Loading record
Issue tracker
Compare sourced statements from candidates and officials in Ohio on license-plate camera networks.
This tracker covers fixed camera networks that log passing vehicles and let agencies search their movements. A warrant rule, a funding pause or a shorter retention period is not the same as a ban, so each statement is placed on the specific remedy the speaker supports. Each position names its speaker and links its source.
Democratic candidate for Ohio House District 88
Criticizes, no remedy named
I’ve got a pretty simple view on this: if you haven’t done anything wrong, the government shouldn’t be keeping tabs on everywhere you go, Flock is one example, but AI-powered surveillance is spreading fast, and the law needs to catch up,
Aaron Jones said the government should not keep tabs on everywhere law-abiding people go and that the law needs to catch up with Flock and other AI-powered surveillance.
2
End the network
Ban the cameras or cancel the contract.
7
Restrict it
Cut funding, pause, require warrants, or limit how data is kept and shared.
2
Keep using it
Defend current use as an investigative tool.
11 statements from officials and candidates are counted in Ohio. 3 more are critical without naming a remedy.
Races where more than one candidate has a recorded position, ordered by how far apart the candidates are on the steps above.
Faber argued that Ohio police should retain Flock cameras for legitimate investigations while the state makes misuse of the database a felony. His proposal targets unauthorized searches rather than the camera network itself.
Kulewicz called for a broad Ohio data privacy law that would limit what companies such as Flock may collect and how the information may be used. He argued that a plan to punish misuse after it occurs does not go far enough.
Ramaswamy said he does not want an authoritarian surveillance state and warned that government mapping of every movement could eventually lead to one, while saying the country is not there now.
Acton said she would support emerging bipartisan legislation to ban Flock-style readers while weighing public-safety needs.
Kissick's campaign says Ohio should not routinely track drivers through license-plate cameras. It pledges to seek restrictions or a prohibition on government use and to prevent state funding for mass-surveillance networks.
Each statement is placed on the strongest remedy the speaker firmly supports. When a speaker offers alternatives, such as a ban or tighter regulation, the statement is placed on the milder one. A placement describes that statement alone. It does not summarize everything the speaker has said.
Criticism of misuse is not, by itself, a call to end the cameras. Statements that criticize the systems without naming a remedy are listed separately. Companies, advocacy groups and researchers appear for reference and are not counted in the totals.
A candidate or official with no statement on record has no position here. Address results match statewide offices, the U.S. House district, state legislative districts, and city or county offices for the address you enter.
These tracker downloads are licensed under CC BY 4.0. Credit The Dispute Index, link to this tracker and the license, and note any changes. The license covers the downloaded compilation and DI position labels. Case pages, other site text and linked source material have separate rights.
Each camera statement keeps its own remedy label. An empty position means the statement has not been placed. Statements without a specific remedy are labeled separately.
The generation time records when this data snapshot was prepared. For votes, date records the vote date and as_of records the tracker date. For statements, date records when the statement occurred and as_of records when DI first published it. These dates do not mean every source was rechecked then. Empty fields mean the information is not included in this download. Count votes and statements separately; multiple statements can belong to the same person.
