ABSTRACT

The Connecticut Police Officer Standards and Training Council adopted and forwarded to Gov. Ned Lamont on Thursday a 59-page report recommending tighter rules for police use of surveillance technology, including automated license plate readers, fixed camera networks and drones, according to CT Mirror and WSHU. The recommendations include limiting retention of data collected by license plate readers to seven days, compared with the 21-day limit in a state law that takes effect Oct. 1, along with tracking of queries, audits and oversight requirements. Separately, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee chaired by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) held a hearing on Wednesday titled "Always Watching: Flock's Nationwide AI Surveillance Network," which The Hill described as the first congressional hearing on AI-powered surveillance camera manufacturers. Hawley said he had asked Flock Safety's CEO, along with Axon Enterprise, Motorola and Verkada, to testify; The Hill reported none attended.

CT Mirror

Connecticut police standards council recommends tighter surveillance rules as Senate panel examines Flock Safety

Sep 24, 2026, 4:54 PM

Context

According to CT Mirror, the recommendations are advisory and address the Flock Safety license plate-reading cameras that have been challenged in Windsor and Milford, as well as fixed-camera networks and drones that collect images from the air. The report also calls for greater oversight of data access, including two-step logins, usage tracking and periodic audits, plus standards for how many cameras are deployed and the reasons for their locations. WSHU reported the guidelines call for tracking every query to detect abuse, detailed monthly audits and local oversight, and should be fully implemented by December. CT Mirror reported the report only lightly addressed cameras used to enforce red lights and speeding.

Council chair and Milford Police Chief Keith Mello said the recommendations are advisory and do not override state law, and that the report identifies where technology has outpaced regulation. CT Mirror reported that Mello said automated traffic enforcement is already tightly regulated while drones and fixed video networks are not governed by Connecticut law, and that in principle an agency could expand a camera network without limit and keep footage indefinitely.

CT Mirror reported, citing a POST survey, that about three-quarters of Connecticut police departments use fixed license plate-reading cameras, with 1,564 cameras deployed statewide and five communities with at least 51 cameras each. At the federal hearing, The Hill reported witness Alasdair Whitney of the Institute for Justice said one vendor runs more than 120,000 cameras in 49 states and logs 20 billion photographs of vehicles monthly; The Hill also described Flock's network as more than 120,000 cameras nationwide, and said the company records a "vehicle signature" including make, model, color, bumper stickers, decals and accessories.

According to CT Mirror, Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford) and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) were briefed on the recommendations before the meeting, as was the governor. Maroney said the report was thorough and would be the starting point for further regulation. Lamont said in a statement that he requested the report after hearing from residents concerned about privacy.

The Hill reported that witnesses at the Senate hearing included lawyers, a sheriff, a cybersecurity engineer and a driver who was wrongfully accused of a crime as a result of the technology. Hawley said he asked the companies to attend and that their absence was unfortunate, and he raised questions about where images go, who uses them and what privacy protections apply. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking member, said there should be a way to balance privacy and security but that Congress needs to lead the way, and he mentioned Illinois's law prohibiting ALPR data from being used in immigration investigations.

The Hill reported that privacy advocates and lawyers told it last month that leaving the company to regulate itself is not enough, and that Flock maintains the customer owns the data and decides which external agencies or people it can be shared with, with data automatically deleting after a set period, usually a default of 30 days. According to The Hill, the debate is also playing out in courts as many jurisdictions move to cancel contracts with surveillance technology companies.

All Perspectives

Connecticut POST Council (chair Keith Mello): Mello said the recommendations are advisory and do not override state law, and that the report identifies where technology has outpaced regulation and recommends how to close those gaps. He said Connecticut departments use the systems to find missing and endangered people, identify stolen vehicles, locate suspects and build evidence in homicides, sexual assaults, robberies and other violent crimes, that those cases are real and numerous, and that the report does not ask whether the technology works but whether safeguards around it are strong enough to justify the cost to personal privacy. He said automated traffic enforcement is already tightly regulated while drones and fixed video networks are not, and that in principle an agency could expand a camera network without limit and keep footage indefinitely. He also said the council wants to ensure it is not giving out data someone could use to find or track another person, and that the concern police have about such data also applies to private individuals, and perhaps more so (CT Mirror, WSHU).

