Pinsley supports limited ALPR use with safeguards
Pennsylvania state Senate candidate
“Automated license plate readers can have a legitimate public safety purpose”
Open the original interview (opens in a new tab)Mark Pinsley Q&A on Flock cameras and other campaign issuesQuestion on Flock cameras and ALPR safeguards
Source and context
Interview
Mark Pinsley Q&A on Flock cameras and other campaign issues (opens in a new tab)Question on Flock cameras and ALPR safeguards
About this source
Pinsley states his support for limited license-plate-reader use with short retention, controlled access, audits and penalties for misuse.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Pinsley answered a candidate questionnaire about Flock cameras.
After the quotation
He rejected an unlimited database of residents' movements.
How this statement is classified
Mixed or conditional
Case context: Should Flock-style license-plate surveillance networks exist?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
His support depends on enforceable limits on collection and access.
- 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