ACLU Privacy Expert to Testify at Bipartisan Senate Hearing on Flock and Other Automatic License Plate Readers

On September 21, 2026, the ACLU, ACLU of Nevada and the Innocence Project filed an amicus brief in the District of Nevada in support of Jason Killinger, a man wrongfully arrested after police relied on an incorrect result from facial recognition technology.

Oregon law enforcement, without a warrant, installed surveillance cameras on two telephone poles near Petitioner’s home and recorded activity there for a month. The State argues that police can continuously surveil our most private spaces—our homes—without judicial oversight. The ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, filed an amicus brief arguing that police were required to obtain a warrant before conducting the extensive pole-camera surveillance at issue this case.

WASHINGTON — The Senate will take a procedural vote on the Clarity Act today, which includes a provision that would give companies a free pass to experiment on “AI test projects” without transparency or oversight. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that this is unneeded both because of how fast artificial intelligence is already growing, and also because of the harm it could cause to individuals’ rights. “Companies have plenty of freedom to do basic research on AI. But they shouldn’t have the freedom to use the American people as guinea pigs by subjecting them to harmful experiments that violate existing laws meant to protect people,” said Jina John, senior policy counsel on AI at the ACLU. “At the very moment that AI leaders are warning of catastrophic risks and urging Congress to regulate AI, Congress must not pass any law that would endanger people’s rights and liberties for the sake of AI experimentation.” Section 509 of the bill would establish a scheme for companies to seek waivers from any regulation from a financial regulator, including those related to privacy, security, consumer protection, and civil rights. That means companies could conduct AI experiments that risk exposing consumers’ financial data or be used to develop products that make decisions about lending, housing, and other important areas without providing notice about adverse actions or considering the potential for discrimination, all without oversight. The ACLU and a coalition of other rights groups recently sent a letter to Congress outlining the dangers of this provision for privacy rights and the right to be free from discrimination in key economic transactions.

WASHINGTON – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of D.C., and the National Press Photographers Association filed an amicus brief in support of a Minnesota photojournalist’s lawsuit challenging the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR). Earlier this year, as ICE was carrying out brutal immigration raids across the country, the FAA dramatically expanded restrictions on drone flights, banning such flights over any Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facility or “mobile asset,” which included any DHS vehicle. As the amicus explains, the TFR made it functionally impossible for journalists to use drones to gather news in any area where immigration enforcement agents were deployed, violating the First Amendment right to record public officials performing their duties in public. “The FAA’s restriction forced journalists reporting on immigration enforcement activity to ground their drones or risk criminal charges. This choice is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and runs roughshod over the First Amendment right to gather news,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. The brief explains that the FAA’s restriction was not about public safety or national security. Journalists were previously already advised and generally adhered to avoiding airspace around sensitive locations, such as active military bases, airports, and aircraft carriers. Moreover, press drones weren’t interfering with official activity or putting anyone at risk by capturing immigration enforcement activity unfolding in public. "Under Trump, even the Federal Aviation Administration has become a political censor,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU-D.C. “The agency should be protecting the safety of the flying public, not protecting ICE from unfavorable news coverage.” The brief further explains that journalists were effectively being censored beyond their DHS coverage, since the unpredictability of where any DHS vehicle may be traveling made it functionally impossible for journalists to use drones for any newsgathering in areas where immigration enforcement agents were deployed without putting themselves at risk of severe legal and financial penalties. “Drones have become essential, safe, and economical tools for documenting government activity and other matters of public concern. By creating an unpredictable moving exclusion zone around DHS assets, the FAA forced visual journalists to choose between abandoning lawful newsgathering and risking severe penalties,” said Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association. “Safety restrictions must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the First Amendment, especially when they limit the public’s ability to observe government officials performing their duties.”