ACLU and EFF Sue San Jose Over Flock Surveillance Cameras
Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have filed a lawsuit against the city of San Jose, California, over its deployment of Flock’s license plate-reading surveillance cameras. The suit claims that the city’s nearly 500 cameras create a pervasive database of residents’ movements, violating California’s privacy laws and constitutional protections. The legal action was brought on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, who argue that the surveillance constitutes an unconstitutional intrusion into private lives.
According to the lawsuit, San Jose’s ALPR program is particularly invasive because it retains the locations of drivers for an entire year, far beyond what is typical for other California agencies. The city’s extensive network of cameras, which covers nearly every road, makes it nearly impossible for residents to avoid being tracked. The plaintiffs argue that this surveillance creates a chilling effect on personal freedoms, as almost all residents would be captured by the system in their daily routines, including commuting to work, picking up children, or accessing medical care.
Despite the city’s claims that such systems are used for public safety and crime prevention, the lawsuit contends that the scale and permanence of the data collection exceed what is necessary for law enforcement. The plaintiffs seek to require police to obtain a warrant before accessing the Flock system, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight in surveillance activities. The case is part of an ongoing legal battle against Flock’s technology, as similar lawsuits have been filed in Norfolk, Virginia, which also seeks to shut down the company’s network entirely.
The ACLU and EFF have previously criticized Flock for its potential to enable mass surveillance and privacy violations. In a statement, the lawyers emphasized that the city’s use of the technology represents a significant departure from the expected limits of surveillance in a democratic society. As the case moves forward, it may set a legal precedent for how local governments regulate the use of automated surveillance technologies in the United States.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit also highlights the broader implications of such technologies on immigrant communities and religious groups, who are often disproportionately affected by invasive surveillance practices. The case is expected to draw attention to the intersection of privacy rights and technological expansion, as more cities consider implementing similar systems in the name of public safety.