Summary#
The Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act would create a new federal law; it does not amend an existing Act. Its stated goal is to prohibit government use of automated mass surveillance systems and related components.
- Federal agencies could not acquire, possess, access, solicit, or use these systems or information derived from them in the United States.
- Federal funds could not be used by federal agencies, states, or local governments to buy, deploy, install, maintain, access, lease, or operate these systems.
- Government bodies using federal funds for a system would have to remove it, or order a lessee to remove it, within 30 days after enactment.
- Government bodies and officials possessing data prohibited by the bill would have to permanently delete it within 7 days after enactment. Data obtained in violation of the bill could not be admitted as evidence in court or administrative proceedings.
- States and local governments seeking Byrne or COPS grant funding would have to certify that they and law enforcement agencies receiving funds do not maintain, access, lease, or operate these systems or related information.
The bill defines these systems broadly as automated technology that collects or processes information about an “indefinite or large number” of people. It specifically names automatic license plate readers, biometric surveillance systems, and facial recognition technology. The bill was introduced and referred to House committees; it is not law, and passage is uncertain.
What it means for you#
- Federal agencies: They would be barred from using the systems or information derived from them in the United States, even if no federal funds paid for them.
- State and local governments: The bill does not expressly ban all use paid for with their own funds. But federal funds could not support such use, and systems bought or operated with federal funds would have to be removed.
- States and local governments applying for Byrne or COPS grants: They would have to provide the specified certification to qualify. The bill does not set out a process for checking the certification.
- People whose data is collected: The bill would require deletion of data it prohibits and bar evidence obtained in violation of the bill. It does not create a general individual complaint process or specify a personal right to sue.
- Private companies: The text does not directly prohibit private use of these systems. It would restrict government funding and government use.
Money#
No publicly available information gives an estimated cost.
- The bill requires removal and data deletion but provides no estimate for the work or staffing needed.
- States and local governments could lose eligibility for Byrne or COPS grants if they do not provide the required certification.
- The bill does not provide a new appropriation or state how much grant funding could be affected.
What is unclear#
- “Indefinite or large number” is not defined, so the reach of the system ban is uncertain.
- The bill does not explain how governments should determine which systems or data are covered, or how removal and deletion would be verified.
- It is unclear how the data-deletion duty applies to state and local governments when they use their own funds. The bill ties deletion to data prohibited under other parts, whose rules differ by type of government.
- The grant section says eligibility depends on providing a certification described in subsection “(b),” but subsection (b) contains no certification. The certification itself appears in subsection (f)(1).
- The bill does not state a separate start date for its prohibitions or explain how they would apply to existing contracts, apart from the 30-day removal and 7-day deletion deadlines.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it would sharply limit government collection and use of information about large numbers of people, including location-related information from license plate readers.
- A single federal rule could limit federal agencies’ use directly and use federal funding and grants to discourage state and local government use.
- Requiring deletion and barring unlawfully obtained data from evidence could reduce the continued use of information gathered in violation of the bill.
Case against#
- The broad, undefined wording could make it hard for governments to know which technologies and data are covered.
- The short removal and deletion deadlines could be difficult to meet, especially where systems or data are part of contracts or shared services.
- The grant certification could affect funding for states or local governments, while the bill does not explain how compliance would be checked or how the apparent cross-reference error should be handled.