ACLU and EFF Sue San Jose Over Flock Surveillance Cameras
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have taken legal action against the city of San Jose, California, over its use of Flock’s license plate-reading surveillance cameras. The lawsuit alleges that the city’s nearly 500 cameras create a pervasive database of residents’ movements, raising significant concerns about privacy and constitutional rights. The case is one of the highest profile legal challenges against Flock’s technology, which has been deployed by various cities across the United States.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California. The plaintiffs argue that the surveillance system violates California’s constitution and its privacy laws. They seek to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing data from Flock’s license plate system. The case is part of a growing trend of legal challenges against the use of automated surveillance technologies, with similar lawsuits reportedly being filed in cities such as Norfolk, Virginia.
According to the lawsuit, San Jose’s ALPR program stands out for its invasiveness. While many California agencies utilize ALPR systems, few retain driver locations for an extended period, such as the entire year. The city’s widespread deployment of ALPRs makes it difficult for residents to navigate daily activities, such as commuting to work, picking up their children, or accessing medical care without being monitored.
The legal representatives from the ACLU of Northern California and EFF emphasized the scale and scope of the surveillance network in San Jose. They argue that the city’s approach represents a stark departure from more limited use of ALPR systems by other agencies. The lawsuit calls for a reevaluation of how communities balance public safety with individual privacy rights, highlighting the urgent need for regulatory oversight of such technologies.
This case is part of a larger debate on the appropriate use of surveillance technologies in public spaces. As cities continue to adopt such measures, the legal challenges are expected to grow, with privacy advocates pushing for stronger protections against mass data collection. The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how similar surveillance systems are managed in other parts of the United States.