Sen. James Maroney (D-Milford): Maroney said the report, delivered in response to a request from Lamont in August, was thorough and would be the starting point for how the state should further regulate surveillance. CT Mirror reported he did not disagree with the sentiment that Connecticut's new law is both cutting edge and already in need of revisions, and quoted him saying the state is mostly ahead of the curve in legislation and behind the curve in technology.

Gov. Ned Lamont: In a statement, Lamont said he was grateful for the work Mello and the POST-C team put into the report, and that he asked for it after hearing from residents across the state who raised concerns about privacy related to this technology (CT Mirror).

Eric Weiner, Windsor resident: CT Mirror reported Weiner told the council he began with a strong belief in regulation and that a path could be found to address civil liberties concerns while allowing good technology to move forward, but that his view had completely changed in the prior six months. He said the report made reasonable recommendations but did not address how images and data are stored and protected in the cloud, and asked how a small town like Windsor could keep its data secure if the FBI cannot, citing an FBI personnel records hack he said involved a platform used by Flock. WSHU reported Weiner said he appreciates the new law and the guidelines but that the cameras should be banned, and quoted him saying his gut feeling is that the only way to align with the public is to turn the cameras off.

Paul Melanson, Farmington police chief and POST member: Melanson said an epidemic years ago of thieves stealing cars and catalytic converters from suburban driveways fueled demands that police quickly embrace surveillance technology, but that opinion has changed as the public has grown wary of AI and its ability to amass and synthesize many forms of data. He said Flock cameras have come to symbolize the threats to privacy, described the situation as a pendulum, and said that with proper use and factual information he thinks the technology will move forward in a reasonable way (CT Mirror).

Michael P. Lawlor, former criminal justice adviser to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy: Lawlor said he understands the privacy concerns coming from the political left and right, that he often conflicted with police as a lawmaker on civil liberty issues, and that simply turning off the Flock cameras probably is not a solution to broader concerns about technology and privacy. He said the only rational response is to find reasonable ways to regulate, and that people do not get to vote on the surveillance state because it is already here (CT Mirror).

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.): Hawley, chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, said he had in mind hundreds of thousands of individual cameras linked to the cloud and powered by AI that appear to be spreading across the country, with practically every state having them, and asked where the images go, who uses them and what privacy protections exist. He said that while there are many players in the industry, Flock stands out, and that he had asked the CEO of Flock, along with Axon Enterprise, Motorola and Verkada, to testify and none attended, which he called unfortunate, adding that the panel needs to hear from them about their capabilities, intentions and where this is leading the country. He launched an investigation into Flock over its network of automated license plate readers (The Hill).

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): Durbin, the subcommittee's ranking member, said there should be a way to balance privacy and security, but that Congress needs to lead the way. He mentioned Illinois's law prohibiting ALPR data from being used in immigration investigations and asked the panel whether other states have similar laws (The Hill).

Lindsey Isaacs, witness: Isaacs, a 23-year-old woman from Florida, testified that she spent 13 days in jail after police falsely identified her car using Flock cameras as connected to a fatal crash. She said she could not understand what was happening, was placed in solitary confinement for about three and a half days, was told by correctional officers she could not be housed with other inmates until evaluated because of the severity of her charges, and that she was placed in a blue suicide-prevention dress with broken Velcro on the left side that left her exposed, with the cell door shut and not opened for about 86 hours. She said she shares her story to help lawmakers in Washington understand that surveillance technology does not exist in a vacuum (The Hill).

