Hidden license plate readers in California are feeding a federal surveillance system

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,902   +58
Staff
TL;DR: California's highway surveillance network is facing renewed scrutiny after privacy and civil rights advocates discovered dozens of concealed license plate readers in the southern part of the state. The activists say the devices are quietly feeding data into a federal predictive intelligence program developed by the US Border Patrol to monitor domestic travel patterns.

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, more than two dozen advocacy organizations – including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Imperial Valley Equity and Justice – urged California officials to revoke permits for the installation of these covert sensors. The groups said the devices are part of an extensive domestic monitoring system that could be collecting information on millions of drivers.

Their appeal follows an Associated Press investigation published in November, which documented how the Border Patrol embedded similar readers inside seemingly ordinary roadside fixtures in Arizona. According to land-use permits obtained by AP, the devices were concealed within orange and yellow construction barrels and other safety equipment.

Data collected through these hidden networks was fed into what federal officials described as a "predictive intelligence" system capable of analyzing vehicle movement across state lines.

Sources familiar with the program told the Associated Press that the algorithm sifts through vehicle location histories to identify unusual or repetitive travel patterns. The system flags movement it deems abnormal – such as drivers making short border-region trips or taking inconsistent routes – and uses that information to recommend follow-up stops or investigations.

According to AP reporting, some flagged vehicles were later intercepted by local police acting on referrals from federal agents. In some cases, drivers were stopped for routine traffic violations without being informed that their routes had been digitally profiled by the intelligence network.

In California, advocacy groups documented roughly 40 license plate readers across San Diego and Imperial counties, both bordering Mexico. More than half were hidden in construction barrels nearly identical to those seen in Arizona.

While ownership of each device could not be independently verified, the advocacy groups said they reviewed permits from the California Department of Transportation showing that both the Border Patrol and the Drug Enforcement Administration had applied to install license plate readers on state highways. Documents also indicated that data collected by the DEA's network is routinely shared with the Border Patrol.

The Associated Press previously confirmed that California motorists had already been affected by the Border Patrol's domestic travel tracking initiative. In a 2024 case, a Border Patrol agent justified pulling over a Nissan Altima partly based on surveillance records suggesting the driver took six hours to cover the 50-mile stretch between the Mexican border and Oceanside, California. In court filings, the agent wrote that such "delays are consistent with smuggling tactics."

Another incident, detailed in 2023 court documents, involved a woman detained at a checkpoint after traveling what agents described as a "circuitous route" between Los Angeles and Phoenix. In both cases, federal authorities alleged the drivers were linked to smuggling operations and pursued criminal charges or asset seizures.

Civil liberties experts warn that the growing use of predictive models tied to license plate data raises profound constitutional questions. Courts have long upheld the legality of reading license plates on public roads. Still, legal scholars note that large-scale aggregation – particularly when paired with algorithmic profiling – veers toward mass surveillance, which is barred under the Fourth Amendment.

"Increasingly, courts have recognized that surveillance technologies can violate protections against unreasonable searches and seizures," the advocacy groups warned in their letter to Newsom. "The use of LPRs combined with predictive algorithms represents precisely the kind of pervasive government tracking that should alarm lawmakers."

A spokesperson for the California Department of Transportation told the Associated Press that the state "prioritizes public safety and privacy" but did not comment directly on the advocacy letter. Newsom's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

US Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, declined to comment on the California allegations but has previously said its license plate program is "governed by a multi-layered policy framework" and is used to "identify threats, disrupt criminal networks, and protect public safety." The DEA stated that it does not publicly discuss investigative tools or techniques.

According to the AP, the predictive intelligence system has operated under administrations of both political parties. Its continuation has reignited debate over the federal government's expanding domestic data collection capabilities, and whether the line between border enforcement and everyday surveillance has effectively disappeared.

Image credit: Ed Parker, The Associated Press

Permalink to story:

 
It feels pretty disapponting to see Cali and Europe protecting citizens from private corporations only to reserve the most predatory practices for themselves. It's almost as if they're not offended by the exploitation of everyday folks, but instead jealous that they aren't the ones doing the exploiting.

