,
Senior Policy Analyst,
ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project
July 23, 2025
Subscribe to the Free Future Newsletter
The police surveillance company Flock has built an enormous nationwide license plate tracking system, which streams records of Americans’ comings and goings into a private national database that it makes available to police officers around the country. The system allows police to search the nationwide movement records of any vehicle that comes to their attention. That’s bad enough on its own, but the company is also now apparently analyzing our driving patterns to determine if we’re “suspicious.” That means if your police start using Flock, they could target you just because some algorithm has decided your movement patterns suggest criminality.
There has been a lot of reporting lately about Flock but I haven’t seen anyone focus on this feature. It’s a significant expansion in the use of the company’s surveillance infrastructure — from allowing police to find out more about specific vehicles of interest, to using the system to generate suspicion in the first place. The company’s cameras are no longer just recording our comings and goings — now, using AI in ways we have long warned against, the system is actively evaluating each of us to make a decision about whether we should be reported to law enforcement as potential participants in organized crime.
In a February 13 press release touting an “Expansive AI and Data Analysis Toolset for Law Enforcement,” the company announced several new capabilities, including something called “Multi-State Insights”:
Many large-scale criminal activities—such as human and narcotics trafficking and Organized Retail Crime (ORC)—involve movement across state lines. With our new Multi-State Insights feature, law enforcement is alerted when suspect vehicles have been detected in multiple states, helping investigators uncover networks and trends linked to major crime organizations.
Flock appears to offer this capability through a larger “Investigations Manager,” which urges police departments to “Maximize your LPR data to detect patterns of suspicious activity across cities and states.” The company also offers a “Linked Vehicles” or “Convoy Search” allowing police to “uncover vehicles frequently seen together,” putting it squarely in the business of tracking people’s associations, and a “Multiple locations search,” which promises to “Uncover vehicles seen in multiple locations.” All these are variants on the same theme: using the camera network not just to investigate based on suspicion, but to generate suspicion itself.
In a democracy, the government shouldn’t be watching its citizens all the time just in case we do something wrong. It’s one thing if a police officer out on a street sees something suspicious in public and reacts. But this is an entirely different matter.
First, the police should not be collecting and storing data on people’s movements and travel across space and time in the first place, or contracting to use a private company’s technology to accomplish the same thing. Second, they shouldn’t be taking that data and running it through AI algorithms to potentially swing the government’s eye of suspicion toward random, innocent civilians whose travel patterns just happen to fit what that algorithm thinks is worth bringing to the attention of the police.
And of course because Flock is a private company not subject to checks and balances such as open records laws and oversight by elected officials, we know nothing about the nature of the algorithm or algorithms that it uses— what logic it may be based upon, the data upon which it was trained, or the frequency and nature of its error rates. Does anyone actually know whether there are movement patterns characteristic of criminal behavior that won’t sweep in vastly larger numbers of innocent people?
We also don’t know what kind of biases the company’s algorithms might exhibit; it’s very easy to imagine an algorithm trained on past criminal histories in which low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are highly over-represented because of the well-established, top-to-bottom biases in our criminal justice system. That could mean that just living in such a neighborhood could make you inherently suspicious in the eyes of this system in a way that someone living in a wealthier place would never be. Among other problems, that’s just plain unfair.
The bottom line is that Flock, having built its giant surveillance infrastructure, is now expanding its uses — validating all our warnings about how such systems inevitably undergo mission creep, and providing all the more reason why communities should refuse to allow the police departments that serve them to participate in this mass surveillance system.
