State Level Resistance To Surveillance Is Growing

0:00U.S. state-level resistance to surveillance is increasing. I'm Nick Espinosa, your chief security fanatic, and Lutz Daivin. Now, the danger of a growing surveillance state is that it changes the relationship between the citizen and the government. When cameras, license plate readers, spatial recognition, and other tracking systems become cheap, networked, and searchable, the state no longer just watches a suspect after suspicion exists. It can watch everybody first, and then decide later who looks suspicious. That is a profound shift in power, and it is exactly why more lawmakers are starting to push for warrants, tighter retention limits, access logs, audit trails, bands on data sharing, and restriction tools on platforms like flock cameras before mass surveillance becomes the default. And we have seen a rise, essentially, in surveillance.

1:02I like to say that cybersecurity is agnostic to politics, but we're not immune from it. This is a human thing. This isn't a political thing. And that humans have a right to privacy. In the United States, humans have a constitutional right to privacy that seems to be challenged because technology moves faster than legislation can follow. Recently, basically, there was reporting that found that at least 16 states have introduced automatic license plate readers, or ALPR, regulation bills in 2025. And while only a few have actually basically enacted them in the law by October of last year, a new 2026 wave has basically started. So there is basically a good sign in this, and that states are starting to really take their citizens privacy into account against the growing use of cameras and more. So I did some homework. I went digging and here are the states where I found state level bills or laws in the last year, from about March of last year to basically March of this year, essentially aimed at restricting, regulating auditing, limiting sharing, or otherwise just pushing back on the flock style surveillance or related surveillance tech.

2:19And so these are in alphabetical order, and I did my homework, feel free to look all of these up, but we'll start with Arizona because they have SB 1111, and that would regulate automatic license plate readers, including access, retention, and privacy limits. As of early March 2026, it's still moving through the legislature, amid a debate over how strong these restrictions should be. On top of it, Arkansas introduced SB 446, and that became law in April of last year, and then amended the state's automatic license plate readers system act, including rules for use by private land owners, private lease holders, and also commercial businesses as well. California has AB 1355 that would create the California Location Privacy Act covering location information captured by ALPR systems and SB 274, which would tighten ALPR privacy auditing and access law requirements as well. Colorado has SB 26-071, the Safe Act, and that's a broader surveillance tech bill in general to actually restrict law enforcement use of surveillance technology and specifically limit uses of traffic cameras and automatic license plate readers to defined public safety purposes.

3:36In other words, it's incredibly narrow in scope, and it's very heavily regulated in that state. Connecticut has SB 5449, which was introduced in March 5th of this year, 2026, specifically to quote, regulate the use of automated license plate reader systems and safeguard data derived from such systems. Idaho has basically S-1180 pass in 2025 that took effect on July 1st of last year, establishing statewide rules on how government agencies may use ALPRs, including access logging, training, and also semi-annual audits. Illinois has SB 3816 and HB 5151. Both of these were introduced in February of this year and would create an automatic license plate recognition systems act with authorized use limits, data retention rules, prohibited uses, reporting penalties, and private right of action. Iowa has HF 2556, which was introduced in February of this year, as a bill, quote, relating to the use of automatic registration plate readers and quote, with penalties and an effective date.

4:43Kentucky has SB 58, which would restrict ALPR use, limit retention, regulate sharing, and sale of captured plate data, and also require public written policies, HB 375 and Kentucky goes even further and would prohibit ALPR deployment altogether. In Michigan, we have HB 5493 and HB 5492. These were both introduced in January of this year to regulate ALPR use by government entities and private entities respectively. Minnesota has HF 3856 that was introduced in late February of this year, that would prohibit government entities from using automatic license plate readers and regulate private sector use as well. Missouri has HB 658 in 2025 and SB 107 in 2026 and both sought to prohibit state agencies from political subdivisions, basic political subdivisions from using ALPR systems on public highways with very narrow exceptions.

