Evolving Privacy Challenges in the Age of Advanced Surveillance Technology

In 1989, the actress Rebecca Schaeffer was tragically killed by a stalker who acquired her home address through California’s motor-vehicle records. This case highlighted the serious risks to privacy and safety posed by the widespread availability of personal information managed by state motor-vehicle departments. In response, Congress enacted the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act in 1994. The aim was clear: possession of personal data by the government should not translate to unrestricted disclosure, sale, or distribution of that information.

The legislation primarily restricts how personal data in state motor-vehicle records can be disclosed or resold. It does allow exceptions for certain legitimate uses like law enforcement and public safety. Interestingly, the law addressed a technological issue at the time, as technological advancements had made state motor-vehicle records more accessible, outpacing existing legal frameworks.

Fast forward over three decades, and technology has advanced yet again. Companies like Flock Safety now independently collect license-plate information without the need for state motor-vehicle databases. Flock’s policies indicate that their system gathers license-plate images, vehicle details, dates, times, and camera locations. This means that their operations do not rely on DMV records.

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act regulates personal data in state motor-vehicle records, not every piece of vehicle information that private companies can gather from public roads. This situation raises important questions: What happens when technology enables private companies to generate information for identification and tracking without obtaining government records?

Imagine driving past an automated camera that records your license plate, the time, and location of passage. A single observation may seem trivial. However, repeated observations can create a detailed record of a vehicle’s movements, although no DMV record was shared.

There is value in automated license-plate readers. They assist law enforcement in locating stolen vehicles, investigating crimes, and addressing public-safety threats. These are valid government interests, and privacy protections should not hinder police work. However, public safety should not justify unchecked surveillance.

The pressing questions concern what happens after a vehicle’s data is recorded. How long is the information stored? Who has access to it? Who can it be shared with? Can data collected for one purpose be used for another?

Flock Safety has acted to address some concerns. On August 13, the company announced it was reducing its default retention period for license-plate-reader data from 30 days to seven days. They also introduced new safeguards including required misuse detection and accountability measures for users. This change is significant. Seven days is much less than 30, and Flock states that data is automatically deleted on a rolling schedule.

However, seven days is only a recommended default, not a strict limit. Retention periods may vary depending on a user’s contract and local laws. This underscores the importance of framing this issue not as a choice between public safety and privacy, but as an acknowledgment of the difference between observing a vehicle on a public road and having a searchable database of such observations.

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act never declared an absolute right to anonymity on public roads in the U.S. It recognized the risks associated with the unregulated collection, distribution, and use of identifying information. Today, technology offers another avenue to gather information about our movements without needing government records.

This does not mean we should ban automated license-plate readers. It indicates that privacy laws must consider current technologies rather than those from 1994. Americans deserve to have both public safety and personal privacy through reasonable regulations. It’s time for privacy laws to evolve with the technology we have in 2026.

Shaun M. Simmons is a security professional with over 20 years of experience in public safety and the private, state, and federal security sectors. He is currently an independent security contractor and grassroots political organizer in Canyon County, Idaho. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.