Callahan would bar unchecked Flock use but allow a narrow path
Wisconsin state representative and Assembly Consumer Protection Committee chair
“If these cameras cannot operate with warrants, judicial oversight, strict limits on data retention and real accountability, then they have no business operating in Wisconsin.”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Original reporting reproduces Callahan's statement, including his proposed hearing and conditions for any continued use.
Before the quotation
In a public statement, Callahan said Flock cameras had become more invasive than the targeted public-safety tool he expected and announced a January committee hearing.
After the quotation
He said he would consider a narrowly tailored path for serious investigations if judicial oversight, warrants, limited retention and accountability were in place.
How this statement is classified
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 rejects unrestricted networks and makes any continued use depend on warrants, oversight and retention limits.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Flock Safety
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