Representative Ken Massie of Northern Kentucky is leading a bipartisan effort in the U.S. House to curb the expansion of surveillance technology that he says threatens the privacy of law‑abiding citizens. The legislation, dubbed the Flock‑Off Act, would bar any federal grant or program funding from being used to purchase, install, operate, upgrade, or otherwise support automated license‑plate readers and biometric surveillance cameras.
Key provisions of the bill
The bill outlines several specific prohibitions:
- Federal dollars may not be used for the acquisition or upgrade of covered camera systems.
- State and local agencies that currently operate such systems would be required to cease use within 180 days of the law’s enactment.
- Any federal program funds already awarded to recipients would be withheld until any violations are repaid to the United States Treasury.
- The legislation also blocks federal spending on contracts, subscriptions, cloud services, databases, or data‑sharing arrangements tied to the prohibited camera systems.
Massie emphasized that taxpayers should not be forced to fund a surveillance state. “The federal government shouldn’t provide ‘security’ grants to cities and police departments that have gone beyond the pale and turned their communities into a version of 1984,” he said.
Local momentum against Flock cameras
The proposal arrives as several Northern Kentucky municipalities are already moving away from the controversial technology. Fort Thomas announced plans to end its Flock camera program, joining Newport, Independence, Fort Mitchell and Erlanger, all of which have either terminated or are phasing out the systems.
Co‑sponsor Congressman Eric Burlison framed the effort as a defense of constitutional rights. “Technology may change, but our constitutional rights do not,” he said. “The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches, and advances in surveillance technology should not come at the expense of our privacy and liberty.”
Why the bill matters for Kentucky and the nation
While the legislation targets federal funding, its impact could ripple through state and local budgets. Many jurisdictions rely on federal grants to offset the cost of high‑tech policing tools. By removing that financial support, the bill aims to force local officials to reconsider the balance between public safety and individual liberty.
Supporters argue that the measure aligns with the Constitution’s guarantee of privacy and with the broader conservative principle of limited government intrusion. Critics, however, warn that eliminating funding could hamper law‑enforcement agencies’ ability to solve crimes quickly, especially in areas where license‑plate readers have proven useful in tracking stolen vehicles and apprehending suspects.
Next steps
The Flock‑Off Act will now be referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform for further consideration. If it advances, it could face a vote in the full House before the end of the current session. Kentucky residents and local officials are watching closely, as the outcome may set a precedent for how federal resources are used to support—or restrict—surveillance technology across the country.
Regardless of the bill’s ultimate fate, the debate underscores a growing national conversation about the balance between security and liberty, a conversation that resonates deeply with families, faith communities, and citizens who value the Constitution’s protections.
Original reporting: WLWT Cincinnati — read the source article.
