The EFF and ACLU letter lists 35 specific police agencies which either have informed the civil liberties organizations that they plan to keep sharing ALPR information with out-of-state law enforcement, or have failed to confirm their compliance with the law in response to inquiries by the organizations.
“We urge your office to explore all potential avenues to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies immediately comply,” the letter said. “We are deeply concerned that the information could be shared with agencies that do not respect California’s commitment to civil rights and liberties and are not covered by California’s privacy protections.”
Totally fine for California to have all that data though…
I don’t think the sharing part is really the issue here.
They’re both issues.
ALPR Databases
Most of this ALPR data is stored in databases for extended periods of time—often as long as five years. The databases may be maintained by the police departments, but often they are maintained by private companies such as Vigilant Solutions or Flock Safety. Law enforcement agencies without their own ALPR systems can access data collected by other law enforcement agencies through regional sharing systems and networks operated by these private companies. Several companies operate independent, non-law enforcement ALPR databases, contracting with drivers to put cameras on private vehicles to collect the information. These data are then sold to companies like insurers, but law enforcement can also purchase access to this commercial data on a subscription basis.
https://sls.eff.org/technologies/automated-license-plate-readers-alprs
The government does not own the database, nor is this a California wide thing. This is local police departments being permitted to use private companies to maintain databases of citizen activity, and those private companies have developed a robust system to share that information.
Remembering of course that these cameras are mounted on public infrastructure. People are paying taxes, and that tax money is being used to buy, mount, and maintain these camera systems, but the actual data is not in a database the government of California (and by extension the citizens of California) has direct control over.
It would actually be better if the state of California had its own database because it would be more scrutinized than these random private databases that cops are allowed to put together and host on some private companies server.
It’s not California. It’s a private company that police departments pay in order to go around the 4th amendment.
One of which is named “Flock Safety”. Flock, as in what birds and sheep do. Just to add an extra layer of dehumanization.
That’s the one my town uses. They keep adding more and more cameras around town because the police can’t solve crimes. It’s easy to bypass them though, just walk or ride a bike.
Yeah, fuck that. The day I learn my car is being tracked is the day I start covering my license plate.
Lol credit agencies have been selling this service for years to Repomen and PIs amongst other groups who buy and sell this data regularly. One commercially available option from TransUnion: https://www.tlo.com/vehicle-sightings
I don’t live in an area with street cameras or even regular police patrols. There’s obviously record of me owning the car but I’d be surprised if there’s any footage anywhere of me driving it other than the private CCTV of different local fuel stations and I never go to the one closest to my house since I’ve been told the fuel there is of lower quality.
