EFF Leads the Charge Against ALPR and Live Facial Recognition Mass Surveillance

Featured image: Photo by tommy picone on Pexels.

The digital age, while offering unprecedented connectivity, has also ushered in a new era of pervasive surveillance. Technologies like Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and live facial recognition (LFR) are rapidly transforming public spaces into zones of constant monitoring, threatening fundamental civil liberties and privacy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stands at the forefront of this critical battle, employing a multi-faceted approach to challenge and dismantle these mass surveillance infrastructures. Their work underscores a fundamental principle: technologies designed for indiscriminate, continuous collection of personal data, regardless of suspicion, are inherently harmful and incompatible with a free society.

The Insidious Reach of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs)

Automated License Plate Readers are far from benign tools; they are purpose-built for mass surveillance. These systems continuously scan and record license plates, along with the time, date, and location, feeding this data into vast, searchable databases. The result is a comprehensive, searchable map of nearly everywhere a driver goes, creating a detailed mosaic of an individual’s movements and habits, regardless of whether they are under any suspicion [1].

The EFF unequivocally states that ALPR mass surveillance—the indiscriminate and continuous collection and retention of location data on every driver—should not exist. They deem these systems “irredeemably harmful” because their core function is to track everyone, not just those suspected of wrongdoing. This indiscriminate collection poses significant risks, as these systems can be easily weaponized. For instance, ALPR-fed surveillance systems can be leveraged against immigrants, political dissidents, and other targeted communities, escalating assaults on civil liberties by federal agencies [1].

Beyond the inherent mass surveillance, ALPRs cause a range of predictable harms. Innocent drivers are frequently arrested or menaced by police due to ALPR errors. Officers have been known to abuse ALPR systems to stalk past or potential romantic partners. Furthermore, the creation of any database of personal information, including ALPR surveillance databases, inherently creates a risk of data theft and subsequent harm to the data subjects. Perhaps most critically, ALPR surveillance of protests and the targeting of activists can chill participation in First Amendment-protected dissent, undermining democratic processes [1]. Even if these downstream harms could somehow be prevented, the EFF argues that ALPRs would still remain an intolerable form of mass surveillance due to their fundamental nature [1].

EFF’s Multi-Front Battle Against ALPR Surveillance

Recognizing the deep-seated harms of ALPRs, the EFF employs an integrated advocacy strategy, fighting on every front to eliminate this pervasive surveillance. At the city level, EFF actively collaborates with community members and decision-makers to encourage the outright refusal of ALPR purchasing contracts. They emphasize that ALPRs are not inevitable and that the same mechanisms used to facilitate their acquisition can be turned against them [1].

On a broader scale, the EFF pushes state legislatures to establish strict, state-level limits on ALPR surveillance. These legislative efforts include advocating for robust data-deletion rules and stringent use restrictions. Building such constraints into statute is crucial for mitigating the harms of existing ALPR systems and preventing future abuses [1].

In the judicial arena, the EFF is a powerful voice. They frequently file amicus briefs in courts across the country, arguing that warrantless police searches of ALPR databases violate the Fourth Amendment. In California state court, for example, EFF and the ACLU of Northern California are engaged in litigation on behalf of community groups, challenging the San Jose Police Department’s practice of allowing officers to search stored plate data over 100,000 times a year without a warrant, asserting it violates the California Constitution. They have also initiated lawsuits to block California law enforcement from sharing ALPR data with federal and out-of-state agencies, citing violations of state statutes [1].

A significant component of the EFF’s work involves exposing the harms of ALPR surveillance through investigative activism. Their dedicated team tirelessly collects information about how law enforcement agencies use ALPRs, utilizing public records requests, suing to enforce those requests when necessary, and publishing detailed reports. These efforts have also included successfully lobbying for State Auditor investigations into law enforcement’s use of ALPRs, bringing greater transparency and accountability to these systems [1]. This coordinated action—combining city-level refusals, statehouse restrictions, impact litigation, and investigative activism—represents a powerful, unified front against mass surveillance infrastructure, working towards its elimination and building public power to keep it off our streets [1].

