Two Ohio Governor Candidates Back Flock Camera Bans

Two Ohio Governor Candidates Back Flock Camera Bans

A surveillance camera on a pole, depicted in blue hedcut engraving style.
A Flock automated license plate reader camera. Ohio gubernatorial candidates debate surveillance policy.Illustration: The Frank

The News

Two of the three candidates for Ohio governor now back bans on Flock cameras, the AI-powered automated license plate readers that police and businesses use to log vehicles in public and store the data in searchable databases.

Democratic nominee Amy Acton would support bipartisan legislation banning Flock's use across Ohio, her campaign spokeswoman told cleveland.com. Libertarian Don Kissick says he would ban the cameras by executive order at one state agency on day one, then push lawmakers for a statewide public-sector ban.

Republican nominee Vivek Ramaswamy has voiced similar misgivings — warning of a "Chinese-style surveillance state" — but has offered few specifics, and his campaign did not answer questions for the cleveland.com story.

Where Each Candidate Stands

Acton — a former state health director from suburban Columbus — "would support bipartisan legislation banning the use of Flock across Ohio," according to campaign spokeswoman Virginia Schaus, who did not specify how stringent a ban Acton favors. Acton also backs a recent bipartisan legislative request that the Ohio Department of Transportation stop approving new license plate readers along state highways and review existing permits.

Kissick — a TV station control-room operator from Ottawa — said he would immediately issue an executive order barring the Ohio Department of Public Safety from using Flock cameras, then seek a statutory ban on any public-sector entity in the state deploying them. He would not seek a ban on private cameras, citing constitutional concerns, but wants "strict limits" on government access to private camera data, including a warrant requirement. "I am unwaveringly opposed to Flock cameras as well as all other ALPRs entering the market," Kissick said. "The threat to civil liberties these cameras pose goes against every principle on which our society was founded."

Ramaswamy — the Columbus-area entrepreneur — has said the cameras must never be used to spy on people in private spaces, including homes and cars: "That has to be respected as a hard boundary." He has not said what specific rules he would pursue as governor.

Timeline

July 11, 2026

Records cited by critics show Flock systems in Cleveland and Columbus were often used to help federal officials enforce immigration laws; Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther ordered city police to stop statewide sharing of Flock data after an audit, per WOSU reporting linked by cleveland.com.

July 29, 2026

Asked about Flock cameras at the Butler County Fair, Ramaswamy says that if government "is able to and does map out every movement you make ... It's not hard to imagine a Chinese-style surveillance state," warning of an "authoritarian surveillance state."

August 2026

Outgoing Gov. Mike DeWine and Attorney General Andy Wilson publicly back the cameras amid the civil-liberties debate, as do police departments around the state, saying the readers have helped solve serious crimes, recover stolen vehicles and locate missing people.

Early September 2026

A bipartisan group of state lawmakers asks ODOT to halt new license plate reader approvals along state highways and review all existing permits.

Thursday

Republican state Rep. Levi Dean of Xenia announces he will introduce legislation prohibiting government entities from deploying Flock cameras and other "mass surveillance technologies."

Sept. 8, 2026

Cleveland.com publishes the candidates' answers, the tenth installment in its series on where the 2026 governor candidates stand. Axios reports the same day that Hamilton County has joined a growing list of Greater Cincinnati communities rethinking license plate readers.

Reactions

Kissick was the bluntest of the three, calling the cameras a threat "to civil liberties" that "goes against every principle on which our society was founded."

Acton's position has firmed up quickly. As recently as last week she gave reporters a less definitive answer, noting DeWine's praise for the cameras' crime-solving value and promising only "a very comprehensive overview" of public safety and emergency response. "We're working very closely with our law-enforcement officers to use technology in all the right ways to protect Ohioans," she said then.

Ramaswamy has framed it as solvable with police buy-in: "I've had conversations with law enforcement where we're on the same page about that, and we're going to work together to both combat violent crime and do it on terms that respect our rights."

Supporters of the cameras — including DeWine, Wilson and police departments statewide — say the readers solve serious crimes, recover stolen vehicles and find missing people. Activists in Cleveland and several other Ohio cities argue they let police surveil people who aren't suspected of any crime.

What's Next

Lawmakers from both parties are drafting Flock bills — a public-sector deployment ban, a warrant requirement for law-enforcement searches, and a 10-day data-deletion mandate among them. But bills introduced this late in a session that ends in December usually don't pass, meaning critics would have to reintroduce next session.

That puts the decision on Ohio's next governor, who will have the power to sign or veto whatever reaches the desk. Voters choose in November.

Ohio cities, meanwhile, keep weighing the cameras' public-safety benefits against privacy, data-sharing and surveillance concerns — and ODOT has been asked to freeze new highway permits.

More

Flock Safety, based in Atlanta, and similar companies sell the readers to law enforcement agencies, other government entities and private businesses. The cameras capture license plate numbers and other vehicle information in public spaces and feed searchable databases. They have been installed in thousands of communities nationwide in recent years, including dozens in Ohio.

Cleveland.com asked all three campaigns whether the cameras are a net positive or negative, which specific restrictions they support — data auto-deletion, warrant requirements, location limits, or outright bans including for ICE immigration cases and free-speech activity — and which steps a governor could take unilaterally versus by legislation.

Poll

Should Ohio ban government use of Flock license plate cameras?

Yes — ban them outright
0.0%
No — police need the tool
0.0%
Allow them, but only with a warrant
0.0%

Colleges Condemn Students Mocking Kirk Assassination Anniversary

Charleston White Arrested Again on Florida Battery Charge

Border Patrol Rescues MS NOW Crew in Desert

Supreme Court Restores Missouri's Old House Map

Alaska Drops Felony Voter Charges Against Samoans

Trespasser Breaches Harris' Malibu Estate; No Arrest

Hegseth Pressed Downed Airmen Into 60 Minutes

Houthis Seize Mokha, Choking Saudi Oil Exports

Altman Rules Out OpenAI IPO This Year

Jury Acquits Lil Durk in Murder-for-Hire Case

Judge: Trump Broke Law Halving FEMA Staff

Maher Calls Democrats' Gaza Genocide Claim a Lie

Blizzard Revives StarCraft, Sends Diablo to Netflix

Trump's Queens Childhood Home Sells for $1.93M

Scientists Find New Virus in Tick Invading US

Britain Bans Settlement Imports; US States Threaten Payback

Prison Fire Kills 7 as Kurds Protest Killing

Kosovo Rallies for Ex-President Before Hague Verdict

Cruz Booed at GameDay Over College Sports Bill

Blast Hits Bulgarian Arms Plant Supplying Ukraine