S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman on this episode of KPBS Midday Edition. What's in a new lawsuit against San Diego and its police department over automated license plate readers? This is KPBS Midday edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. So this morning , two civil rights organizations announced the filing of a lawsuit against the city of San Diego and its police department over the use of Alper or automated license plate reader technology. The lawsuit is filed by the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties , along with the partnership for the Advancement of New Americans , or Pana. The suit argues al surveillance technology violates the California Constitution. So joining me to talk about it is Frederick Carroll , legal director with the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties , along with Humaira Yusuf , a senior policy strategist with Pana , the partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. Frederick , welcome to Midday Edition.
S2: Thank you.
S3: Thank you so much. It's our pleasure.
S1: Glad to have you both here. So before we get into the details , Frederick , remind us what we're referring to when we say Alper. Technology. What does that term encompass?
S3: Alper refers to automated license plate readers. It's a little bit misleading , honestly , because these automated license plate readers , or Alpers are cameras , and like any other camera , they capture anything in the view of the lens. And so they capture , among other things , license plates. But like any other camera , they capture and store and make searchable all of the data that that lens captures. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. And this morning , the ACLU and Pena filed a lawsuit against the city and SPD over their use of this technology. Can you walk us through the central argument of the lawsuit? Absolutely.
S3: Absolutely. The California Constitution provides for us an affirmative to guarantee to privacy. What I mean by that is that in its very onset , article one , section one of the California Constitution guarantees privacy to Californians. And , of course , that includes San Diegans. However , that fundamental guarantee of what our rights are supposed to protect and the ideals that we find as Californians and San Diego's to be fundamental means nothing. If we are constantly under mass surveillance as we go about our day to day lives. And so we are challenging the mass surveillance through the flock contract and the use of alpine cameras as violating the law , violating the California Constitution that guarantees our right to privacy.
S1: And I do want to note , KPBS reached out to both the city of San Diego and SD PD for a statement on the lawsuit. On behalf of our listeners and taxpayers , SD PD said it can't comment on pending litigation , and the city has not yet responded to how or why did Pena get involved in this lawsuit?
S2: Well , Pena got involved because we have actually been fighting against these Alpers for quite a while. We do believe that the the California Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy , which is being violated by these alien LPR systems like flock. Our organization works with immigrant and refugee communities throughout the San Diego region , but also across the state , who have been surveilled and targeted by al PR systems. Um , especially right now when immigrant communities are being torn apart in City Heights , where , um , my office is. We have been seeing , you know , parents dropping off their kids to school and being ripped apart from from their families. Um , we are seeing just increased immigration enforcement all throughout San Diego County. And during this time , we are concerned about technologies like Alpa and the fact that it is almost impossible to govern these systems and to make them actually safe for our communities. Um , and so we've been asking for the city to shut down their use of flock. Alpers. Um , and so , you know , at this point , we've been ignored by specific city leaders for so long that , um , we decided to become plaintiffs on this really important litigation.
S1: And mirror what you you know , when you when I hear you talk , I hear you really kind of describing the the real life impact of Alpers on communities here in San Diego. Talk a bit more about that , about what the impact has been.
S2: I mean , for immigrant communities that we represent , this is , you know , increasing the risk , right? For them , it's increasing fear. But it's not only immigrant communities that are impacted by Alpers. It's all anyone who visits San Diego , right? Anyone who lives in San Diego that is driving through our city. Their information is being captured by these al PR systems , and their privacy rights are being taken from them. We are seeing individuals who have been wrongly identified through these PR systems who actually went to , you know , prison because of these technologies and had to face time away from their families and had to prove their innocence. For for these things , we are seeing protesters who are being tracked , women who are being tracked because they want to go seek reproductive care. There are multiple different forms in which our communities are more vulnerable because of these. These ALP systems exist.
S1: Frederick , if you could take us back to , um , how these cameras , how these this technology has been sold to the American public , if you will. What have they said it's supposed to be used for?
