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 alleges that the city’s nearly 500 automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) create a pervasive surveillance network that captures extensive data on residents’ movements, raising serious privacy concerns. The case was filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, which argue that the system violates both the California Constitution and state privacy laws. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order that would require police to obtain a warrant before searching the Flock data, which stores vehicle information for up to a year.
This legal action is part of a growing trend of lawsuits challenging Flock’s widespread use of ALPR technology. A similar case in Norfolk, Virginia, has also been filed to shut down the company’s operations there entirely. In their filing, the ACLU of Northern California and EFF lawyers described San Jose’s program as particularly invasive, noting that while many state agencies operate ALPR systems, few retain vehicle data for an entire year. Furthermore, the city’s dense network of cameras is said to make it nearly impossible for residents to avoid being tracked, as most daily activities require driving. The legal challenge highlights concerns over the potential misuse of such data, with critics warning of the risks of over-policing and the erosion of privacy rights.
Experts in law and digital rights have raised alarms about the implications of unchecked surveillance systems. They argue that the proliferation of ALPR technology could lead to a significant expansion of state power in monitoring citizens, potentially infringing on civil liberties. The case in San Jose is seen as a pivotal moment in the broader debate over automated surveillance in public spaces. As more cities adopt similar technologies, the outcome of this lawsuit could set important legal precedents. The plaintiffs’ request for a warrant requirement represents a crucial step in ensuring that private data collection systems are held to a higher standard of accountability. The case underscores the growing tension between technological advancement and the fundamental right to privacy in an increasingly connected world.