San Diego's stance on surveillance has once again been cast into the public spotlight, as the city's Public Safety Committee voted in favor of continuing the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs), a decision driven by claims of significant contributions to crime-solving. According to FOX5 San Diego, this surveillance technology has been hailed by the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) as a game-changer, instrumental in precision policing and solving crimes such as homicides, hit-and-runs, burglaries, and kidnappings in 2024. Indeed, Lt. Kristopher McAndrew of the PD stated, "We will not share with federal agencies. We will not share with out of state or private entities."
Despite these assurances, privacy advocates counter the narrative, voicing anxieties over data security and potential misuse. Having noted that the tool has contributed to more than 420 arrests and the recovery of over $5.8 million in stolen property last year, the department argues such data is not shared outside its hallowed grounds. However, according to FOX5 San Diego, the Trust SD Coalition cast a wary eye, with Seth Hall warning, "That database is supposed to be secure, but news story after new story has come out. The DEA has gained access. Border Patrol has gained access."
In response to the concerns, the police department reportedly agreed to strengthen safeguards around ALPR data, now capped at a 30-day retention period, with quarterly auditing measures set to take effect. "We entered the license plate into the hot list. It alerted downtown, and within 30 minutes, we got that person in custody," Lt. McAndrew highlighted a recent instance where an armed carjacking was rapidly resolved thanks to the ALPR system, per CBS 8 San Diego.
However, the Privacy Advisory Board's previous recommendation to shut down the ALPR program loomed over the meeting, fueling the opposition to its existence. Despite police assurances, Homayra Yusufi of the Trust SD Coalition pointed to Flock's nationwide rejections due to privacy fears. "Flock has been rejected in cities across the country because of privacy concerns, because they have been sharing data with federal immigration enforcement and has been putting people's lives at risk," Yusufi told CBS 8 San Diego. Such statements, rife with the scent of distrust, show a community ensnared in a dance between public safety interests and individual privacy rights.
