ACLU and EFF Sue a City Blanketed With Flock Surveillance Cameras (404media.co) 57
An anonymous reader shares a report: Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the city of San Jose, California over its deployment of Flock's license plate-reading surveillance cameras, claiming that the city's nearly 500 cameras create a pervasive database of residents movements in a surveillance network that is essentially impossible to avoid.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, and claims that the surveillance is a violation of California's constitution and its privacy laws. The lawsuit seeks to require police to get a warrant in order to search Flock's license plate system. The lawsuit is one of the highest profile cases challenging Flock; a similar lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia seeks to get Flock's network shut down in that city altogether.
"San Jose's ALPR [automatic license plate reader] program stands apart in its invasiveness," ACLU of Northern California and EFF lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. "While many California agencies run ALPR systems, few retain the locations of drivers for an entire year like San Jose. Further, it is difficult for most residents of San Jose to get to work, pick up their kids, or obtain medical care without driving, and the City has blanketed its roads with nearly 500 ALPRs."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, and claims that the surveillance is a violation of California's constitution and its privacy laws. The lawsuit seeks to require police to get a warrant in order to search Flock's license plate system. The lawsuit is one of the highest profile cases challenging Flock; a similar lawsuit in Norfolk, Virginia seeks to get Flock's network shut down in that city altogether.
"San Jose's ALPR [automatic license plate reader] program stands apart in its invasiveness," ACLU of Northern California and EFF lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. "While many California agencies run ALPR systems, few retain the locations of drivers for an entire year like San Jose. Further, it is difficult for most residents of San Jose to get to work, pick up their kids, or obtain medical care without driving, and the City has blanketed its roads with nearly 500 ALPRs."
Good, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Dragnets are illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Being in public does not mean that the government can trace the steps of everyone at all times. If the government wants to follow me around they need a warrant and the personnel to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people don't drive a new car.
I certainly don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it's a real mess we've made, easier just to disallow it from vehicles altogether than fix that quandary, if companies want it that bad they can offer it as a physical addition to the car, it can contain the data collection and transmitting systems and the customer can pay or be paid appropriately for it, just like insurance companies offered.
I'm open to the idea companies find value in that data, if my personal goings on is worth something I would like the option to sell that if someone is paying but w
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that would ever come to pass. The insurance companies will do a "deal" with car manufacturers to include a data collection thingy defaulting to on, and then you will get charged by the insurance company for getting it turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear I would propose this as legislative law since you are correct, they have no incentive to do it on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Early this year, I traded in my '08, which I bought used in '13, for a '22. Given my age, it may be the last vehicle I buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
every new car equipped with a connected data collection module enabled by default
Any links to back that up?
Last I checked, no one was willing to pay the cellular data charges to do what you say every new car has.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just bought a new Ford Maverick for my business. It came with built in cellular data hardware -not optional. They say it is for diagnostics, updates, maps, and wifi-hotspot. It comes with the 1st year of data connectivity included. They want me to pay for additional years (no thanks!)
They do not say that they will not continue to use the connectivity for their purposes even if I don't pay to use it for my purposes...
The cost of the hardware is already included in the cost to manufacture the vehicle. In a bulk purchase agreement the size of a manufacturers entire production run, the cost per unit of data is pretty low. They could collect data for very little ongoing cost.
Re: (Score:2)
the cost per unit of data is pretty low. They could collect data
The cost per unit is relatively low, in bulk. But it is a recurring cost and multiplied across the millions of vehicles makes it a large monthly recurring cost. They are not doing it and will not do it.
They could collect the data. And, you could prevent it from being collected.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
They are not doing it and will not do it.
They are doing it [nytimes.com] and attempting to offset costs by offering subscriptions for connected services.
Re: (Score:2)
>"I just bought a new Ford Maverick for my business. It came with built in cellular data hardware -not optional. They say it is for diagnostics, updates, maps, and wifi-hotspot. It comes with the 1st year of data connectivity included. They want me to pay for additional years (no thanks!)"
^^ This
I bought a new Ariya earlier this year. All the hardware is already there. 3 years of service included, then you have to pay. You can opt out of data collection, and if you do, you lose half the "connected" fe
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a ten year old Subaru. It came with a cellular radio built in the dash,
(notice the shark fin antenna on the roof.) They were using it for tracking and various other services. Trouble is it was 3G cellular. When 3G was finally shut down the car kept looking for 3G service. This caused the battery to degrade almost to the point it could not start the car. I bet they were still tracking my car right up to when the 3G service was discontinued.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Toyota is accused of collecting and sharing driver data, but it's not the only car brand facing privacy concerns [abc.net.au]
How to Figure Out What Your Car Knows About You (and Opt Out of Sharing When You Can) [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla has been collecting extensive data on all their models since the beginning.
They used to do it without charge (how generous of them) but now charge about $10/month if you want extra data services (maps, etc.). Even if you don't pay they still collect data on the car, location, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban Data Collection (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban the collection of these types of information about individuals beyond what is necessary for performing a service -and ban keeping any collected data longer than is necessary for performing the specific service. No database = no database searches.
Trying to tell the police not to use the data once it has been collected and correlated and offered to them packaged in a searchable database is like trying to ban a cocaine addict from snorting the line you just cut out for him.
