Rand Paul calls for warrants, not a vendor boycott
U.S. senator from Kentucky
“We could cancel every Flock contract tomorrow, and the surveillance problem remains, because a competitor takes the contract the next day. The fix isn't a boycott of one vendor. It's a warrant requirement.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Rand Paul statement on Flock and warrant requirementsPost beginning We could cancel every Flock contract tomorrow
Open source (opens in a new tab)Mirror of Rand Paul's Flock warrant statementPost text
Source and context
Original post
Rand Paul statement on Flock and warrant requirements (opens in a new tab)Post beginning We could cancel every Flock contract tomorrow
About this source
Paul argues that a warrant requirement, not cancelling one vendor's contracts, would address ALPR surveillance.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Archived source
Mirror of Rand Paul's Flock warrant statement (opens in a new tab)Post text
About this source
Public mirror preserves the wording of Paul's post advocating warrant requirements.
Before the quotation
Paul responded to calls to cancel Flock contracts.
After the quotation
His proposed rule would require warrants for surveillance searches.
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?
He favors a legal limit on searches rather than treating removal of one vendor as a full solution.
- 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