Massie unveils Flock-Off Act aimed at restricting surveillance cameras

The Flock-Off Act, as reported by The Hill, is a pointed legislative response to the rapid spread of ALPR and biometric surveillance technology in American communities. Rep. Massie’s bill targets the federal purse strings, rather than attempting a direct ban, which is a strategic move that sidesteps local control debates while pressuring agencies that rely on federal grants. The underlying question is not simply whether cameras are useful—they clearly are for many law enforcement purposes—but whether federal taxpayers should subsidize a surveillance infrastructure that often operates with minimal oversight. Privacy advocates have long warned that ALPR systems collect vast troves of location data on innocent drivers, and biometric tools add another layer of concern by enabling persistent, real-time identification. The Flock-Off Act would not remove existing cameras, nor prevent localities from spending their own money, but it would dry up a major funding stream. That distinction may appeal to lawmakers who are wary of mandating nationwide surveillance policy but are uncomfortable with the federal government actively expanding it. Opponents may counter that license plate readers and biometric cameras have helped recover stolen vehicles, locate missing persons, and identify suspects in violent crimes. From that perspective, restricting federal funds could hamper smaller departments that lack the budget to deploy these tools without Washington’s help. The tension is genuine: how do communities balance the investigative value of surveillance with the privacy cost of constant monitoring? Massie’s bill is unlikely to pass in its current form, but it serves a broader purpose by forcing a conversation about federal complicity in local surveillance expansion. Whether one views the Flock-Off Act as a necessary privacy safeguard or an overcorrection that handicaps law enforcement, it raises a legitimate policy question: should the federal government be in the business of funding the surveillance of Americans at all? The full story can be read at The Hill.