2025 became a turning point in the fight against automated license plate reader (ALPR) systems. What just a few years earlier seemed an inevitable step toward “smart cities” increasingly stalled at the level of local communities. From Austin (Texas) and Cambridge (Massachusetts) to Eugene (Oregon), campaigns against ALPR achieved consistent success — notably, across politically diverse environments.
These victories were not accidental. In 2025, a practical formula emerged for rejecting mass vehicle surveillance, combining political will, organized community pressure, and shared expertise. This combination — not ideal laws or abstract debates about privacy — delivered tangible results.
Practical Victory Over Perfect Law
A key shift in 2025 was abandoning the pursuit of “perfect” policy. Organizers embraced so-called “ugly victories”: immediate contract termination or non-renewal rather than years of struggle for comprehensive privacy legislation.
Procurement is always bureaucratic, complex, and not very public — yet it is where surveillance begins: in a budget line. In Austin, over 30 civic organizations formed a coalition that succeeded in canceling ALPR contracts, achieving results that legislative reforms often postpone for years.
In Hays County (Texas), victory also came without new laws. Commissioner Michelle Cohen explained her vote simply: the issue was “less about the technology and more about vendor practices.” Such decisions may seem temporary, but each disabled camera shaped a culture of refusal — easing the next one.
Start with Real Harm, Not Abstractions
Successful campaigns rarely focused on technical specs or privacy philosophy. They began with tangible harm ALPR had already caused or could cause.
Research showed ALPR networks were used to monitor Romani communities with biased queries, track women seeking reproductive health care, and surveil protesters exercising constitutional rights.
In Olympia (Washington), nearly 200 residents attended a counter-information rally at city hall. The DeFlock Olympia movement systematically countered police arguments, citing evidence of data leaks and biased policing. The next day, cameras were shut down and prepared for removal.
Inside and Outside Strategy
Campaigns succeeded by combining different roles. Citizens organized neighbors, attended hearings, and created political pressure. Elected officials used formal authority to say “no.” Technical resources — investigation guides, contract analysis, timelines — amplified this collaboration.
In Eugene and Springfield (Oregon), the Eyes Off Eugene movement ran months-long campaigns, simultaneously providing politicians with “political cover” to refuse contracts. As organizer Camryn Stringfield noted, the victory was possible only due to systematic work by local groups.
Refusal Without Ideological Limits
One of 2025’s most notable results shattered the myth that resistance to mass surveillance is possible only in progressive cities. In San Marcos (Texas), the contract was not renewed after a tied vote hinging on investment return. Hays County commissioners voted to terminate agreements. Small towns like Gig Harbor (Washington) refused ALPR even before cameras were installed.
As Rural Privacy Coalition representatives emphasize, “privacy is also a rural value.” Regardless of political leanings, residents concluded that the risks and costs of mass surveillance were unjustified.
For Ukraine, the 2025 U.S. community case is a valuable lesson: it shows that even automated license plate recognition (ALPR) surveillance can be restrained without new laws. Since 2022, Ukrainian cities have actively implemented digital security systems: video cameras, traffic analytics, automatic license plate recognition, and “smart” platforms for law enforcement. As in the U.S., decisions to procure these technologies are often made administratively, without broad public discussion, which can render them “technical” rather than political decisions — effectively removing community oversight.
The 2025 U.S. experience offers several key takeaways for Ukrainian cities. First, local authorities have real leverage through procurement processes. Refusing to sign or renew a contract can be far more effective than years of debate over privacy legislation. Second, public mobilization and active citizen participation in hearings, discussions, and campaigns can shift the balance of power, even when formal rules are not yet established. A clear stance of “no cameras” or “no ALPR” reduces room for compromise and sends a strong political signal.
Third, sharing expertise and joint analysis is critical. U.S. communities used data on contracts, vendor violations, and risks of discriminatory use, allowing for faster decision-making. For Ukraine, this means communities do not need to “reinvent the wheel” — they can adapt proven practices and develop their own oversight policies.
Finally, integrating purchased technologies into unified surveillance systems increases the risk of unnoticed data collection and secondary use. Without control over procurement and transparent procedures, “smart” cities risk becoming mechanisms of total surveillance rather than tools for public safety.
Conclusion: the 2025 U.S. community experience demonstrates that decisions about automated surveillance are political, not merely technological. Ukrainian communities can leverage procurement powers, public mobilization, and knowledge sharing to ensure transparency, accountability, and protection of human rights, turning technology into a tool for safety rather than surveillance.
In 2025, communities no longer had to start from scratch. They shared knowledge, learned from neighbors, and contacted organizers of successful campaigns. Austin’s contract cancellation sparked similar initiatives across Texas. Illinois audits revealing illegal data sharing with federal immigration agencies led to camera removals in Evanston.
The combination of institutional authority, community mobilization, and shared analysis defined 2025. Through this synergy, communities canceled or refused ALPR contracts in nearly two dozen jurisdictions, building a resistance infrastructure that makes future refusals easier and the movement irreversible.
Subscribe to our channels on social networks:
Contact us: business@avitar.legal
Violetta Loseva
,
