The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are taking legal action against the city of San Jose, California, over its use of advanced license plate-reading (ALPR) surveillance technology provided by Flock. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of several advocacy groups including the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, alleges that the city’s deployment of nearly 500 ALPR cameras violates constitutional protections and privacy laws. The suit argues that the surveillance system creates a near-impenetrable network of data collection, tracking individuals’ movements across the city. San Jose’s program, according to the lawsuit, is unique in its scale and retention of data, as it keeps records of drivers for an entire year, a practice not commonly seen in other jurisdictions.
Lawyers from the ACLU and EFF stated in the legal filing that San Jose’s ALPR program poses a significant threat to privacy rights, given the city’s reliance on motor vehicles for daily activities. For many residents, it is nearly impossible to navigate the city without driving, which the lawsuit claims has been fully exploited by the surveillance network. The suit seeks to force the city’s police department to obtain a warrant before accessing data from Flock’s system, emphasizing the need for legal safeguards against mass surveillance. This is the latest in a series of legal actions targeting Flock, with similar cases also being pursued in Norfolk, Virginia, where activists are also pushing to shut down the company’s operations. These cases highlight growing concerns over the use of private surveillance technologies in public spaces and their potential impact on civil liberties.
While the city of San Jose has not yet responded to the lawsuit, its use of Flock’s technology has sparked broader debates about the balance between public safety and individual privacy. Critics argue that the widespread deployment of ALPR systems without adequate oversight represents an overreach of government power. The case is expected to draw attention to the broader implications of private companies providing mass surveillance tools, raising questions about regulatory frameworks that may be needed to prevent unchecked data collection. As legal challenges continue, the outcome could influence the future of similar surveillance programs in other cities and shape the legal standards for privacy protection in the digital age.