Immigration and Customs Enforcement has recently to an invasive database that will allow it to track immigrants based on their location. The city of Alameda, California, will have no part in it.
Since , ICE has been able to tap into a nationwide database built by a company called Vigilant, which collects license plate and associated location records, to target immigrants while they’re driving to work, running errands, or bringing their kids to school. Vigilant license plate cameras are affixed to thousands of police cars, streetlights, and private tow trucks across the United States. These cameras rapidly collect the location and plate number of passing motorists, feeding location records per month to Vigilant’s database.
Last week, Alameda, a city of 80,000 residents in California’s East Bay, took a stand. After a public meeting in which residents made it very clear they were uninterested in feeding an ICE surveillance database, Alameda’s City Council a proposed $500,000 contract to purchase Vigilant’s automatic license plate readers for use throughout the city.
If your local police department is one of Vigilant’s 3,000 , ICE may be able to access data about you and your neighbors. Law enforcement can drill down into the data to build a detailed picture of your private life, including where you work, , when you go to the doctor, and what you attend. ICE’s says it intends to use this data to help “identify, arrest, and remove aliens from the United States.”
These license plate surveillance systems are already being abused. Police have used license plate readers to target Muslim Americans by , and its misuse in the Bay Area triggered a multi-year civil rights . Elsewhere, rogue police have monitored the license plates of . As with technologies, police deploy license plate readers disproportionately , regardless of crime rates.
After learning that the $500,000 Vigilant contract was up for approval, Alameda residents arranged meetings with council members to explain their concerns with the proposal. They asked leaders and the police chief about policies that would prevent ICE access to the license plate reader data, impose limits on data retention, and ensure compliance with the city’s sanctuary policy. Activist groups like and the elevated these critical questions and encouraged residents to show up.
City council members ultimately decided they didn’t want to sign a new contract with a company that counts ICE as a customer. After public comment and debate, the council refused to approve the contract. The council directed city officials to adopt strict safeguards on any future use of the technology, and left the door open to alternatives that can serve public safety goals.
The dangers of using license plate readers without safeguards have been apparent for a long time. For nearly a decade, American communities have rushed to deploy these devices with funding from Homeland Security . The Trump administration is now moving to exploit these local systems.
To stop ICE from exploiting surveillance systems, other cities should follow Alameda’s lead. If you don’t know whether your local police department shares license plate data with ICE, you should ask your city council. This is something you can do even if you don’t live in a sanctuary city.
When it comes to tracking our communities, license plate surveillance is just one part of the problem. Police departments are also moving to adopt technologies such as facial recognition and drones — powerful tools that can easily be misused. Communities should insist on a robust public debate before acquiring these technologies, and can ensure that happens by adopting legislation that requires the kind of transparency and oversight on display in Alameda.
A nationwide effort called Community Control Over Police Surveillance offers a model ordinance that does just that. adopted a CCOPS law earlier last summer, and to strengthen its first-in-the-nation surveillance ordinance. and 17 other U.S. cities are actively considering their own surveillance oversight bills.
It’s time to reexamine our neighborhood surveillance systems, and to prevent new unaccountable ones from taking hold. Alameda shows that it’s possible.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.