ACLU and EFF Sue a City Blanketed With Flock Surveillance Cameras (404media.co)
- Reference: 0180129007
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/11/18/2038256/aclu-and-eff-sue-a-city-blanketed-with-flock-surveillance-cameras
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/aclu-and-eff-sue-a-city-blanketed-with-flock-surveillance-cameras/
> Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) [1]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."
[1] https://www.404media.co/aclu-and-eff-sue-a-city-blanketed-with-flock-surveillance-cameras/
Ban Data Collection (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.
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: (Score:2)
> 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 acceptabl
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:3)
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
Obligatory Benn Jordan (Score:2)
If you don't know Benn Jordan, check him out. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] "We Hacked Flock Safety Cameras in under 30 Seconds."
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY
El Cajon, California should be sued next (Score:2)
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
Good, but... (Score:2)
We every new car equipped with a connected data collection module enabled by default, isn't license plate readers is the least of automotive surveillance problems?
Re: (Score:1)
Dragnets are illegal. [1]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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragnet_(policing)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people don't drive a new car.
I certainly don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Every new car becomes used car with time. More so, opt-out becomes more complicated on a used car, where data permissions and ownership now involves additional party - previous owner.
Re: (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:3)
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. I
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: (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