Laughlin proposes ban on fixed ALPR networks
Pennsylvania state senator
“Public safety is a responsibility we all take seriously, but it should not require building a surveillance network capable of tracking the daily movements of millions of innocent individuals.”
Read the official statement (opens in a new tab)Laughlin plans legislation to prohibit networked license-plate surveillance camerasProposal would prohibit fixed networked ALPR systems while preserving patrol-mounted readers
Source and context
Official statement
Laughlin plans legislation to prohibit networked license-plate surveillance cameras (opens in a new tab)Proposal would prohibit fixed networked ALPR systems while preserving patrol-mounted readers
About this source
Proposal would prohibit fixed networked ALPR systems while preserving patrol-mounted readers
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Laughlin announced plans for state legislation after hearing constituent concerns about networked plate readers.
After the quotation
His proposed restriction would not prohibit ordinary security cameras or vehicle-mounted plate readers.
How this statement is classified
Condemned
Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
The networked collection of drivers' movements is the policy at issue. Laughlin rejects that system while distinguishing it from vehicle-mounted readers.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Ohioans should not have their movements routinely tracked, photographed, and stored simply for driving on public roads.”Read statement
“Tennesseans should be free from a surveillance state.”Read statement
“We need to restore real limits, real oversight, and real due process.”Read statement