Hawley Seeks Ten-Day Limit on Driver Data in AI Camera Safeguards Bill
The proposed Stop Flock Abuse Act would require written search approvals and regular audits. Hawley’s announcement describes planned legislation, not rules already in force.
Loading page…
The proposed Stop Flock Abuse Act would require written search approvals and regular audits. Hawley’s announcement describes planned legislation, not rules already in force.
Listen to this story
The Stop Flock Abuse Act would require written authorization and audit trails for searches of AI-powered license-plate camera networks, alongside limits on how their data is handled. Sen. Josh Hawley said on September 30, 2026, that he plans to introduce the measure; it has not been confirmed as introduced or enacted. If advanced, it would establish federal rules for systems now used by local agencies, including restrictions on facial recognition and foreign-sourced technology.
Agencies would log who searched, why, who approved the search and what information was viewed, with supervisors auditing records regularly.
Driver data would have to be permanently deleted after ten days, except for narrow active-investigation exemptions.
Local governments could not sell vehicle-location data or share it with non-governmental third parties; the proposal does not describe a blanket ban on interagency sharing.
Sen. Josh Hawley is seeking federal safeguards for AI-powered license-plate cameras, including a ten-day limit on keeping driver data. On September 30, 2026, the Missouri Republican said he would introduce the Stop Flock Abuse Act. That announcement sets out proposed restrictions on surveillance networks—not a law already protecting drivers or confirmation that the bill has been introduced.
The proposal follows Hawley’s investigation into AI-powered surveillance cameras and a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism hearing he chaired. His office said Flock Safety’s CEO declined to testify, but the company provided written answers. According to Hawley’s office, Flock agreed that Congress should create a federal framework and acknowledged adding some product guardrails after public scrutiny.
The search rules would place oversight both before and after someone accesses the network. A written approval process would record every search authorization. Agencies would also maintain logs showing who searched, the reason for the search, who approved it and what information the user viewed.
Supervisors would regularly audit those records. Hawley’s announcement identifies repeated searches of the same person and suspicious justifications as warning signs to monitor. The proposed oversight therefore covers more than recording that a search happened: it would preserve the stated purpose, the authorization and the information accessed for later review.
The data-sharing restriction would apply to local governments that collect vehicle-location information. They could neither sell it nor share it with non-governmental third parties. Hawley’s office describes this provision as protecting driver records from third-party vendors and disclosure through Freedom of Information Act requests.
That restriction is specifically described in terms of non-governmental recipients; it is not presented as a blanket ban on sharing between government agencies. Separate provisions address how records are secured and which technologies can be used in automatic license-plate reader networks, known as ALPR networks:
Loading discussion...
Join the conversation
Explain how you weigh privacy against keeping records for possible future investigations.
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.