{"id":25150,"date":"2025-06-29T18:34:15","date_gmt":"2025-06-29T18:34:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/25150\/"},"modified":"2025-06-29T18:34:15","modified_gmt":"2025-06-29T18:34:15","slug":"automated-license-plate-readers-spark-slew-of-privacy-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/25150\/","title":{"rendered":"Automated license plate readers spark slew of privacy concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>An automated license place reader camera atop a streetlight near the corner of First Avenue and Cedar Street near downtown San Diego. (Photo by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

Automated license plate recognition technology has long concerned San Diegans, especially when it comes to potential data breaches and who may be able to access the information.<\/p>\n

The idea that federal law enforcement agencies could use automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, to target people for political speech, their immigration status or those seeking reproductive care, has heightened the alarm in recent weeks.<\/p>\n

ALPRs collect data by capturing photos of license plates and scanning them into a searchable database. The San Diego database is only accessible by the San Diego Police Department.<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

There are currently 500 ALPRs around the city<\/a>, set up in late 2023, after approval from the San Diego City Council. The ALPRs were implemented in hopes of decreasing crime around the city.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The number of automated license plate readers in each City Council district. Hover over the bars to see exact numbers. (Chart by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

The number of violent crimes in each City Council district. Hover over the bars to see the exact number. District 3 was the highest despite having a higher average number of ALPRs compared to other districts. (Chart by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

\u201cI understand the benefits, that\u2019s actually not super difficult to understand, but as I was when the issue first came to council, I also see significant risk in how the technology can be used, how the data can be used and what that means for San Diegans,\u201d said Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera, who represents District 9.<\/p>\n

According to SDPD Capt. Charles Lara, the technology has been used on 454 cases since its launch, helping officers to track down missing persons and suspects in hate crimes.<\/p>\n

But do the benefits outweigh the costs? While many San Diegans are uneasy about the potential for misuse or privacy leaks, some also are displeased with the expense. At launch, the technology cost roughly $3.5 million in installation and usage fees. Almost $2 million more per calendar year must be added for its ongoing operation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The fiscal year 2026 budget is near being finalized, and money is tight. The budget sliced funding for libraries, recreation centers and parks, though some initial cuts were restored. What never changed was the funding for ALPRs, despite the community\u2019s outspoken concern over funds and privacy threats.\u00a0<\/p>\n

However, future ALPR funding is contingent on council review. During the budget meeting before the full council on June 10, several members expressed their skepticism regarding ALPRs.<\/p>\n

Stephen Whitburn, who represents District 3, admitted he originally voted in favor of the technology, but now has concerns about it, acknowledging that the current political climate is much different from when he cast his vote.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>An intersection on Park Boulevard near the San Diego Zoo with two automated license plate reader cameras on the streetlights. (Photo by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

\u201cIt seems within the realm of possibility that this (federal) administration would try to force the city of San Diego to share ALPR data, and that the administration would use that data to enforce its immigration policies, or for other purposes that many of us would oppose,\u201d Whitburn said at the meeting.<\/p>\n

With the recent increase in raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, a common worry is federal access to San Diego\u2019s ALPR data. <\/p>\n

In California, Senate Bill 34<\/a>, which took effect in 2016, prohibits the sharing of ALPR data with out-of-state, federal and private agencies. The California Values Act<\/a> also prevents state and local agencies from assisting federal immigration enforcement.<\/p>\n

According to the SDPD\u2019s 2024 annual surveillance report<\/a>, ALPR data was shared four times with Homeland Security Investigations and another six times with Customs and Border Protection. The information shared was not immigration related, according to the report and Lara.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe updated and refined our policies, and we\u2019re going to present those out to reflect a more restrictive approach \u2014 sort of this island of San Diego. We\u2019ve halted all sharing with federal, out-of-state entities, regardless of the reason,\u201d Lara said.<\/p>\n

The department\u2019s original use policy allowed for data to be shared with out-of-state and federal law enforcement agencies if it pertained to a California crime.<\/p>\n

Per the original use policy, Lara said as long as the crimes had nothing to do with immigration, places of worship or reproductive health services, the department would assist, but the outside agencies were never given direct access to the ALPR database.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The SDPD shared ALPR information 419 times in 2024, according to its surveillance report. To look at the different agencies that data was shared with and how many times it was shared, click on the different colors. (Chart by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

On top of state guidelines, San Diego has a Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance<\/a> that all departments using such technology follow. The ordinance requires the technology and its application to be reviewed by the Privacy Advisory Board<\/a>, and an annual report from each department using it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Privacy Advisory Board recommended against the use of ALPRs in San Diego in 2023. <\/p>\n

