by Mass Surveillance System in Little Rock
Little Rock, Arkansas, with a population of about 205,000, may not seem like a modern metropolis, yet the local police actively use advanced surveillance technologies. 116 automatic license plate reader cameras are installed throughout the city. This means that practically everyone who drives through the city ends up in the police database.
The information collected by these cameras is significantly broader than just a vehicle’s license plate number. Various agencies can access it, raising serious questions about citizens’ privacy.
What exactly do the cameras record?
According to data obtained through a freedom of information request, the Little Rock police operate 116 stationary cameras. Each scan records not only the license plate but also the exact date, time, location, make, model, and color of the vehicle, and sometimes distinctive features such as bumper stickers or body damage. This creates a detailed history of every vehicle’s movements.
Your bumper sticker, a dent on the door, or a crack in the window can identify your car.
Journalists, using the obtained documents, were able to map the locations of all known cameras. The police confirmed that three cameras marked as “to be installed” are not yet operational.
Who has access to the data?
The police claim this technology helps them find stolen cars and locate suspects more efficiently. However, critics argue the system is a tool for mass data collection without a court warrant. Although Arkansas laws require government agencies to delete captured data after 150 days, equipment manufacturers are not obligated to follow this rule, and the information does not remain solely at the local level.
Documents show that the Little Rock police provide access to their database to law enforcement agencies across the country. Federal agencies such as ICE and the Border Patrol can also obtain information through local departments.
System usage and residents’ reaction
From March 2022 to December 2025, police officers performed over 66,000 search queries in the database, often without any court order. Many queries were related to investigating specific crimes, but others had vague formulations like “investigation” or “suspicious behavior.”
Little Rock residents have mixed feelings about this system. Some openly criticize the police for creating a society of total surveillance. Others, on the contrary, believe they have nothing to hide, so the surveillance does not bother them. However, such a position would only be justified if the technology were used absolutely lawfully and correctly, which in reality is far from the case.
Security issues and real risks
No matter how securely the system is protected, there are no guarantees that the collected data will be used exclusively for lawful purposes. There are already numerous examples of law enforcement officers misusing similar systems. Even when actions are formally legal, innocent people sometimes suffer from mistaken identity.
The situation is complicated by the vulnerability of the technology itself. There have been cases where the software was hacked, and sometimes cameras lacked proper security, allowing anyone to view live video feeds. One researcher demonstrated that he was able to access new cameras, view archives, and, by combining this data with publicly available information, identify people in the frame, their place of residence, and other details.
If he could do it, imagine what people with criminal intent are capable of.
In other states, such as Washington, there is more transparency regarding the use of such cameras, and the police are required to provide all data, including images and video, to anyone who requests it. After such a court decision, the local police turned off the cameras entirely. Arkansas legislation does not provide for a similar level of transparency.
The system’s future: contract extended
Despite obvious problems and risks, in October 2025, the Little Rock City Council voted to extend the contract with the manufacturer company for another two years, allocating $690,000 for it. A proposal to adopt an ordinance requiring annual reports on the use of surveillance technologies to increase transparency failed in December. The city leadership considered additional oversight unnecessary. For now, the cameras continue to operate, inconspicuously recording the movements of everyone on the road.
The practice of mass collection of data on citizens’ movements without clear protection guarantees and transparent usage rules is becoming increasingly common. This raises fundamental questions about the balance between security and freedom, about who controls information and how to prevent its misuse. Technologies initially created to fight crime can turn into a tool of total control if society does not establish clear legal and ethical boundaries for them. The experience of Little Rock shows that even in small cities, these processes have already become a reality that requires public attention and discussion.
