisdictions.
Privacy Concerns
Critics of the technology argue that it can be used to track the movements of law-abiding Americans who aren’t suspected of committing any crimes. Privacy advocates also worry about how long the information is stored, who can access it, whether it can be shared with other law enforcement agencies and what safeguards prevent misuse. There are also concerns about inaccurate license plate readings potentially leading police to stop innocent motorists.
Opposition to Flock cameras isn’t limited to everyday motorists concerned about privacy. Organizations that have long challenged police surveillance practices, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), are also pushing back against the technology. The ACLU has even launched a nationwide “Get the Flock Out” campaign, providing activists with resources to pressure local governments into rejecting the cameras or canceling existing contracts.
Big Brother Needs to Look in the Mirror
Government surveillance involving license plate readers raises legitimate concerns about privacy, data collection and the potential misuse of personal information. Tlaib’s legislation, however, goes beyond establishing safeguards and retention limits. It would restrict broad categories of surveillance technology and tie federal funding to whether state and local governments comply with those restrictions.
That approach raises a broader question: Where should Congress draw the line between legitimate law enforcement tools and government overreach? Flock cameras collect license plate information on public roads, while federal agencies collect far more extensive information about Americans every day. So why is one being singled out as government surveillance while the others remain business as usual?
