What Hoosiers Think: Public Opinion on ALPR Privacy

When Eyes Off Indiana introduced our work to the r/Indiana community, we expected a modest response. Instead, the post drew more than 30,000 views overnight and sparked a detailed discussion about automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), Flock Safety, and the future of privacy in our state.

This was not a scientific poll, but it was a rare window into what engaged Hoosiers think once they understand how ALPR systems actually work. The comments reveal a consistent theme: people are uneasy about mass vehicle tracking and want clear rules, even if they disagree on exactly where to draw the line.

A Viral Reddit Thread as a Window Into Public Opinion

Our original post explained that Indiana has no statewide standards governing how long police can retain or share ALPR data, and outlined three basic safeguards:

  • strict retention limits,
  • no commercial sharing of ALPR data, and
  • transparency and oversight.

From there, the discussion took off. Residents raised concerns about indefinite data storage, third-party vendors, constitutional limits, false positives, and how to balance investigative value with basic privacy rights. What follows are the main themes that emerged.

1. Strong Instinct Against Storing Data on Innocent Drivers

One of the most upvoted comments proposed a simple rule: do not store any data on drivers who are not actively under investigation. In that model, only plate numbers tied to specific cases are uploaded to the system, and cameras keep records only when they detect a match.

The reasoning was straightforward: people who are not suspected of a crime should not have their daily movements logged in a searchable database.

Other commenters accepted that some retention is unavoidable but insisted on tight limits. Suggestions ranged from seven days to a couple of weeks, usually paired with:

  • access only for active investigations, preferably with a court order,
  • strict chain-of-custody logs, and
  • clear rules against broad fishing expeditions that scoop up everyone with a given car color, model, or demographic profile.

Hoosiers may disagree about whether the ideal retention period is zero, seven, or fourteen days, but there is broad agreement that indefinite storage of everyone’s movements is unacceptable.

2. Deep Distrust of Private Vendors and Data Monetization

Another recurring theme was anxiety about private vendors like Flock Safety and their partners. Commenters asked:

  • What actually forces a vendor to permanently delete data when a local contract ends?
  • How easily could ALPR data be fed into larger commercial or intelligence databases?
  • Could location records be monetized in ways residents never agreed to?

Several people with technical backgrounds described modern data pipelines where sensor data flows into large analytic systems that can later be queried for many purposes. Their concern is that once plate and location data leave local control, Hoosiers have no real way to know how long it is kept, where it is copied, or how it is combined with other information.

That perspective lines up directly with one of our core policy goals: no commercial sharing. Data collected for public safety should not become a private asset that is repackaged and sold back to government or other buyers.

3. Debate Over Strategy: Maximal Privacy vs. Incremental Wins

The thread also featured a thoughtful debate about strategy. Some participants argued that, if the constitutional case against long-term tracking is strong, advocates should publicly demand the ideal outcome: no retention of data on innocent drivers and strict limits on location tracking. Starting with a more moderate proposal, they worried, might look like compromising in advance.

Others accepted our explanation that Indiana has already seen serious ALPR reform efforts stall and that beginning with an absolute prohibition would likely fail again. They agreed that establishing any statutory limits is an important first step because it sets the precedent that ALPR data cannot exist outside the law.

Our view, as we explained in the thread, is that:

  • the principle is clear: routine tracking of innocent drivers should not happen,
  • the path to get there in Indiana likely starts with retention limits, access rules, and vendor controls that can pass in the near term, and
  • once the law recognizes that ALPR surveillance needs boundaries, it becomes easier to tighten those boundaries over time and to support future court challenges.

The comments made it clear that Hoosiers care about both principle and practicality, and that they are willing to wrestle with both.

4. Privacy Concerns Cross Party Lines, Even When Trust Is Low

Some comments reflected frustration with the broader political climate, including skepticism that certain ideological groups truly oppose government surveillance in practice. Others criticized specific politicians or parties.

At the same time, people across the spectrum expressed support for limiting ALPRs. Some identified as privacy advocates, others as long-time law enforcement supporters. A number of commenters simply said that this issue feels "bigger than people realize."

Several users also urged us to work with law enforcement officials who share concerns about overreach, vendor control, or mission creep. They understood that if ALPR reform is framed as "privacy versus policing," it will be easier to ignore. If it is framed as "Hoosiers and responsible officers versus unchecked surveillance and opaque contracts," the politics look very different.

The message from the thread is clear: many Hoosiers want this to be a nonpartisan issue that protects everyone, not another proxy battle in national politics.

5. Hoosiers Want Transparency and Meaningful Public Oversight

Several commenters asked how they could use Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) to learn more about ALPR deployments. They suggested filing targeted requests for vendor contracts, retention policies, usage logs, and even scans involving their own vehicles.

We shared our experience: many agencies deny requests for raw ALPR data and system outputs by citing exemptions for investigatory records and security information. Some, however, will release contracts, policies, or aggregate statistics, and that limited transparency already tells residents a lot.

The interest in public records tools shows that Hoosiers do not want to take our word for it or their police department’s word for it. They want:

  • hard numbers about how often ALPRs are used,
  • clear written rules, and
  • the ability to verify whether those rules are being followed.

That perspective directly supports our call for:

  • mandatory public reporting on ALPR use,
  • clear retention and deletion schedules written into law, and
  • local policies that treat vendor-held data as public records subject to democratic oversight.

6. Public Safety Concerns Are Real, and People Want Balance

The thread did not consist only of privacy advocates. Some participants emphasized the investigative value of ALPRs, especially when a crime is reported after the fact and investigators need to reconstruct what happened.

They pointed out that:

  • short-term retention can help identify suspect vehicles or rule out innocent ones,
  • properly controlled ALPR data can exonerate people who are wrongly accused, and
  • clear guidelines and court orders are essential, but so is giving officers tools that work.

These perspectives matter. They reflect a desire not to discard useful technology, but to put guardrails around it so that solving crimes does not come at the cost of permanent mass tracking.

Our policy agenda is built around exactly that balance: strict retention limits, no commercial sharing, and strong transparency, while preserving targeted use for legitimate investigations.

7. Interest in Getting Involved, Even Amid Skepticism

Finally, many Hoosiers asked how they could help. People signed the petition, requested a mailing list, and suggested that we post in other communities that care about digital rights and surveillance.

At the same time, some expressed skepticism that Indiana’s political leadership will listen. That combination of concern and doubt is an important signal. Residents are ready to act, but they are not sure the system will respond unless there is broad, visible pressure.

What This Means for Indiana Lawmakers

Taken together, the Reddit discussion sends a clear message:

  • Hoosiers are uncomfortable with unchecked vehicle surveillance once they understand how ALPR systems work.
  • There is broad support for strict limits on data retention, clear deletion rules, and bans on commercial sharing.
  • Many residents would prefer even stronger safeguards, up to and including no storage of data on innocent drivers.
  • People want transparency, chain-of-custody logs, and real accountability for misuse, not vague assurances.
  • Concern spans party lines and includes people who care about both privacy and effective policing.

Indiana can respond to these concerns by doing what many other states have already done: passing clear, constitutional limits on ALPR data retention, sharing, and oversight.

How Hoosiers Can Help

Until those protections are in place, we will keep listening, gathering stories, and bringing Hoosier voices into every meeting we have with lawmakers.

If you share these concerns, you can add your name to our petition and stay updated on our work at https://eyesoffindiana.org/petition.