Lawsuit Challenges the Use of Flock’s ALPR Cameras in Norfolk

The Institute for Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Norfolk City, Virginia, for using Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras, drawing massive attention nationwide and sparking a heated debate over privacy rights in the digital age. 

Image Source: PEXELS

This lawsuit alleges that installing and using over 170 cameras in the city constitutes warrantless and unconstitutional surveillance.

How Flock Safety’s Technology Works

ALPR technology goes beyond traditional surveillance systems focused on capturing license plates. 

Flock cameras collect detailed data that law enforcement agencies can access and store for long periods, raising concerns about data ownership and retention.

On the other side, Flock Safety claims that its customers own the data, not them. Even so, critics still worry about the inconsistent policies across homeowners’ associations, private organizations, and law enforcement. 

Norfolk officials defend the surveillance systems, citing roles in recovering stolen vehicles, solving crimes, and locating missing persons. However, privacy advocates worry about storing, sharing, and potentially misusing data.

While Flock Safety claims that data ownership rests with private entities, law enforcement, or its “customers,” privacy advocates question the implementation consistency of data retention policies.

Legal Precedents and Privacy Concerns 

Image Source: PEXELS

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Carpenter v. United States highlighted the risks of warrantless aggregation of data location. It emphasized the need to ensure surveillance technologies don’t infringe on privacy. 

Critics warn that advanced ALPR cameras or surveillance systems can create a detailed mosaic of a person’s movements, raising ethical concerns. 

What Are the Broader Implications of ALPR Technology?

Critics also argue that these surveillance systems, particularly those with advanced data collection capabilities, could be deployed disproportionately in minority neighborhoods, which could lead to over-policing and profiling of these communities. 

So, if not carefully regulated, critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), worry that advanced surveillance systems like Flock’s can lead to surveillance biases.

However, as the city’s use of ALPRs faces scrutiny, the outcomes could set crucial precedents for using surveillance systems, balancing constitutional protections against public safety. 

This lawsuit raises the question of how far surveillance can go before it infringes on privacy rights.

Stay tuned for more updates!