Leadership tends to have pretty disgusting and dehumanizing ideas about tech in general because they see people as a resource.
 
"Hidden license plate readers in California are feeding a federal surveillance system"

"The cameras may feed data into a federal predictive surveillance network"

Same article, 2 clickbait titles.
Make up your minds!! Which is it??? Are they already feeding or " they may" feed..."??

I guess our AI overlords are not so concerned with the artificial stupidity of their grammar, or the truth
 
Wouldn't be a bit surprised to find license plate readers nation wide are sending data to the Feds. The 'Fusion Centers' created after 9/11, that is were it is sent. Probably the result of National Security Letters, welcome to the 'Little China annex' called the U.S.
 
Wouldn't be a bit surprised to find license plate readers nation wide are sending data to the Feds. The 'Fusion Centers' created after 9/11, that is were it is sent. Probably the result of National Security Letters, welcome to the 'Little China annex' called the U.S.
I understand the concerns about surveillance creep—that’s a healthy instinct in any constitutional republic. But jumping straight to “Little China annex” rhetoric doesn’t strengthen the argument; it weakens it.

One of the defining features of the United States is that when government power expands, it gets challenged. Programs get exposed. Journalists investigate. Advocacy groups sue. Courts weigh in. That’s not authoritarianism—that’s the democratic pendulum in motion.

We’ve seen this cycle many times. After 9/11, intelligence powers did expand significantly. Over time though, some were scaled back, others reinterpreted, and many subjected to stricter oversight through litigation, legislation, and public pressure. That push and pull isn’t a flaw in the system—it is the system working as designed.

If license plate readers and predictive tracking cross constitutional lines, the proper arena is the courts and legislatures. The Fourth Amendment isn’t decorative; it has real teeth. But suggesting that every instance of interagency data sharing means we’ve become a full-blown surveillance state undercuts serious civil-liberties concerns with unnecessary hyperbole.

Arguments grounded in constitutional limits, transparency, and due process are already powerful enough. Broad-brush comparisons to authoritarian regimes might feel satisfying, but they ultimately erode credible arguments rather than build them.

In a democracy, vigilance totally matters. But so does proportion and honest objectivity.
 
I've used a Fresnel lens license plate cover for years on my vehicle. From DIRECTLY behind the vehicle or in front, the license plate is clear as a bell. But from an ANGLE or ABOVE, you cannot read the plate.
Cuts down on the camera nonsense.
Cops (so far) don't seem to mind. Got stopped by radar for speeding and he didn't say anything about it.
 
It feels pretty disapponting to see Cali and Europe protecting citizens from private corporations only to reserve the most predatory practices for themselves. It's almost as if they're not offended by the exploitation of everyday folks, but instead jealous that they aren't the ones doing the exploiting.

Leadership tends to have pretty disgusting and dehumanizing ideas about tech in general because they see people as a resource.
This is funny. People are all upset about something small like this. Oh no, they're reading your license plates. It's the end of the world!

Remember when the Bush administration came up with the Patriot Act after the 9/11 attack? I believe it was renewed multiple times. You guys remember that, right? The one where the government could point at anyone, call them a terrorist, and whisk them away without charging them with any crime or affording them a lawyer.

There's nothing more American than willingly giving up your basic rights I suppose, but when it comes to the government doing covert license plate reading, well, that's where we draw the line!!
 
I understand the concerns about surveillance creep—that’s a healthy instinct in any constitutional republic. But jumping straight to “Little China annex” rhetoric doesn’t strengthen the argument; it weakens it.

One of the defining features of the United States is that when government power expands, it gets challenged. Programs get exposed. Journalists investigate. Advocacy groups sue. Courts weigh in. That’s not authoritarianism—that’s the democratic pendulum in motion.

