Representatives from Flock Safety faced intense scrutiny from Long Island lawmakers last week over the company’s network of AI-powered license plate readers, which critics say amounts to intrusive surveillance of innocent drivers. The questions came during a public safety meeting held last Thursday by Suffolk County legislators, where concerns were raised across party lines about privacy and constitutional rights.

Flock Safety’s senior director of public affairs, Trevor Chandler, defended the technology by citing that “99% of courts” have upheld the use of the company’s cameras as constitutional. However, some lawmakers strongly challenged that assertion. Republican legislator Anthony Piccirillo, who presided over the meeting, referenced historical court decisions, stating, “99% of courts upheld Jim Crow laws for 56 years,” to emphasize that judicial approval does not guarantee constitutional propriety.

The debate also highlighted a recent ruling from a federal judge in Oklahoma, who determined that a warrantless search utilizing Flock Safety’s system constituted “indiscriminate mass surveillance” and violated the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. This case has become a focal point for those concerned about law enforcement’s indiscriminate use of automated plate-reader data without judicial oversight.

Lawmakers questioned the scope and scale of Flock Safety’s technology, which employs artificial intelligence to scan and log the movements of vehicles across communities. Critics warned that the widespread deployment of such systems could result in broad data collection on law-abiding citizens, eroding privacy and civil liberties.

While Flock Safety maintains that its tools are intended to aid law enforcement in solving crimes efficiently, opponents worry about the potential for abuse and the lack of clear safeguards to protect individual rights. The Suffolk County meeting underscored the growing tensions between public safety initiatives and privacy concerns amid the expanding use of surveillance technologies.

The discussion remains ongoing as jurisdictions across the United States continue grappling with the balance between leveraging new security technologies and upholding constitutional protections in the digital age.