Live Facial Recognition: A New Frontier of Biometric Threat

While ALPRs track vehicles, live facial recognition (LFR) technology extends mass surveillance directly to individuals. The EFF, alongside other civil society groups, has vocally opposed the deployment of LFR, such as in the case of Nottinghamshire Police in the UK. They highlight that LFR is not “just another tool” for fighting crime; it is an incredibly intrusive biometric mass surveillance technology that scans the faces of everyone who walks past a camera, taking biometric face prints. This represents a major escalation of surveillance, effectively treating everyone as a suspect by default [2].

The notion that individuals have “nothing to worry about” if they aren’t committing a crime is a dangerous fallacy. The normalization of such invasive technologies can have profound societal impacts. When people cannot move around their towns and cities without being subjected to a biometric identity check, they may become less willing to engage in fundamental activities. This includes seeking medical care or legal advice, speaking with journalists, acting in a union, voting, protesting, or even expressing their gender, sexual, or religious identity. The pervasive nature of LFR creates a chilling effect on freedom of association and expression, undermining the very fabric of an open society [2].

Concerns Over Disproportionate Use and Social Impact

The deployment of LFR raises significant concerns about disproportionate targeting. Reports indicate that police forces could deploy LFR to tackle low-level crimes, such as youth behavior deemed anti-social, and may even possess watchlists of young people, including children as young as 11 years old. The EFF and its partners argue that deploying live facial recognition to tackle such behavior is highly disproportionate, especially when more proportionate means for locating individuals likely exist [2].

Furthermore, the use of LFR, particularly against children, could exacerbate existing social problems. There are distinct risks of negative impacts on children’s behavior and outcomes, potentially increasing recidivism and fostering an adversarial, rather than trusting, relationship with the police from a young age. These long-term consequences on youth development and community trust have not been adequately examined by proponents of LFR [2].

Public support for LFR is also notably lacking. Polling commissioned by Liberty indicated that nearly half of people oppose scanning faces on high streets when there is no suspected imminent threat. A majority also oppose the use of facial recognition in schools. Reports from the London Policing Ethics Panel found that young Londoners (16-24) were most likely to find the Metropolitan Police Service’s use of LFR unacceptable and were most likely to stay away from events where the technology was in use. This clear public apprehension underscores the need to halt LFR deployments [2].

The Urgent Call for a Halt to Live Facial Recognition

Given the profound concerns regarding LFR’s intrusiveness, its chilling effect on civil liberties, its disproportionate targeting, and the lack of public support, the EFF and allied civil society groups have made an urgent call for an immediate halt to its use. This stance, exemplified by their letter to Nottinghamshire Police, emphasizes that the risks associated with LFR far outweigh any purported benefits, demanding that police forces cease their plans for further deployment and instead prioritize privacy and fundamental rights [2].

The fight against ALPR and live facial recognition technologies is a critical battle for the future of privacy and civil liberties. Both systems represent profound shifts towards a society of pervasive surveillance, where individual movements and identities are constantly monitored and recorded. The EFF’s unwavering commitment, demonstrated through their comprehensive legal, legislative, and advocacy efforts, is essential in challenging these technologies and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals to move, associate, and express themselves without constant, unwarranted scrutiny. Their work is a testament to the ongoing need for vigilance and collective action against the expansion of mass surveillance in all its forms.

Key Takeaways

• ALPRs are “irredeemably harmful” mass surveillance tools that indiscriminately track every driver, creating searchable databases of movements.
• ALPRs pose risks including errors leading to arrests, officer abuse, data theft, and chilling First Amendment rights.
• EFF fights ALPRs through city-level refusals, state legislative restrictions, legal challenges (e.g., Fourth Amendment violations), and investigative activism.
• Live Facial Recognition (LFR) is an intrusive biometric mass surveillance technology that treats everyone as a suspect.
• LFR creates a chilling effect on fundamental freedoms, making people less willing to engage in civic and personal activities.
• Concerns exist regarding LFR’s disproportionate targeting of low-level crimes and children, potentially exacerbating social problems.
• Public opinion largely opposes the use of LFR, particularly in public spaces without imminent threat and in schools.
• EFF advocates for an immediate halt to LFR deployments due to its inherent risks to privacy and civil liberties.

Sources

1. [1] EFF's Policy Position on ALPR Surveillance: Eliminate It and Reduce Its Harms (www.eff.org)
2. [2] EFF and Civil Society Groups Call on Nottinghamshire Police to Halt Live Face Recognition (www.eff.org)

StealthAnon is a news and analysis site covering cybersecurity, privacy, web analytics, anonymity, and tech tools.