Related Content
-
ACLU and CDT Urge Court to Stop Government from Punishing Anthropic for Important Advocacy on AI Guardrails
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) filed an amicus brief in Anthropic’s lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the company’s designation as a “supply-chain risk” by the Department of Defense. The designation purports to prohibit anyone from using Anthropic’s tools in connection with Defense Department work. Anthropic’s lawsuit argues that this designation was in retaliation for the company’s First Amendment-protected advocacy related to AI safety, including the urgent need for artificial intelligence (AI) guardrails that prohibit the U.S. military from using these powerful new tools for fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. “AI-powered surveillance poses immense dangers to our democracy. Anthropic’s public advocacy for AI guardrails is laudable and protected by the First Amendment — not something the Pentagon should be punishing,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Our privacy laws are lagging decades behind the government’s ability to capture and exploit our data using AI tools, which can easily reveal the most intimate details of our lives. Anthropic has been right to speak out, but Congress also must step up to protect us from mass spying.” The brief explains why Anthropic’s advocacy for AI guardrails is vitally important and describes the dangers posed by AI tools when applied to immense datasets containing sensitive information — including how these tools can invade privacy, chill speech, and facilitate discriminatory profiling. The groups also explain how existing U.S. privacy laws are inadequate to protect people in the United States, especially in light of loopholes the government has long exploited to justify sweeping surveillance. And it emphasizes why, as a result, Anthropic’s advocacy for strict limitations on the government’s use of AI is critical to protecting the public’s privacy interests. “AI can enable surveillance that is unprecedented in its detail, scope, and scale, and that poses a profound threat to the freedoms our democracy depends on. The right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association are fundamental to our country and to our Constitution,” said Samir Jain, vice president of policy at CDT. “By exploiting the data broker loophole, the government has access to unprecedented data on our lives, our routines, and our relationships. Combining that data with the power of AI would expand the Pentagon’s surveillance powers exponentially, and companies like Anthropic are well within their rights to push back on that outcome.” As the amicus brief shows, while Anthropic has rightly advocated for AI guardrails, people in the U.S. deserve a lasting legislative solution to protect their privacy. The ACLU and CDT have been vocal supporters of the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, a commonsense reform bill that would ban the government from buying data it would otherwise need a warrant to obtain.
-
Legal Experts Underscore Illegality of U.S. Boat Strikes at Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Hearing
GUATEMALA CITY — On Friday, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held the first hearing of its kind on the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean and the harm they are causing communities across Latin America. The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, International Crisis Group and UN human rights experts presented to the commission on how the United States’ lethal-strike policy violates both domestic and international law. U.S. representatives were in attendance, and decried the attempt to hold them accountable. “We are doing everything in our power to hold the Trump administration responsible for its egregious violations of both U.S. and international law, and that includes asking the widely respected Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate these heinous killings,” said Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “The administration can act as outraged and indignant as they want, but Friday’s hearing was a vital first step for establishing international accountability for the lawless policy that claimed the lives of at least 156 people and created another dangerous example of state-sanctioned violence with impunity. The fact that the Trump administration is lashing out at the ACLU and at the Commission is just another preposterous attempt to evade accountability and deflect attention from the government’s crimes.” At the convening, the human rights experts highlighted that under both U.S. and international law, it is flagrantly illegal to use the military to kill civilians suspected only of crimes. The United States is not in an armed conflict with anyone in Latin America. That means the people on these boats are civilians. Civilians, including those suspected of smuggling drugs, are not lawful targets. The Commission also heard arguments on the U.S. government’s duty under international treaties to investigate these extrajudicial killings and hold officials accountable for the murders of at least 156 people. Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur for protecting fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, accused the U.S. of “responding with lawless violence that flagrantly violates human rights, in its phony war on so-called narco-terrorism.” The special rapporteur also made clear that “drug trafficking is a crime, not war,” and that the portrayal of suspected drug traffickers as being responsible for “speculative drug overdoses” did not constitute a “permissible law enforcement action in personal self-defense or the defense of others.” In addition, the groups outlined the illegal nature of these strikes and how they violate the UN charter and human rights obligations that bind the United States The groups’ called on the commission to declare the U.S. boat strike policy in violation of international law, to conduct an investigation into the policy, and to convene a special meeting with OAS member states affected by the U.S. policy, and make recommendations on how to refrain from aiding or abetting or otherwise being complicit in the U.S. government’s violations of international law. “These extrajudicial killings were poorly veiled cover to justify the illegal overthrow of the Venezuelan government, as admitted by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles,” said Angelo Guisado, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The administration’s desire to play imperial superpower in the region cannot be a reason to completely displace the foundations of international law.” Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Sara Jacobs (D-CA) also sent a letter to the commission urging them to “scrutinize this administration’s policy and help advance accountability in the international arena.” Last week’s hearing was one of many legal avenues the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights are taking to hold the Trump administration accountable for these strikes. They also represent two of the victims’ families in their efforts to seek redress and separately are suing for the release of the Trump administration’s legal memo justifying these strikes. Video of the hearing is available here
Court Case: Burnley v. U.S.: Demanding Accountability on Caribbean Boat Strikes
-
National Security
More Than 250 Groups Oppose Additional Spending on Trump’s Illegal Iran War
WASHINGTON. D.C. – Members of Congress should vote against any additional funding for President Donald Trump’s unconstitutional war on Iran, more than 200 groups said today in a letter sent to Congress. Waging a war of choice that costs an estimated $1 billion a day not only fails to address the economic squeeze and health care crisis facing Americans, but diverts federal funding from an array of urgent domestic priorities. The letter was led by Public Citizen, Win Without War, MoveOn, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “By launching a war against Iran, Trump has violated the Constitution, defied international law, flouted the will of the American people, and has put millions of lives across the region at risk. A vote for President Trump’s Pentagon supplemental funding package would be a vote to commit the U.S. even further to this crisis, which has already killed seven U.S. servicemembers and nearly 2,000 people from across the region, and which endangers the lives of many more,” the letter reads. The Pentagon’s budget now totals more than $1 trillion, after an extra $150 billion the agency received in the GOP’s reconciliation bill. A supplemental worth $50 billion would be enough to restore food assistance for four million Americans, establish universal pre-K education, and pay for the annual construction of more than 100,000 units of housing. The groups maintain that this illegal war with Iran cannot be an excuse to fund more weapons instead of priorities here at home. Other prominent signatories to the letter include Oxfam America, the Service Employees International Union, National Nurses United, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the National Organization for Women, the Union of Concerned Scientists, J Street, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Indivisible, Common Cause, Jewish Voice for Peace, Rising Majority, and Working Families Power. “President Trump’s illegal war has already shown the costs war imposes — American servicemembers killed and injured, thousands of civilians killed in fighting, skyrocketing oil prices, a conflict spiraling over a dozen countries in unexpected ways, and more. That’s exactly why it’s so crucial that the decision to go to war not rest on one person's impulses. Congress must not fund the continuation of this unconstitutional war,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s Technology and Democracy Division. “More money for the Pentagon will serve to extend and escalate an illegal, unpopular, and devastating war – as well as pave the way for still more Pentagon funding requests,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. “The money wasted on this war should instead be invested in meeting the economic squeeze felt by everyday Americans. The $11.3 billion spent on the first six days of the war would, for example, be enough to restore food benefits to the four million people losing them due to the tax and budget reconciliation bill.” “Every penny wasted on bombing children and families in Iran would be better spent on health care and affordable housing in America. Secretary Hegseth and President Trump are ready to spend trillions on another forever war that nobody asked for, but they won't lift a finger to lower costs here at home,” said Sara Haghdoosti, chief of program for MoveOn Civic Action. “A vote for supplemental spending is a vote to continue the war in Iran, and Congress must listen to the vast majority of Americans and stop the reckless spending and bloodshed.” “People across the U.S. already hate Trump’s illegal war in Iran, and they’re not going to like it any better if Congress wastes $50 billion more of their money on it,” said Shayna Lewis, deputy director of Win Without War. “It’s outrageous that Trump is even asking for more money to spend on bombs when his spiraling war is killing civilians abroad and driving up prices for everyone at home, all with no end in sight. Congress should tell Trump clearly: not one more penny for this foolish, destructive war.”
More Than 250 Groups Oppose Additional Spending On Trump’s Illegal Iran War. Explore Press Release.