5:46New Jersey has AB 5907 in 2025. This would restrict interstate sharing of ALPR data for out of state reproductive health investigations and A.2594 in 2026 would impose additional requirements on law enforcement use of ALPR. This is also in New Mexico SB 40, the 2026 driver privacy and safety act, which would limit the sharing of ALPR information and ban its use for immigration enforcement and other protected activities. New York has AB 563, which requires minimum standards for non-government ALPR users, while AB 8779 and SB 77713 would block ALPR data sharing for out of state enforcement actions targeting lawful health care. Rhode Island has SB 1013 in 2025, that would create a new ALPR chapter with public hearing approval requirements, use restrictions, public logging and limits on what agencies can photograph or track.

6:51South Carolina has H 4675 introduced in January of this year is one of the strongest anti-surveillance proposals that I could find across all 50 states. It would bar third party storage of surveillance data, prohibit AI vehicle feature tracking beyond plates, impose a 21 day retention limit, require warns for access and mandate public transparency reports. Good for you, South Carolina. In Vermont, we have H 50 in 2025, that would stop the repeal of Vermont's existing ALPR regulation laws effectively preserving guardrails on retention and use. There was a push in Vermont to basically get rid of these rules, Vermont legislatures fought back. In Virginia, we have H B 2724 passed in 2025 and updated Virginia's ALPR law, including annual reporting requirements for law enforcement. Agencies Virginia also has H B 2725 addressing surveillance technology reporting more broadly as well. Washington state has SB 6002.

7:56This is the driver privacy act. It's a major 2026 Washington state bill. It would create the state's first statewide ALPR rules, including retention limits, access restrictions and use restrictions for flock style systems as of March 5th of this year. It has passed the House and is awaiting final Senate concurrence before going to the governor where it is expected to be signed into law. Wisconsin has AB 883 introduced in January of this year, which would largely ban automatic registration plate readers with narrow exceptions such as parking, access control and way station slash commercial vehicle compliance. Wyoming, the last one on this particular list, has H B 181 in 2026 would require a warrant before law enforcement uses an ALPR system in most cases and sets other restrictions around investigative use. So that's the new wave of legislation that we are seeing. But there are states where I could not locate a qualifying state level bill or a new law in the last year or so.

9:01And basically on this topic after my research, I could not find any laws, basically regarding automatic license plate readers, flock style cameras, all of that. And those states are Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. Those states have no protections for their citizens. However, we are not gone through all 50 states because there are some states with older laws that may not necessarily be adequate enough and I'll talk about that in a second given the quick growth of flock and flock style camera surveillance system. We have seen an absolute explosion of this in the United States and those older states are those states with older laws are Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. And so it's important to note that across the United States, the earliest ALPR laws from those states that I just mentioned were not bands. They were more considered guard rail laws that typically implemented three different types of protection.

10:11One was retention limits, such as 21 day retention, 90 day retention, things like that. The other restriction was law enforcement only use restrictions, meaning law enforcement were the only ones that would gain access to this. And also they wrapped confidentiality around the captured data to what level depends on the state. And more recent legislation is also shifting towards stronger restrictions, including warrants for searches, as I mentioned in some of these states, bands on interstate data sharing that includes the federal government, it's not just for reproductive health rights. It is also for immigration enforcement and for some other things, we're also seeing restrictions on private ALPR networks. So if you're a large corporation, for example, wanting to deploy these, let's say on behalf of the municipality, there are restrictions on that now as well. There's also transporting transparency reporting requirements and more. And so essentially what we are seeing right now, it is not a fringe concern. This is not a left or right issue here. It's not just that across red states, blue states, purple states, lawmakers are starting to realize that once a government and private surveillance networks are fused together, the practical ability to track people's movements, their associations, their medical choices, their protests,

11:33and their daily lives, simply becomes enormous. And the emerging trend is clear, more states are demanding warrants, shorter retention, tighter data sharing rules, and actual real transparency because the public is waking up to the fact that if surveillance systems are left unchecked at the state and local level, they become the building blocks of a much larger surveillance architecture that can be used at a state or federal level. And that is something that the U.S. Constitution and the people cannot cannot let happen. And please like, share, follow me here on Facebook and Twitter at NickAESP. And please subscribe to me at YouTube as well. And as always, stay safe, stay online. And please, please, please, I have a private informed and secure. Take care.