We’ve seen this cycle many times. After 9/11, intelligence powers did expand significantly. Over time though, some were scaled back, others reinterpreted, and many subjected to stricter oversight through litigation, legislation, and public pressure. That push and pull isn’t a flaw in the system—it is the system working as designed.

If license plate readers and predictive tracking cross constitutional lines, the proper arena is the courts and legislatures. The Fourth Amendment isn’t decorative; it has real teeth. But suggesting that every instance of interagency data sharing means we’ve become a full-blown surveillance state undercuts serious civil-liberties concerns with unnecessary hyperbole.

Arguments grounded in constitutional limits, transparency, and due process are already powerful enough. Broad-brush comparisons to authoritarian regimes might feel satisfying, but they ultimately erode credible arguments rather than build them.

In a democracy, vigilance totally matters. But so does proportion and honest objectivity.
Just stop. This is obviously AI written. Use your own words.
 
I understand the concerns about surveillance creep—that’s a healthy instinct in any constitutional republic. But jumping straight to “Little China annex” rhetoric doesn’t strengthen the argument; it weakens it.

One of the defining features of the United States is that when government power expands, it gets challenged. Programs get exposed. Journalists investigate. Advocacy groups sue. Courts weigh in. That’s not authoritarianism—that’s the democratic pendulum in motion.

We’ve seen this cycle many times. After 9/11, intelligence powers did expand significantly. Over time though, some were scaled back, others reinterpreted, and many subjected to stricter oversight through litigation, legislation, and public pressure. That push and pull isn’t a flaw in the system—it is the system working as designed.

If license plate readers and predictive tracking cross constitutional lines, the proper arena is the courts and legislatures. The Fourth Amendment isn’t decorative; it has real teeth. But suggesting that every instance of interagency data sharing means we’ve become a full-blown surveillance state undercuts serious civil-liberties concerns with unnecessary hyperbole.

Arguments grounded in constitutional limits, transparency, and due process are already powerful enough. Broad-brush comparisons to authoritarian regimes might feel satisfying, but they ultimately erode credible arguments rather than build them.

In a democracy, vigilance totally matters. But so does proportion and honest objectivity.
this statement is purely child-like fantasy pushed by oblivious agents of the machine. democracy? not possible in a country that guarantees a republican form of government to every single American. If your statements were valid, these problems would not exist. Oath of office would restrict the political players ability to start any action that deviates from the contract of limited government services.
"Politicians that violate their Oath by betraying The Constitution should be prosecuted for Treason and/or Title 18 Section 242 and sued under Title 42 Section 1983

Usurpation of Power is Treason
- St. George Tucker"
from the top to the bottom--- millions of employees working for government and a standing army, navy, air force, marines... etc etc... all paid by SERCO
not American.




honesty, truth, transparency and integrity are not applicable to corporate government entities--- contracted to provide LIMITED essential government services.
The entire country is under foreign control. The limited services of their contracts were buried over a century ago. Their corporate growth has been extended as franchises have already covered every state's counties, cities and every municipality coast to coast. For example, New Mexico has almost 13k corporate entities that control every possible component of government-- Owned by foreign interests.
NONE of the government is for the people by the people...
The people created the cooperative governments. Now the governments OWN the people, literally. You are not free, you already own nothing. If you have to ask permission to function daily and pay for your participation--- YOU ARE NOT FREE!
have a nice day.
 
I've used a Fresnel lens license plate cover for years on my vehicle. From DIRECTLY behind the vehicle or in front, the license plate is clear as a bell. But from an ANGLE or ABOVE, you cannot read the plate.
Cuts down on the camera nonsense.
Cops (so far) don't seem to mind. Got stopped by radar for speeding and he didn't say anything about it.
all vehicles manufactured after 2012 are required to have operational "black box" monitoring. chevy has had the box since the 1990's with better and better tech each year. Toyota has theirs in a code which they refused to share the key for decades, but finally gave it up when the Owner passed away and the company was operating for a few years until the family got control of it again
 
They introduce expanding powers against terrorist and child abusers first, so no one questions them. Once normalized, people think cops using Palentir and Flock databases on a speeding ticket stop is normal.
 
