Privacy is increasingly threatened by the rise of powerful new technologies, yet Virginia lawmakers seemed to have chosen to sidestep this issue in a bill that took effect at the beginning of July. Law enforcement agencies in the state have, for years, been using AI-powered cameras to enforce offences like traffic violations and warrant arrests. Up until recently, they were also used for immigration enforcement. This new bill attempts to restrict the use of such cameras to crimes like kidnapping, outstanding warrants or stolen cars, but ultimately, it does not do enough to halt threats to privacy.
It is naive to believe that this law will prevent an increasingly aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency from accessing AI-powered cameras. Once a precedent of federal control is established, it is delusional to believe that the cameras’ use will stop at immigration enforcement. Virginia needs to change course immediately and block the use of any of these cameras in the state, before invasions of privacy become too institutionalized to remove.
These Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras, which record license plates along with the date, time, and location of every vehicle that passes to help track criminal activity, are operated by Flock Safety, based in Atlanta. Each Virginia county has access to their own data and can request log searches into other jurisdictions’ data, called “audits.” Such audits are common in cases where, for example, a vehicle tied to a crime in one county is suspected of crossing into another jurisdiction, as the cameras are widespread across the state. Additionally, county agencies can still share their data with federal agencies like ICE if they choose, as the new law does not prevent such access.
Usage of the cameras prior to the new law was defined by a high degree of cooperation with federal authorities. Virginia has one of the highest number of counties fully cooperating with ICE in their increasingly frequent raids, but even counties that are not listed on ICE’s website as fully-cooperative are still combed by the federal agency. There have been many immigration-related audits since the ALPR’s implementation, indicating that ICE has had extensive access to Flock’s system for some time. While this law does work to restrict the camera use, the data is still very loosely regulated, leaving it exposed to outside interference.
Data regulation may sound mundane, but federal agencies’ access to state law enforcement data blurs the line between national and state law enforcement and has consequences that transcend immigration enforcement. It is something that President Donald Trump has championed in his campaign against sanctuary cities, yet remains detestable. Federal agencies gaining access to state law enforcement data may help them be more effective, but it takes autonomy away from the states in how they enforce their own laws. Local agencies have long held the right to work with or refuse the federal government in their deportation efforts, and lax data policies put this separation at risk. This is a dangerous precedent to set, yet it is one that seems to be tested more and more frequently.
Despite the new law restricting ALPR use, this method of vicariously and pragmatically leveraging local Virginia counties’ data is beneficial for federal agencies and thus there exists little incentive for this practice to stop. The technology and use of localities means less work and less manpower needed from ICE, a benefit that may prove invaluable as raids and deportations become more frequent. The Trump administration has proved itself more than willing to bend laws to suit its needs, or rather to rely on a majority-conservative court system to protect it from legal issues.
The Virginia Law, which limits ALPR use to specific criminal investigations such as kidnapping, stolen vehicles, and outstanding warrants, does little to prevent federal access. Not only is the law likely to get tossed aside by ICE, but even though it is a Virginian law, it is rather simple to circumnavigate using legal procedure. Say the government sued or subpoenaed Flock Safety and forced the company to hand over all data. Suddenly, federal authorities no longer have to rely on local cooperation. There is no true safeguard for federal overreach.
Often justified as a tool to catch criminals, the Department of Homeland Security has bragged Virginia is cracking down on the “worst of the worst” — illegal immigrants who commit crimes, an insignificant number. While the arrest of these individuals is understandable, the argument falls apart quickly when extrapolated to an entire population. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where, once ALPRs are fully integrated into law enforcement systems, all license plates are being scanned at traffic lights — not just those associated with criminals. Once license plates are scanned, how long until our faces are documented? Where does this data go? How likely is it to end up in the wrong hands? These concerns have been echoed for years against governmental invasions of privacy, yet they seem incredibly tangible now.
This is the problem with federal overreach in the subject of privacy. One struggles to imagine a powerful law enforcement agency holding the Eye of God in its hands and refusing any further use once administrations change. It is Gollum and the Ring — so easily put on, yet so difficult to take off. The only way to truly prevent all Virginians from becoming data points tracked mercilessly by the government is to stop the proliferation of AI-powered cameras in our state. There is an ALPR sitting outside of Boylan Heights — and ICE agents do not make for good supper company.
Paul Kurtzweil is a senior opinion columnist who writes about economics, business and housing for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.
Read More
GERBER: Gaslighting for DEI — community DEI proponents must stop ignoring the law
By Scott Douglas Gerber | 3 days agoAdditionally, the 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals that proponents of DEI should stop pretending they are complying with the law.
SHRAUGER: Protect City Council funding for Central Virginia Violence Interrupters
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoEntrusting people with a criminal background to facilitate nonviolent intervention and providing in-depth training in crime prevention is possibly the best alternative to police funding or further, more costly initiatives.
WASSERMAN: The Cavalier Daily got it wrong on UVa.’s discrimination cases
By Barbara Wasserman | 4 days agoThat framing is not just misleading — it obscures the real failures of University leadership and the courage of the students who stood up to them.
