Mapmaker activist posts locations of automated plate readers, receives cease-and-desist from surveillance company | EFF
Mapmaker activist posts locations of automated plate readers, receives cease-and-desist from surveillance company | EFF
Flock Safety loves to crow about the thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the United States that have adopted its avian-themed automated license plate readers (ALPRs). But when a privacy activist launched a website to map out the exact locations of these pole-mounted devices, the...
Flock Safety’s car-tracking cameras have been spreading across the United States like an invasive species, preying on public safety fears and gobbling up massive amounts of sensitive driver data. The technology not only tracks vehicles by their license plates, but also creates “fingerprints” of each vehicle, including the make, model, color and other distinguishing features.
Through crowdsourcing and open-source research, DeFlock.me aims to “shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action.” While EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance project has identified more than 1,700 agencies using ALPRs, DeFlock has mapped out more than 16,000 individual camera locations, more than a third of which are Flock Safety devices.
Flock Safety’s cease and desist later is just the latest in a long list of groups turning to bogus intellectual property claims to silence their critics.
Uh if the cameras are in public, they have no expectation of privacy, right?
Yeah but it's a corporation. They get more rights than us humans.
There is a question on the constitutionality of automated surveillance technology, the type of data that is being collected, who has access to them, and how they are using it. Additionally, some other concerns I can think of off the top of my head are:
- Are the taxpayers funding this?
- Is my data being sold?
- If so, who is profiting?
- Where is supporting data showing this type of surveillance is needed?
- What demographical areas are these cameras more prevalent in? Aka are there a subset of peoples being targeted by this type of surveillance?
- What are the rules and regulations agencies need to follow with the data they capture with this tool?
Aggregating location data is very different from having a picture taken in public, wouldn't you agree?
As stated above the companies name is Flock Safety
And the CEO is Garett Langley
Flock Safety’s cease and desist later is just the latest in a long list of groups turning to bogus intellectual property claims to silence their critics. Frequently, these have no legal basis and are designed to frighten under-resourced activists and advocacy groups with high-powered law firm letterheads. EFF is here to stand up against these trademark bullies, and in the case of Flock Safety, flip them the bird.
Everybody say it with me: 🖕
I’m so fucking sick of this. We need to outlaw using third party companies to get around constitutional protections. Ending the third party doctrine is just another reason we desperately need a revolution.
Link for the lazy
Thanks, that’s me!
On the site, they have a sign you can print out to put on or around the cameras. What sort of laws in my state or jurisdiction should I be looking at? Just want to see the legal implications.
What are the legal implications of hosting this information in a different jurisdiction and are there places where this data would be legally protected?
They don't even cite the datapoints, my friend. It is a trademark infringement cease-and-desist...
Thing is about trade marks… if the terms can be shown to be in common usage, the mark is struck down. Like Kleenex and Xerox.
So let’s all start talking about privacy invading cameras as being flocking stupid.
Something something land of the free.
This has to be in Denmark, right?
