Walid Hakim
Role at the time: Green Party candidate for governor of South Carolina, in an emailed statement
Statement summary
In an email to Dispute Index on October 5, 2026, Walid Hakim, the Green Party candidate for governor of South Carolina, said his campaign opposes Palantir and every company connected to it, including Flock. He said the objection is not to the idea of a network of cameras but to law enforcement's easy access, which he said allows abuse, stalking and unauthorized surveillance, and to the companies' collection of data on people's travel habits for their own purposes.
“We oppose Palantir and all companies associated with them, including Flock. It’s not the idea of having a network of cameras that we oppose. It’s the easy access by law enforcement to allow abuse, stalking and unauthorized surveillance, and the data being collected by these companies of our travel habits to be used for their own purposes.”
Read the full email
Good evening, We oppose Palantir and all companies associated with them, including Flock. It’s not the idea of having a network of cameras that we oppose. It’s the easy access by law enforcement to allow abuse, stalking and unauthorized surveillance, and the data being collected by these companies of our travel habits to be used for their own purposes. Walid Hakim
Walid Hakim, the Green Party candidate for governor of South Carolina, sent this statement by email in reply to Dispute Index's questions on Flock-style license-plate cameras, from the campaign email address listed on his website. The link goes to his campaign website; the statement itself is not published there. The text is reproduced as sent, without the phone number he gave for clarification.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used this label
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Hakim says his campaign opposes Palantir, Flock and the companies connected to them, but that the objection is not to having a network of cameras. He objects to easy law-enforcement access and to companies' use of travel data. He rejects these vendors while accepting camera networks in principle, so we labeled it Mixed or conditional rather than Condemned. He names no law, contract or ban, so we placed it on the Guardrails step.