This is funny. People are all upset about something small like this. Oh no, they're reading your license plates. It's the end of the world!

Remember when the Bush administration came up with the Patriot Act after the 9/11 attack? I believe it was renewed multiple times. You guys remember that, right? The one where the government could point at anyone, call them a terrorist, and whisk them away without charging them with any crime or affording them a lawyer.

There's nothing more American than willingly giving up your basic rights I suppose, but when it comes to the government doing covert license plate reading, well, that's where we draw the line!!
I guess you would change your tune if you did something to trigger this fancy algorithm and get falsely accused and have all your assets taken!!
 
Just stop. This is obviously AI written. Use your own words.
My opinion: reasoned, defensible, and well written. Yours: a tantrum dressed as critique. Step aside or offer something substantive to the conversation, cupcake.
 
this statement is purely child-like fantasy pushed by oblivious agents of the machine. democracy? not possible in a country that guarantees a republican form of government to every single American. If your statements were valid, these problems would not exist. Oath of office would restrict the political players ability to start any action that deviates from the contract of limited government services.
"Politicians that violate their Oath by betraying The Constitution should be prosecuted for Treason and/or Title 18 Section 242 and sued under Title 42 Section 1983

Usurpation of Power is Treason
- St. George Tucker"
from the top to the bottom--- millions of employees working for government and a standing army, navy, air force, marines... etc etc... all paid by SERCO
not American.




honesty, truth, transparency and integrity are not applicable to corporate government entities--- contracted to provide LIMITED essential government services.
The entire country is under foreign control. The limited services of their contracts were buried over a century ago. Their corporate growth has been extended as franchises have already covered every state's counties, cities and every municipality coast to coast. For example, New Mexico has almost 13k corporate entities that control every possible component of government-- Owned by foreign interests.
NONE of the government is for the people by the people...
The people created the cooperative governments. Now the governments OWN the people, literally. You are not free, you already own nothing. If you have to ask permission to function daily and pay for your participation--- YOU ARE NOT FREE!
have a nice day.
Sure, dude.

Calling people with whom you disagree “children” or “agents of the machine” isn’t an argument. It’s immaturity. Dismissing others with name-calling doesn’t strengthen claims; it just signals an inability to defend them on their merits.

The United States is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. Those terms describe different features of the same system. They are not contradictions.

As for New Mexico, the claim that thousands of “foreign-owned corporate entities” control the entire state government is unsupported. The vast majority of registered businesses in New Mexico—like in every other state—are owned and operated by U.S. citizens or domestic entities under U.S. law. That’s not evidence of foreign control, it’s how a market-based system functions. Conflating routine corporate registration with a shadow takeover is a leap without proof.

Powerful interests absolutely try to influence the system—that’s true in literally every society. The existence of influence isn’t the absence of freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean no one has power; it means power can be challenged, exposed, competed with, and voted against. Imperfect doesn’t equal enslaved.

If the concern is government overreach, then the strongest case is built on documented facts, legal standards, and enforceable remedies—not blanket declarations that “none of the government is legitimate.” Dramatic hyperbole just serves to weaken any serious constitutional argument.

And as for freedom—I run a business, earn my own income, travel freely, educate myself with access to a broad range of topics, and participate in my community. I don’t have to ask permission. I engage. I learn how the system works and I find opportunity. I follow the law not because I’m owned, but because functioning societies require shared rules. And I can draw a direct line from these actions to my personal success. The argument that “no one is free” is philosophical nonsense. It sounds less like a constitutional critique and more like a personal sense of grievance projected onto everyone else; weak sauce.

Disagreement and debate is fair. Personal attacks and unsupported conspiracies aren’t worth the air used to manifest them.

Have a nice day.
 
