All across the country, police have convinced communities to pay for mass surveillance systems like license plate readers, claiming they will help stop the most serious crimes. But time and time again, we've seen police surveillance suffer from "mission creep." Technology that was sold as a way to "catch killers" ends up being used to enforce traffic violations, track protesters, and more.
A new report from 404 Media sheds light on how automated license plate readers (ALPRs) could be used beyond the press releases and glossy marketing materials put out by law enforcement agencies and ALPR vendors. In December 2025, Georgia State Patrol ticketed a motorcyclist for holding a cell phone in his hand. According to the report, the ticket read, āCAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.ā
If youāre thinking that this sounds outside of the scope of what ALPRs are supposed to do, youāre right. In November 2025, Flock Safety, the maker of the ALPR in question, wrote a blog post about how they definitely are in compliance with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the post, which highlighted what ALPRs supposedly are and aren't, the company wrote: āWhat it is not: Flock ALPR does not perform facial recognition, does not store biometrics, cannot be queried to find people, and is not used to enforce traffic violations.ā
Well, apparently their customers never got the memo.
EFF and other privacy advocates have long warned about mission creep when it comes to surveillance infrastructure. Police often swear that a piece of technology will only be used in a particular set of circumstances or to fight only the most serious crimes only to utilize it to fight petty crimes or watch protests. Remember: once mass surveillance systems are installed in your community, it's not just violent criminals they're watchingāit's everyone.
READ MOREā¦
š¬š§ SOCIAL MEDIA BANS: The UK keeps moving forward with its efforts to ban social media for young people. And, sadly, Britain is not alone. Indonesia, Brazil, Spain, and the Philippines have all either enacted or proposed similar measures recently. But the issue of online safety cannot be addressed through technology alone, especially not through a ban, and young people deserve more intentional approaches, not lazy strategies that cause more harm than they solve.
Ā©ļø COX V. SONY: Should internet service providers (ISPs) be forced to terminate peopleās internet access based on nothing more than accusations of copyright infringement? That was one potential outcome of Cox v. Sony, a copyright case that sought to hold ISPs liable for copyright infringement simply for offering widely used services. Last month, the Supreme Court rejected this expansive theory of secondary copyright liability. EFF is pleased with this decision.
š§ NSA SURVEILLANCE: Congress has had two years to negotiate real reforms to Section 702, the invasive spying program that sweeps up the emails, text messages, and other online communications of millions of innocent Americans. But Congress is dropping the ball, with lawmakers proposing a so-called "clean extension" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Section 702. On our blog, we explain why Section 702 should not be reauthorized without additional safeguards or oversight.
š INTERNET SHUTDOWNS: The Iranian government has once again shut down internet access, and they're not alone. Around the world, governments are pulling the plug to control narratives and crush resistance. But access to the internet is a human rightāand people continue to find ways to stay connected. Join EFF and Amnesty International on April 26 for a livestream discussion on internet censorship and how journalists, emergency responders, and ordinary people can persist.
