\n<\/p>\n
RICHMOND, Va. — <\/span>Wisconsin’s candidates for governor want to limit them, while Pennsylvania’s say they support a ban. A Michigan congressional candidate called them \u201cun-American.\u201d A Florida Senate candidate is selling merch opposing them. <\/p>\n Across the country and up and down ballots, candidates from both parties are increasingly on the attack over Flock cameras, the AI-powered nationwide network of automated cameras<\/a> that record license plates and other characteristics of all passing vehicles, allowing law enforcement agencies to search and share that data. Although police say the cameras are an invaluable crime-fighting tool, some critics say their pervasiveness amounts to unconstitutional warrantless mass surveillance. <\/p>\n The cameras sold by Atlanta-based Flock Safety, which the company has said are running in 6,000 communities in every state but Alaska, have become a new campaign issue that candidates and strategists see as part of a backlash against powerful technology companies, connected to broader debates over the future of artificial intelligence and the associated boom in data center construction<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve seen candidates running on banning them, cutting off funding, or requiring warrants. That\u2019s a credit to activists across the country who have raised concerns about their use,\u201d Michael Soyfer, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm litigating over the technology, said in a statement.<\/p>\n In response to questions about the cameras as a campaign theme, a Flock spokeswoman emphasized the company’s claims about the power of its technology, saying it helped \u201csolve approximately one million crimes and helped reunite roughly 10,000 missing people with their families.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe ask anyone weighing in on this issue to engage with the facts and the record: the crimes solved, the families reunited, the safeguards already in place, and what our technology actually does,\u201d said MoMo Zhou, the company’s vice president of communications. \u201cWe ask them to work with the communities using this technology to decide what rules should govern it and not to spread misinformation or ban a critical public safety tool outright that is helping to make communities safer.\u201d<\/p>\n License plate reader technology is decades old, and Flock was founded in 2017. But the company has faced a growing backlash this year<\/a> \u2014 one that’s crescendoed in recent weeks. It has come as awareness has grown about the sweeping reach of Flock’s network, litigation has unfolded over constitutional questions related to the use of the cameras, and news media have documented cases of officers misusing the technology to stalk personal connections. <\/p>\n James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas, recently declared,<\/a> \u201cFlock cameras have no place in Texas.\u201d His Republican opponent Ken Paxton’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment. <\/p>\n Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Pennsylvania governor seeking reelection and considered a potential contender for the White House in 2028, said this week he would support a statewide ban. His Republican opponent, Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, said in a statement, \u201cFlock cameras are an intrusive invasion of privacy and they should be banned.\u201d<\/p>\n In Wisconsin, the issue dominated the governor’s race this week. <\/p>\n Democratic nominee David Crowley, who is taking hits over<\/a> his past comments in support of making Wisconsin a global AI and data hub, highlighted that he had issued an order limiting the use of Flock cameras in Milwaukee County, where he serves as county executive. He said that as governor he would \u201cimplement strict transparency and accountability laws that ensure Wisconsinites are not spied on.\u201d <\/p>\n His Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, said in a statement that he would pause state funding for Flock cameras and create a task force to establish stronger privacy protections, penalties for misuse, limits on data retention and sharing and \u201csafeguards against Communist China and foreign adversaries.\u201d<\/p>\n