The race for Ohio Attorney General has become a central battleground over technological surveillance and public privacy, as the major-party candidates present contrasting visions for regulating automated license plate readers. With the rapid expansion of private surveillance networks across the state and the country, the debate centers on how Ohio should balance legitimate policing tools against the protection of constitutional rights.
At the heart of the issue is Flock Safety, a private technology company whose automated license plate recognition cameras have been installed in more than 6,000 communities spanning 49 states. These devices, which are typically affixed to elevated poles and powered by integrated solar panels, operate in partnership with thousands of law enforcement departments nationwide to track vehicular movement and identify suspect vehicles.
While police departments value the cameras as an efficient mechanism for tracking suspects and solving criminal cases, the technology has triggered widespread public resistance. Growing apprehension over pervasive government surveillance has intensified following investigative news reports that documented troubling instances of police officers misusing the Flock database for unauthorized purposes.
The mounting scrutiny has already prompted bipartisan pushback within the Ohio Statehouse. A bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers has formally urged the state’s transportation agency to revoke permits that allow Flock cameras to operate along public roadways, signaling deep unease with how the surveillance network has been deployed across the state.
Among the most vocal critics in the legislature is state Rep. Levi Dean, a Republican from Xenia, who has expressed strong skepticism regarding the automated camera network. Dean is preparing legislation that would prohibit government entities from installing the cameras or querying the license plate database unless they first secure a search warrant.
In response to the escalating debate, Republican attorney general candidate Keith Faber has introduced a policy proposal designed to preserve the cameras for law enforcement while penalizing unauthorized use. Faber contends that the state should not abandon a valuable investigative asset, but rather establish severe consequences for individuals who exploit the system.
Under Faber’s proposal, state lawmakers would amend Ohio law to classify the improper use or abuse of the Flock database as a felony. Faber noted that the state already treats the misuse of Ohio’s central law enforcement database, the Law Enforcement Automated Data System, known as LEADS, as a felony offense, and argues that private surveillance data warrants the exact same statutory safeguards.
Faber emphasized that automated license plate readers play an essential role in recovering stolen automobiles, locating missing children, and apprehending dangerous fugitives. However, he maintained that when the technology is used to infringe upon the constitutional protections of law-abiding citizens, it crosses the line into criminal misconduct.
The Republican nominee stressed that strict accountability must apply universally across the justice system, asserting that any individual who violates privacy rights or misuses the database should face felony charges regardless of whether they wear a police badge. Faber expressed optimism that state legislators would welcome an attorney general request to create a firm legal framework to deter illicit spying on Ohio residents.
Democratic nominee John Kulewicz, however, argued that Faber’s plan fails to provide adequate safeguards against the broader risks posed by corporate surveillance networks. Kulewicz contends that merely penalizing individual instances of database abuse leaves fundamental privacy vulnerabilities completely unaddressed.
Instead of narrow criminal penalties, Kulewicz has urged the Ohio General Assembly to enact comprehensive, wide-ranging data privacy legislation. His proposal focuses on placing strict statutory boundaries on the types and quantities of personal information that private technology vendors are permitted to gather from the public.
A central point of concern for Kulewicz is Flock Safety's status as a private, for-profit enterprise. Because the vehicular tracking data is maintained by an external corporation rather than a government agency, Kulewicz warned that sensitive location information could eventually be transferred to third-party entities without adequate oversight.
Kulewicz also highlighted that vehicular monitoring is only one segment of an increasingly pervasive surveillance landscape. He noted that members of the public are continuously tracked through their broader digital footprints, creating vast repositories of personal details that are vulnerable to exploitation.
To counter these risks, Kulewicz advocates for legislative measures that would not only restrict data collection but also prohibit the misuse of aggregated personal information, with particular emphasis on preventing unauthorized analysis by modern algorithmic systems and automated decision-making platforms.
As the November election approaches, the competing proposals from Faber and Kulewicz present Ohio voters with distinctly different philosophies on governing modern surveillance technology. The outcome of the race will likely influence how state lawmakers and law enforcement agencies navigate the complex intersection of public safety, emerging private technology, and constitutional privacy rights.
(0)