The Hidden Loopholes in Montana’s Surveillance Law

The subject of Flock cameras is a hot one and if you were to ask most Montanans how they feel about them, most will probably say they don't like them and that's been fairly consistent across the board.

And I don't blame them one bit. Why would anyone be excited about being monitored without their consent, right?

Senator Shares Reminder: 'Continuous Facial Surveillance is NOT Legal in Montana'

Recently, Montana Senator Ken Bogner shared a message on social media that they can emulate Montana and fight against surveillance in their state.

"If you don't want surveillance cameras spying on you, you need to do what we did in Montana," Sen. Bogner says in the video, "I passed a law so state and local governments can't use continuous facial surveillance."

"They can't have it, can't access it, they can't even contract for it, and they can't install it on public roads and public buildings in Montana. And we're gonna tighten up things even more for license plate readers. Make sure facial surveillance is protected from government use in your state."

ALSO READ: Cascade County Sheriff Explains What Happens To You If You Take Down An Active Shooter

The law Senator Bogner is referring to is Senate Bill 397, which was designed to protect citizens from government overreach.

And while the point of his message well understood, there are some gaps in the bill that people against surveillance might not be too happy about.

Exceptions in Senate Bill 397

For starters, this bill applies strictly to government, not private businesses. As we all (hopefully) know, it's not our law enforcement putting these cameras up. They don't own them, fund them, maintain them, etc.

Rather, it's the company Flock.

And while there are protections in place for citizens to protect government agencies from using Flock's tech to monitor us, law enforcement can still utilize surveillance when needed for investigations.

Get our free mobile app

According to SB 397, law enforcement can obtain a warrant when permitted and use facial recognition technology under certain conditions including:

"(a) investigating a serious crime when there is probable cause to believe that an unidentified individual in an image has committed, is a victim of, or is a witness to a serious crime; (b) assisting in the location or identification of a missing or endangered person; or (c) assisting in the identification of a person who is deceased or believed to be deceased."

That makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, imagine if your car got stolen... or if a loved one got hurt or went missing near a location where it could have been caught on-camera.

We'd want that footage to get to police... right?

Do you think Montana is on the right track to protecting us from facial recognition tech and license plate readers? What else should be done? Let us know your thought HERE.

You can see Senator Bogner's video below.