The City Council went against the recommendation, however. Going forward, the council will again review ALPRs to determine whether or not to renew the contract for Flock, the company used by San Diego police.<\/p>\n

Flock is an ALPR database that various law enforcement agencies can search depending on each city\u2019s privacy and access settings.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the city does decide to continue with its Flock contract, it has an obligation per its own surveillance technology oversight ordinance to really interrogate the impact of the massive amounts of privacy violations that are happening and really address these gaps and these civil liberties concerns, and meet the community\u2019s demand to remove these cameras,\u201d said Sarah Hamid, the associate director of activism for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>An automated license plate camera on a streetlight near the San Diego Zoo. The camera, located between the two posters, almost blends in with the lamp post. (Photo by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

Though the SDPD has stopped sharing data with outside agencies, there are still concerns over ways outsiders might \u201ccheat the system\u201d despite firewalls and other safeguards.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI actually think the city\u2019s contract is pretty solid. It\u2019s not about that, it\u2019s about the ability for that data to be penetrated, or accessed, and for which purposes. I think there\u2019s a reason to be concerned and I share that concern,\u201d Elo-Rivera said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology San Diego Coalition<\/a>, or TRUST SD, doesn\u2019t believe the current safeguards are enough though.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>An automated license plate reader and smart streetlight camera on the corner of Second Avenue and Cedar Street. (Photo by Gabrielle Wallace\/Times of San Diego)<\/p>\n

TRUST SD published a report on ALPRs, including recommendations on how to make the technology safer in San Diego. TRUST SD also help author the TRUST Ordinance that the city uses for surveillance technology.<\/p>\n

Seth Hall, who founded San Diego Privacy<\/a>, which is part of the coalition, said, \u201cthere are so many ways that the system needs to change to even begin to make it safe,\u201d explaining the recommendations are an all-or-nothing list.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Recommendations include lowering the data retention period from 30 days to 24 hours and revoking ALPR data access from officers under investigation. The report also offers ALPR alternatives such as public education, signage and manual license plate checking.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Lara said checking license plates manually is simply not feasible due to staffing, but they could reach a compromise on other recommendations, such as the data retention period; but 24 hours, he said, is simply too short.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Fears also stem from the potential for multiple affiliation police officers to abuse their ALPR access, or a lack of transparency from federal task forces requesting data. An officer with multiple affiliations would include someone working on a federal task force or a private agency, in addition to their work as, say, a police officer for SDPD.<\/p>\n

Constituents and councilmembers alike are concerned that federal task force agents could ask San Diego police for ALPR data for one reason and then use it for an immigration or reproductive health care investigation instead.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe can fully trust San Diego Police Department to abide by the policies the city has about not sharing information,\u201d Elo-Rivera said. \u201cBut what we don\u2019t have any control over is whether or not the federal law enforcement agency that is in that task force is being honest about the reason why they\u2019re asking for a piece of information.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lara even admitted \u201c there is a hypothetical risk that an officer can do the wrong thing with every technology, but if and when that is found to be the case, they will be investigated.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

It has happened in other jurisdictions. In Kansas, a police chief tracked his ex-girlfriend<\/a> more than 100 times using ALPRs, according to the Wichita Eagle. Furthermore, a 2023 audit of New Jersey law enforcement agencies<\/a> showed the sharing of ALPR login information. The audit said the logins were all for legitimate law enforcement purposes; regardless, the credentials should not have been shared, auditors said, deeming the action a significant violation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Most ALPR concerns are over the unknowns and the \u201cwhat ifs\u201d surrounding the data and who has access to, or who could gain access to it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWe don\u2019t know how it\u2019s being used, and that lack of guarantee over how it\u2019s being used means that it could be used in any number of harmful ways that we wouldn\u2019t even be aware of,\u201d Hall said.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An automated license place reader camera atop a streetlight near the corner of First Avenue and Cedar Street…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":25151,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5134],"tags":[5229,1582,276,13805,22504,22505,22506,22507,22508,3549,22509,22510,7264,22511,22512,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-25150","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-san-diego","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-ca","10":"tag-california","11":"tag-data-breach","12":"tag-data-privacy","13":"tag-electronic-frontier-foundation","14":"tag-flock-safety","15":"tag-license-plate-reader","16":"tag-license-plate-readers","17":"tag-san-diego","18":"tag-san-diego-police-department","19":"tag-san-diego-privacy","20":"tag-sandiego","21":"tag-sean-elo-rivera","22":"tag-surveillance-system","23":"tag-united-states","24":"tag-united-states-of-america","25":"tag-unitedstates","26":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","27":"tag-us","28":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114768095750074202","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25150","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25150\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}