I guess you would change your tune if you did something to trigger this fancy algorithm and get falsely accused and have all your assets taken!!
Your, whole post, (Kashim) is right on point! And, if they (US government) took you away per the Patriot Act, no one would know where you are. They, could take you and keep it from your family or anyone else for that matter, march you off to a CIA black site out of this country and do what ever they please to you!!
 
Sure, dude.

Calling people with whom you disagree “children” or “agents of the machine” isn’t an argument. It’s immaturity. Dismissing others with name-calling doesn’t strengthen claims; it just signals an inability to defend them on their merits.

The United States is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. Those terms describe different features of the same system. They are not contradictions.

As for New Mexico, the claim that thousands of “foreign-owned corporate entities” control the entire state government is unsupported. The vast majority of registered businesses in New Mexico—like in every other state—are owned and operated by U.S. citizens or domestic entities under U.S. law. That’s not evidence of foreign control, it’s how a market-based system functions. Conflating routine corporate registration with a shadow takeover is a leap without proof.

Powerful interests absolutely try to influence the system—that’s true in literally every society. The existence of influence isn’t the absence of freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean no one has power; it means power can be challenged, exposed, competed with, and voted against. Imperfect doesn’t equal enslaved.

If the concern is government overreach, then the strongest case is built on documented facts, legal standards, and enforceable remedies—not blanket declarations that “none of the government is legitimate.” Dramatic hyperbole just serves to weaken any serious constitutional argument.

And as for freedom—I run a business, earn my own income, travel freely, educate myself with access to a broad range of topics, and participate in my community. I don’t have to ask permission. I engage. I learn how the system works and I find opportunity. I follow the law not because I’m owned, but because functioning societies require shared rules. And I can draw a direct line from these actions to my personal success. The argument that “no one is free” is philosophical nonsense. It sounds less like a constitutional critique and more like a personal sense of grievance projected onto everyone else; weak sauce.

Disagreement and debate is fair. Personal attacks and unsupported conspiracies aren’t worth the air used to manifest them.

Have a nice day.
Enter the defensive drivel that claims "Calling people with whom you disagree “children” or “agents of the machine” isn’t an argument. " while being dismissive, dishonest and immature. This list of your beliefs(or agents predetermined propaganda) could have been written in less than a paragraph.
I observed your BS as child-like and you adopted the observation as your own. You can disagree and debate or label my statements as "Dramatic hyperbole" and "Personal attacks and unsupported conspiracies" but IDGAF about how you feel!
IDGAF if you "run a business, earn my own income, travel freely, educate myself with access to a broad range of topics, and participate in my community. I don’t have to ask permission. I engage. I learn how the system works and I find opportunity. I follow the law..."
I made true statements. Disagree, debate and feel offended in order to prop yourself up. Good for you. I hope other commentors will ask all about your beliefs and your business.

Most important: I know EXACTLY what you mean. my own business, income, travel and participation is what you describe. Perhaps we are components of the same industry...
Have a NICE day.
 
Enter the defensive drivel that claims "Calling people with whom you disagree “children” or “agents of the machine” isn’t an argument. " while being dismissive, dishonest and immature. This list of your beliefs(or agents predetermined propaganda) could have been written in less than a paragraph.
I observed your BS as child-like and you adopted the observation as your own. You can disagree and debate or label my statements as "Dramatic hyperbole" and "Personal attacks and unsupported conspiracies" but IDGAF about how you feel!
IDGAF if you "run a business, earn my own income, travel freely, educate myself with access to a broad range of topics, and participate in my community. I don’t have to ask permission. I engage. I learn how the system works and I find opportunity. I follow the law..."
I made true statements. Disagree, debate and feel offended in order to prop yourself up. Good for you. I hope other commentors will ask all about your beliefs and your business.

Most important: I know EXACTLY what you mean. my own business, income, travel and participation is what you describe. Perhaps we are components of the same industry...
Have a NICE day.
LOL. Sure. Totally evident. Debating specific claims eloquently and with respect is clearly difficult for you now, but, you keep on believing buddy. You’ll get there eventually.
 
Back