Re:Ban Data Collection (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban the collection of these types of information about individuals
Actually we need to ban the collection and storing of all types of information about individuals without their explicit informed consent. Whether by private companies or government. The idea that data collected privately will remain private is clearly a fantasy.
The problem here is not that they are talking pictures of license plates. Its that they are effectively storing the path of every vehicle used in the city. If that is acceptable, why isn't doing the same thing using faces as the identifier acceptable? That is really where we are headed - a total surveillance state. What is really scary is that most/many people seem to think that is not only acceptable, but natural.
Re: (Score:2)
A way out for flock in some states:
Driving is a privilege not a right. Therefore by completing your renewal application for a driver's license you unconditionally submit to being tracked by third party surveillance cameras which provide this data to law enforcement agencies to use however they see fit.
So it could be" get a driver's license and be monitored and be able to put food on the table, or live in the shadows of society.
That is, unless the high court says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not we, it's "them" we have to worry about. I was just positing what could happen given the coupling between private corporations and the government seems to be tight at the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
What about people with licences from other states? Do they have to stop at a checkpoint on the border and sign their rights away?
Re: (Score:3)
>"Ban the collection of these types of information about individuals beyond what is necessary for performing a service -and ban keeping any collected data longer than is necessary for performing the specific service. No database = no database searches."
+100.
My issue is that I don't believe they will abide by any data collection retention limitations, use limitations, or other limitations; regardless of the rules/law. Especially if the three-letter agencies have a tie-in, they will do whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally I am aligned with EFF but what I wish they or similar orgs would have done is not relied on the 'abstinence' model of digital surveillance,
"Sure digital cameras are going to be cheap and ubiquitous. Storage the same. Wireless networking also, and probably image/pattern recognition. But don't use that stuff. " "Local governments, I know your constituents are screaming to decrease crime...but don't use that stuff, just good ol' walking the beat policing."
Rather it could have been the
Re: (Score:2)
They're starting to plant a bunch of those spy cameras all over town out here in the Sierra Foothills. Both a little podunk town next to me as well as some of the unincorporated parts of the county where I live. I welcome legislation getting rid of it.
Just do a freedom of information request (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not going to find out where the billionaires are going because like Steve Jobs used to do they hide their license plates.
But your shitty little Republican mayor who frequents the local gay bar doesn't have the resources to do that. A
Re: (Score:2)
Though having had to watch this ridiculous conflict go on for years, I'm wondering if that's not also the case for you. I'll happily be friends with both of you, whether or not it helps get y'all out of this rut. You'll probably have to stop posting as an AC though.
Re: (Score:2)
Kidding aside, did Jobs hide his license plate? I remember something about him getting lots of parking tickets, but obscuring your license plate will get you pulled over quick. Those moving violations add up to losing your license before long, but parking fines won't so long as you pay them.
Obviously, ... (Score:2)
ACLU and EFF Sue a City Blanketed With Flock Surveillance Camera
The goal is to get the Flock out of there. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the flock may come home to roost no matter what city you move to to escape them.
FoIA (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard earlier today that a court has determined that since governments are using all of this data, including license plates, that a FoIA request for all of the license plate data gathered from Flock in a city area for a range of dates was valid.
They want to have a power advantage over their serfs but turning their advantage into a burden changes that dynamic. Something to look into for those so inclined.
We seem to be well past the point of being able to expect them to follow the Law or "do the right thing".
Re: (Score:2)
That is true. But they did not make it illegal, just problematic. Anyone under her jurisdiction is likely to get rid of Flock cameras. But they did it in Washington State, this is California. Judges have areas they control.
You could make a similar request for San Francisco. But San Francisco is a much bigger city. As such, they will have to pay a much larger amount to the city for the costs of making such a request.
Cheaper to start a new case and have it disallowed on legal grounds rather than merely m
2084 (Score:1)
"Big Bother is Watching You"
Obligatory Benn Jordan (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
El Cajon, California should be sued next (Score:4, Interesting)
El Cajon is sharing the flock data with police departments nationwide.
https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/license-plate-cameras-el-cajon-are-catching-criminals-critics-claim-police-department-sharing
The State of California is suing:
https://therecord.media/california-lawsuit-el-cajon-police-out-of-state-searches-flock-database
A bit of a double standard (Score:2)
Shouldn't the ACLU and EFF be devoting their efforts to ending the Valley Transit Authority's comprehensive video surveillance of all its bus and light rail passengers first?
https://www.marchnetworks.com/... [marchnetworks.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What's been going on with the VTA over the past twenty years makes the deployment of LPR cameras in San Jose look like a joke. An LPR system records license plates, but the VTA records comprehensive video and audio of every single passenger who rides on it. That include
Re: (Score:2)
They gave up their privacy when they stepped out of their front door.
Re: (Score:2)
"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network and Council on American-Islamic Relations"
Though it's also possible that the stated motivation is insincere.
If for nothing else (Score:3)
Yoy Can Track Where Flock Has Cameras (Score:1)
Deflock [deflock.me]
so, filed on behalf of (Score:2)
So, lawsuit filed on behalf of criminals, who don't like their privacy being violated. Why aren't any non-leftist groups suing? The Right sure doesn't like govt snooping, now do they?