Protect our Privacy
I oppose a surveillance state, regardless of who owns the cameras. I understand that surveillance technology is already part of everyday life, and I recognize that law enforcement has legitimate reasons to use technology to investigate crime. But there must be limits.
Public Safety. Private Lives.
Photo: www.flocksafety.com
Flock Cameras
Surveillance Needs Safeguards
Photo: www.flocksafety.com
If elected, I will sponsor and support legislation establishing strong protections around the use and maintenance of mass-surveillance systems like Flock. Law enforcement should not have unlimited access to databases that can track where people travel, who they meet, or how they move through their communities.
The use of data collected by these systems must be limited to legitimate law-enforcement purposes and subject to meaningful Fourth Amendment protections. Access should be fully auditable, with clear records of who accessed information, when they accessed it, and why. Searches involving specific individuals should require reasonable suspicion, and system-wide searches intended to track a particular person should require probable cause and a warrant, except in genuine exigent circumstances.
Most importantly, surveillance data should not be kept indefinitely. Data should be automatically deleted after a defined period, and misuse should carry real consequences—including criminal penalties and civil liability. Public safety and individual privacy do not have to be mutually exclusive. We can give law enforcement the tools they need while still protecting the constitutional rights of the people they serve.
"Public safety shouldn’t mean permanent surveillance."