Chad Marlow, ACLU senior policy counsel: Marlow told the panel he believes state laws restricting Flock's use are a good faith effort to protect vulnerable populations, but that the laws are limited in their value. He said that if the federal government, for example ICE, were to present a judicial warrant or administrative subpoena for the data, it would not matter much what Illinois law said and the data would have to be turned over, and that if agencies participate in a data-sharing database, one officer sympathetic to whoever seeks the data could run a search on someone else's behalf (The Hill).

Alasdair Whitney, Institute for Justice legislative counsel: Whitney said technology may make surveillance more convenient but does not make the Fourth Amendment's protections any less important. He said one vendor alone runs a dense network of more than 120,000 cameras in 49 states and logs 20 billion photographs of vehicles every month, that an officer in California or Florida can access data showing where someone has driven in Missouri or Illinois with a few keystrokes or clicks, and that no federal law governs any of this (The Hill).

Flock Safety: The Hill reported that Flock maintains the customer owns the data and decides which external agencies or people it can be shared with, and that the data automatically deletes after a set period, usually a default of 30 days, which civil liberties groups argue is too long and prompts deeper profiling. The Hill said it reached out to Flock for comment and reported no comment; the company's CEO did not attend the Senate hearing.

Position not represented in the source reporting: Flock Safety (no response to the Senate hearing or to reported misuse cases appears in any source; its CEO did not appear and no comment was reported by The Hill).

Where sources differ

Eric Weiner of Windsor is reported differently by the two Connecticut outlets: CT Mirror reports he told the council the report made reasonable recommendations but did not address how images and data are stored and protected in the cloud, and that he was dubious the technology could be adequately regulated; WSHU reports he told the council that the cameras should be banned and that "the only way you can align with the public is to turn the damn things off."
Data retention figures differ by jurisdiction and level of government: CT Mirror and WSHU report the Connecticut law sets a 21-day limit that the new recommendations would reduce to seven days, while The Hill reports Flock's data automatically deletes after a set period, usually a default of 30 days.
CT Mirror describes Connecticut's new law as both groundbreaking and outdated and reports that Maroney did not disagree that it is cutting edge and already in need of revision; The Hill reports ACLU senior policy counsel Chad Marlow calling state laws to restrict Flock's use "a good faith effort" that is "limited" in value.

Gaps & Unknowns

No source reports a response from Flock Safety to the allegations of misuse of its cameras or to the Senate hearing; The Hill says it reached out for comment without reporting one, and no explanation is given for the absence of Flock's CEO or representatives of Axon Enterprise, Motorola and Verkada from the hearing.
No source establishes whether Connecticut's recommendations will be drafted into legislation, what form that legislation would take, or how Gov. Lamont will act on the report, which the sources describe as advisory.
No source establishes whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other federal agencies use Flock's network; the question was raised by Democratic lawmakers at the hearing without a reported answer from the agency, and ICE is not quoted or given a chance to respond in any source.
The claim that FBI personnel records stored on a platform used by Flock were hacked is attributed only to Eric Weiner and is not verified or detailed in any source.
No source states the date of the Senate hearing or whether it occurred in the same week as the Connecticut council vote; CT Mirror and WSHU place the council action on Thursday and The Hill places the hearing on Wednesday.
No source establishes the status or prospects of federal legislation restricting Flock cameras; The Hill reports that various lawmakers have proposed bills but that time is running out on the legislative calendar.
No source reports the outcome of the legal challenges or contract cancellations it mentions, beyond stating that challenges exist in Windsor and Milford and that many jurisdictions are moving to cancel contracts.
No source specifies how many Connecticut communities use drones or fixed video networks, or the volume of data held by the cloud platforms the report does not address.

Sources & Further Reading

CT Mirror — original — by Mark Pazniokas
WSHU — by Ebong Udoma
The Hill — by Miranda Nazzaro

Read the original at CT Mirror

Related Coverage