Castro's neighborhood association celebrated surveilence cameras used by ICE

Libertarian concerns about government overreach are often dismissed as paranoia - an attitude we tend to attribute to our critics’ short memories or their comfort within the San Francisco bubble, where they are part of the majority. Yet a recent example challenges that dismissal: Castro’s neighborhood association (EVNA) hosted parties celebrating SFPD surveillance cameras—even after reports emerged that ICE had been using those cameras illegally.

Mar 21, 2024 - SF Takes Historic Step to Solve Crime With 400 LPR Cameras

According to deFlock.me, the existing cameras at Castro & Market are also Flock cameras

May 24, 2024 - SF begins installing automated license plate readers:

The new license plate reader cameras will be used by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to address public safety issues such as retail and motor vehicle theft, … The technology will also be deployed to help locate victims, suspects, and missing children and adults. … These license plate readers can play a critical role in disrupting retail theft, car break-ins, sideshows, and other criminal activity. … ALPR cameras will not be used for facial recognition, nor will it be used for issuing traffic violations and parking citations.

And the twist:

Sep 08, 2025 - SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE:

San Francisco police let out-of-state cops run more than 1.6 million illegal searches of the city’s license-plate reader database — including at least 19 that were marked as related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to records obtained by The Standard.

More coverage: 404media, ACLU

Sep 13, 2025 - Castro’s Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association held a pro-police surveillance camera party [7, 8, 9]

What should we do to hold accountable the people and organizations that supported the cameras? How should we hold accountable the SF and SFPD for partnering with Flock? What should we do to counter illegal state surveillance?

Correction: The new Flock cameras were installed after SFPD allegedly disabled access to other law enforcement, and:

Bonta’s office … pointed to a 2023 bulletin it issued reminding police that they cannot share license-plate data with out-of-state agencies

So, I guess there’s nothing to worry about. Sorry for the alarm!

Police & ICE do not need surveillance cameras since all telecom corporations & tech companies give them warrantless access to anyone using a handheld “smart” phone. This was settled & blessed by The Supremes after being argued & decided by the District Court for the Northern District of California in Jewel v NSA more than a decade ago in 2011 & has withstood many appeals since. Furthermore, anything captured by publicly accessible camera feeds like Castro 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 LIVE Stream Cameras — initially installed, I was told, to address “gay bashings” & anti-lgbtqxs violence — fall under the “plain view” condition which doesn’t permit 4th Amendment claim.

Yes, the 4th Amendment doesn’t ban mass surveillance in public.

But, that doesn’t mean we have to accept our local officials and neighborhood groups installing cameras that will be accessed by feds.

And, since California outlawed sharing data with feds, it’s clear that this issue is also important to those that are not libertarian.

···

On Nov 14, 2025, at 2:28 PM, iMRMosLV! via LPSF Forum noreply@forum.lpsf.org wrote:

| FRNP
November 14 |

  • | - |

Police & ICE do not need surveillance cameras since all telecom corporations & tech companies give them warrantless access to anyone using a handheld “smart” phone. This was settled & blessed by The Supremes after being argued & decided by the District Court for the Northern District of California in Jewel v NSA more than a decade ago in 2011 & has withstood many appeals since. Furthermore, anything captured by publicly accessible camera feeds like Castro 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 LIVE Stream Cameras — initially installed, I was told, to address “gay bashings” & anti-lgbtqxs violence — fall under the “plain view” condition which doesn’t permit 4th Amendment claim.


Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.

Some more on Flock Safety:

A moving and alarming investigation into the cameras: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo

Oakland approves more Flock Safety cameras: Oakland approves $2M Flock surveillance camera plan

The Flock CEO called Deflock a “terrorist organization”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-kZGrDz7PU

Want to help? Louis Rossmann’s alpr.watch can let you know when your city government is discussing surveillance tech.