Connecticut politicians passed new rules this month restricting how police share license plate data across state lines. Now some of those same lawmakers want to go further, targeting the anti-theft camera systems that Home Depot and Lowe's use in their parking lots, The US Sun reported.
The push raises a pointed question: Should privacy concerns override the tools retailers rely on to fight organized retail theft?
At stake are automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, cameras already spotted outside stores including a Lowe's in Newington, Connecticut. The devices automatically capture images of vehicles and their license plates along with the date, time, and general location. If a theft is reported, store personnel can check the records to help identify a suspect's vehicle. Both Home Depot and Lowe's say they do not sell the data they collect.
The newly signed Connecticut law limits how state police can share ALPR data with agencies outside the state. Under its terms, Connecticut police will only be allowed to share plate data with neighboring states that agree not to use it for immigration enforcement, reproductive healthcare investigations, or gender-affirming care investigations.
The law also limits how long data can be stored and forces departments to report how the systems are used.
That legislation followed reporting by CT Insider, which found that some out-of-state police agencies had been able to access a wider network of license plate data collected in Connecticut and appeared to run searches linked to immigration enforcement.
But the law addressed only government use of ALPRs. It said nothing about private retailers running their own camera networks in parking lots. And that gap is what certain lawmakers now want to close, even though the deployment of license plate cameras by Home Depot and Lowe's has been openly discussed as a response to surging retail crime.
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff conceded the private-sector camera networks were never part of the original negotiations. He told The US Sun:
"This part was not negotiated into the bill because it wasn't something we thought about, it didn't seem common."
Duff added that the legislature would need to research the issue further. His advice to shoppers who object to the cameras? Complain to the store.
"People should be aware that these cameras are on private property. If it's something they don't like, they should mention it to store management and the owners. If there's enough of an outcry, the businesses should take it seriously."
That is a revealing admission. The state's Senate Majority Leader is telling constituents that the legislature didn't anticipate a common loss-prevention tool, and that the first remedy is for customers to lodge complaints with cashiers, not for Hartford to rush new mandates.
State Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat from Stamford, framed the issue in consumer-privacy terms. He said hearings on potential restrictions are worth pursuing.
"I don't think that people sign up to have themselves tracked when they go to Lowe's to pick up some mulch."
Blumenthal also said that if retailer ALPRs are not covered by Connecticut's data privacy laws, "they need to be." He expressed particular concern about data being shared with out-of-state or federal authorities, calling that "beyond anyone's expectation of how they are being surveilled."
Kimberly Przeszlowki, a criminal justice assistant professor at Quinnipiac University, noted that retailers face fewer controls than police when operating the same technology. She told The US Sun:
"They're not held to the same standards as law enforcement. The legal frameworks differ quite a bit, when it comes to just oversight mechanisms, accountability, data retention."
There is a fair point buried in there. Private companies operating surveillance technology should be transparent about what they collect and how long they keep it. Both Lowe's and Home Depot already publish policy language addressing that. Lowe's says on its website that its cameras "automatically captures images of vehicles and their license plates, along with the date, time, and general location," and that the company will "not sell ALPR information," disclosing data only "if required by law or legal process." Home Depot's policy states the company "does not sell or share the information with third parties."
But what the privacy argument conveniently sidesteps is the reason these cameras exist in the first place.
Retailers didn't install ALPR systems for fun. They deployed them because organized retail theft has become a serious, costly problem, one that lawmakers across the country have been slow to address through criminal enforcement.
The numbers from Connecticut alone tell part of the story. Montville police recently released pictures of suspects accused of stealing more than $1,700 worth of goods from a Home Depot across just two days. Last year, law enforcement busted 13 people allegedly linked to a Home Depot theft ring operating across nine states, including Connecticut.
These are not petty shoplifting cases. They are coordinated operations targeting big-box retailers, draining inventory and driving up costs that get passed on to every paying customer. ALPR technology helps identify vehicles connected to repeat thefts, organized crime rings, and safety incidents. It is one of the few tools retailers can deploy on their own property without waiting for a police department that may be understaffed or a prosecutor who may not prioritize the case.
And now Connecticut lawmakers want to potentially strip that tool away, or bury it under new restrictions, in the name of protecting the privacy of people driving through a parking lot.
Read Blumenthal's quotes carefully. His sharpest objection isn't about retailers knowing what car you drove to buy mulch. It's about the possibility that plate data could reach "out-of-state or federal authorities."
The new Connecticut law already blocks police from sharing ALPR data with agencies that might use it for immigration enforcement. The concern about private retailers is that their data could flow through channels the state doesn't control, potentially reaching federal immigration authorities through a side door the legislature didn't lock.
That tells you a great deal about the real priorities driving this push. Connecticut is not simply trying to protect consumer privacy. It is trying to build a wall around data that might help federal agencies enforce immigration law. The privacy framing is the vehicle. The destination is sanctuary policy by another name.
Meanwhile, Lowe's is expanding aggressively in red states where leaders tend to welcome tools that help businesses protect their property and cooperate with law enforcement. The contrast is hard to miss.
Several questions hang over this debate. No specific bill number or proposed restriction has been identified yet. Lawmakers have not spelled out what new rules they would impose on private ALPR systems. It remains unclear how many retailer parking lots in Connecticut currently use the technology, or exactly how, and how often, retailer-collected plate data has been shared with police.
Blumenthal has called for hearings. Duff has called for research. Neither has offered a concrete proposal. The entire effort is still in the "we should look into this" stage, which means there is still time for common sense to prevail.
Home Depot has been modernizing its operations across the board, from customer service technology to loss-prevention tools. Lowe's has done the same. These companies are trying to protect their merchandise, their employees, and ultimately their customers from the consequences of a retail theft epidemic that government has failed to contain.
There is nothing wrong with asking private companies to be transparent about surveillance technology. Disclosure requirements, data-retention limits, and clear policies are reasonable expectations. Both Home Depot and Lowe's already publish such policies voluntarily.
But that is not really what this push is about. When the same lawmakers who just passed a law blocking plate data from reaching immigration authorities turn their attention to private parking lot cameras, the pattern is clear. The goal is not to protect your privacy at the hardware store. The goal is to close every possible channel through which data might help enforce laws that Connecticut's political class would rather ignore.
Retailers are fighting theft because the state won't. Now the state wants to take away the tools retailers use to do it. That's not privacy protection. That's obstruction dressed up in civil-liberties language, and the people who pay the price are the honest customers and workers left to deal with the consequences.