The revelations have reignited the simmering debate in San Jose over the city\u2019s ALPR network, as well as its relationship with the vendor behind the equipment, Atlanta-based firm Flock Safety. Critics contend the trove of location information generated by the city\u2019s network of 516 license plate cameras<\/a> undermines residents\u2019 privacy rights.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is completely unacceptable. We were promised this was not going to happen,\u201d Evergreen resident Christopher Smith said during a recent council meeting in response to the news.<\/p>\n But the technology\u2019s supporters have argued the cameras, first introduced in San Jose in 2022, have become an invaluable investigative tool for the city\u2019s chronically short-staffed police force.<\/p>\n The proposed safeguards largely seek to expand and strengthen existing city policies. One measure would task the city manager with drawing up a plan to boost rules intended to prevent city employees from accessing law enforcement data on personal devices, perhaps by developing new tech tools.<\/p>\n Backers also want the city to increase the frequency of audits designed to catch suspicious search activity, as well as violations of the city\u2019s ALPR policy, such as its prohibition on use of the database for immigration related investigations.<\/p>\n The officials pushing the safeguards are also asking the city to lobby Sacramento to reform state laws that govern the use of law enforcement data. They contend the statutes don\u2019t cover ALPR data, leaving open a loophole that means that illicit use of the technology can go unpunished.<\/p>\n San Jose\u2019s use of the technology has come under increasing scrutiny amid growing concerns over surveillance and reported misuse. The city is facing two lawsuits<\/a> over its Flock network<\/a>, including one filed in November 2025 by a coalition of local advocacy groups who allege the city\u2019s practice of allowing warrantless searches of its license plate data violates drivers\u2019 privacy rights.<\/p>\n Councilmembers already attempted to address such criticisms with a package of safeguards approved in March. They included restrictions limiting where the devices may be installed and also reduced the amount of time the city can hold onto the data from one year to 30 days.<\/p>\n However, the changes fell short of demands made by many residents calling on the city to follow the lead of other Bay Area jurisdictions \u2014 such as Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View<\/a> \u2014 and cut ties entirely with Flock Safety.<\/p>\n
![\"In-line](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1790253258_988_interactive-321838904008.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n