There's a new front in the privacy versus safety wars, and this time it's playing out over license plate readers. A Republican congressman wants them banned outright. The CEO of the company that makes them says that's like banning cars. Both sides are dug in, and the debate is getting loud.

GOP Leader Says Flock Cameras Were Misused in His District

Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) took to X on Saturday to slam Flock Group Inc., the company behind the AI-powered license plate readers that have been popping up on police cruisers and street poles across the country. His message was blunt: "If law enforcement wants to use Flock technology to catch criminals, GET A WARRANT."

Steube, who shared a clip from an appearance on News Nation, pointed to the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant issued by a judge. "The Fourth Amendment still exists to my knowledge…" he said, before getting into the specifics of why he's so fired up.

He recounted an incident in his own district that he says shows the technology is ripe for abuse. "I had recorded an incident of an officer in Sarasota who was using it [Flock cameras] hundreds of times to surveil his ex-wife and watch where his ex-wife was going to and from," Steube said. That alleged misuse, he argued, is a direct threat to citizens' rights.

"We've already seen this surveillance technology allegedly misused and abused right here in my district. BLOCK THE FLOCK!" he declared.

The congressman's comments come as Flock's cameras have become a lightning rod for privacy concerns. Critics argue the technology puts citizens under constant surveillance, tracking every vehicle's movement without probable cause. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has also voiced his concerns, adding to the bipartisan unease.

Flock CEO Compares Banning Cameras To Banning Vehicles

Flock CEO Garrett Langley isn't backing down. In an interview with Fox News on Saturday, he defended the technology as an essential tool for law enforcement to curb crime and maintain order. But he also acknowledged the tension.

"I think when people talk about… privacy or safety, they're prioritizing the wrong thing," Langley said. "What we have to prioritize as a country is compromise." He argued that Americans shouldn't be forced to choose between privacy and safety, and that a balanced approach is possible.

On the idea of an outright ban, Langley was dismissive. "I think about legislation that calls for an outright ban; that's like banning vehicles. That would never have made sense," he said.

The debate isn't just political. Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) previously announced a partnership between its Ring cameras and Flock, but quickly reversed course after public backlash. The e-commerce giant said it was ending the partnership, a sign that even big tech is wary of the optics.

For now, the clash between Steube and Langley highlights a broader question: how do we balance the benefits of surveillance technology with the constitutional rights that protect us from government overreach? Steube's answer is clear: get a warrant. Langley's is more nuanced: find a compromise. But with both sides digging in, it's unclear if a middle ground exists.