A California judge has ruled to end a decade-long surveillance program in Sacramento that involved sharing granular smart-meter data of 650,000 residents with police to target cannabis cultivation. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) had collaborated with the Sacramento Police Department and other agencies to analyze energy usage data of residents without suspicion, leading to a legal challenge.
The court found that the program violated state privacy laws, as it lacked evidence of criminal activity and subjected all users to suspicion. The decision emphasized that such dragnet surveillance is not considered an ongoing investigation, and utilities must provide evidence of suspicion before disclosing customer data. The ruling highlights a significant legal precedent for data privacy and law enforcement practices in California. The program, which aimed to identify illegal cannabis grows, disproportionately affected the Asian community, raising concerns over racial profiling and privacy violations. The court’s decision cited the California Data Privacy Protection Act, which bars the disclosure of residents’ electrical usage data with narrow exceptions. The ruling underscores the importance of protecting individual privacy rights and preventing the misuse of utility data by law enforcement agencies.
The legal battle was led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and its co-counsel, representing three petitioners: the Asian American Liberation Network, Khurshid Khoja, and Alfonso Nguyen.
The EFF argued that the program created a host of privacy harms, including criminalizing innocent people, creating menacing encounters with law enforcement, and disproportionately targeting the Asian community. The court’s ruling reaffirmed that the program’s practice of regularly requesting data on all customers in specific zip codes without any evidence of crime was not an investigation. This decision reinforces the need for clear legal guidelines on how law enforcement can access private data, especially when targeting specific communities for criminal activity. The outcome may influence similar surveillance programs in other cities and states, setting a benchmark for data privacy and civil rights protections.
Going forward, public utilities in California must understand that they cannot disclose customers’ electricity data to law enforcement without evidence to support a suspicion of crime. The ruling emphasizes that any future investigations must be based on specific criminal activity, not on indiscriminate data collection.
This decision is expected to impact how utilities and law enforcement interact in the future, potentially leading to greater oversight and accountability in data-sharing practices. The case also raises questions about the ethical implications of using technology for surveillance, particularly in communities already over-policed. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the balance between public safety and individual privacy remains a critical issue for policymakers and law enforcement alike.