S3: That's a great question , Jade. There are lots of answers provided by various authorities to that particular question. Normally , the answer falls in to the general , and what we feel is a red herring justification of public safety that we have to have mass surveillance , or else there will be a crime wave that we can't solve. Or we have to have mass surveillance , because how else are we going to find stolen cars or suspects? And frankly , that's a false narrative. What's actually happening across the country in response to your question is that this technology is being used against communities , not to keep them safe. It's been used to target people , not protect them , and it's been used to victimize individuals , not uphold their rights. And so we proudly stand with Pana on this case to challenge the constitutionality of that. When our fundamental legal principles are based on a protection and a guarantee of privacy. Certainly consistent mass surveillance used against San Diego and does not go in concert with that same guarantee of privacy.
S1: Are either one of you aware of any cases that have been solved as a result of this technology? Kidnappers or murderers have even hit and run drivers stolen cars. Are you aware of any any cases that were solved?
S3: I'll leave it to the police to justify their use and look at their data. Uh , we will stay in our lane. And what we know is that people have been victimized by this technology. We know that excuses for using it generally fall into the category that this is a tool that police need to solve crimes. But we know that's not true. It's not as if crimes went unsolved for ages before , uh , there was mass surveillance technology. That's not a fact. So is it a tool? Yes. Could it be an effective tool? Perhaps in some cases. But the balance that has to be weighed here is constitutional rights and protections for everyone versus perhaps solving the stolen car case sooner or something like that. And when we know there are real abuses , and when we know there are constitutional issues at stake , the balance works in favor of opposing the technology.
S1: Humaira , I mean , community members have really rallied against the use of Alpers in San Diego and beyond. Why do you think this technology evokes such a strong community reaction?
S2: I think especially in this country right now , we're at a moment where AI technology is , you know , expanding and becoming sophisticated by the moment. Right. Um , I think that our communities are becoming more aware of those and realizing that , you know , technologies like ALP are not what they sold it to be. Right? They are actually , um , putting us at risk. They are having implications that maybe at first folks didn't anticipate. Um , organizations like Pana did from the beginning. In our cult , we have a broad coalition of , you know , many organizations throughout San Diego County , um , called the trust SD coalition , who's been calling for an end to these because of the privacy concerns that we have had , and also just the real life consequences that we have seen. Um , and so , you know , I'm I , I've been seeing how much our city and our communities here in San Diego , um , have continued to call for the end of Alpers , however , have been unfortunately ignored by some of our city leaders. And we have had , you know , a wave of over 100 jurisdictions throughout the country and their use of ALP systems , especially flock , which is what our system is here in San Diego as well. Um , and , you know , unfortunately , we're still waiting for that to happen. We're still waiting for our city to respond to the community demands.
S1: And Frederick before there were this before the flock system. There were streetlight cameras. Correct?
S4: That's right. So what is. Right?
S1: Right? What do you think this says about , um , about how the city is , is responding to the community and that , you know , the city did away with those those streetlight cameras , and yet they still decided to move into this direction of having these flock cameras in this system.
S3: Well , it means that the city is not responding to community needs. We had the smart streetlight program rolled out , then taken back , then rolled out again. And now with the add on of Alper technology and the flock contract. And so we as San Diego San Diegans have an ongoing history of this where frankly , we've been sold the same bill of goods for a long time. If we have a little bit extra surveillance , you're going to be safer. And that little bit becomes more and more and more. Until now. There are cameras outside the rec center at Azalea Park. Now there are cameras on all four corners outside high schools. Now there are cameras everywhere we go in San Diego such that our entire movements where we pray , where we eat , where our kids go to school , where we work can be tracked , monitored and surveilled. That's the real problem that we're seeing here. Right.
S2: Right. And can I add , I mean , when when , um , the streetlight cameras , you know , became knowledge , everyone understood that this was actually there's thousands of these. The city council unanimously decided to get rid of smart street light cameras , however , only to come back a while later to replace them with not only the smart street light cameras , but also these really problematic Alpers. So we're going to , you know , we're continuing to see new iterations of these technologies , more powerful versions of them coming out.
S1: I've been speaking with Frederick Carroll , legal director with the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties , and also Humaira Yusuf , a senior policy strategist with the partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. We'll be continuing our coverage of this lawsuit@kpbs.org. Frederick Kamara , thank you so very much.
S5: Thank you. Thank you so much , Jade. And remember get the flock out.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
The council voted unanimously for 52 of the policies, which included items such as SWAT robots and vehicle trackers. The remaining two items proved far more contentious.
Dozens of cities have canceled their contracts with Flock. Some are switching to other companies, but privacy experts say they're no better than Flock.
