The Marin County Sheriff’s Office is the latest California law enforcement agency to get caught sharing automated license plate reader (ALPR) data from their Flock Safety system with out-of-state and federal agencies. EFF and the ACLU of Northern California are calling them out for this direct violation of California law, which has put every driver in the county at risk and is especially dangerous for immigrants, abortion seekers, and other targets of the federal government.

Today, we sent the Marin County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) a demand letter and request for records under the California Public Records Act following the Point Reyes Light’s recent report that MCSO provided non-California agencies access to its ALPR database. This directly violates California law and the terms of the 2022 Settlement Agreement in our case Lagleva v. Marin County Sheriff.

ALPRs are cameras that capture images of vehicles and upload their location to a searchable, shareable database. They are a mass surveillance technology that collects data indiscriminately on every vehicle on the road.

Sharing ALPR data with out-of-state or federal agencies—for any reason—violates California law (SB 34). If this data is shared for the purpose of assisting with immigration enforcement, agencies violate an additional California law (SB 54).  

But network audit logs obtained by Point Reyes Light show that during the final months of 2024, Marin County Sheriff’s Office shared ALPR data with multiple out-of-state and federal agencies, including 254,131 times in November 2024 alone. Many of these searches were conducted by law enforcement in states that impose severe restrictions on reproductive care and have a history of assisting ICE, including Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, and Texas.

This sharing violated state law and “exposed sensitive driver location information to misuse by the federal government and by states that lack California’s robust privacy protections,” the letter explains.

This is not the first time MCSO has shared Marin County ALPR information with federal and out-of-state agencies in violation of California law.

Back in 2021, on behalf of community activists, EFF and ACLU sued the Marin County Sheriff for illegally sharing millions of local drivers’ license plate numbers and location data with hundreds of federal and out-of-state agencies, including ICE and Border Patrol.

The parties eventually reached a settlement, under which the Sheriff agreed to stop sharing license plate and location information with agencies outside of California to comply with state laws SB 34 and SB 54.

“MCSO’s November 2024 audit report shows that your office has violated not only SB 34, but the terms of the Lagleva Settlement Agreement as well,” the letter explains.

EFF and ACLU are urging MCSO to launch a thorough audit of its ALPR database, institute new protocols for compliance, and assess penalties for any employee found to be sharing ALPR information out of state.

“While your office claims that it took deliberate steps to disable nationwide data-access capabilities and ensure your system operated within strict privacy safeguards, you have not explained how outside agencies nonetheless obtained access, how you plan to prevent future violations of SB 34 and the Lagleva Settlement Agreement, or why you did not take steps to inform the public and the Marin County Inspector General once you learned about the breach,” the letter explains.

As we’ve demonstrated over and over again, many California agencies continue to ignore these laws, exposing sensitive location information to misuse and putting entire communities at risk. As federal agencies continue to carry out violent ICE raids, and many states enforce harsh, draconian restrictions on abortion, ALPR technology is already being used to target and surveil immigrants and abortion seekers. These incidents have made it clear that having ALPR programs are incompatible with the protection of residents. California agencies, including Marin County Sheriff’s Office, have an obligation to protect the rights of Californians, even when those rights are not recognized by other states or the federal government. 

See the full letter here: https://www.eff.org/document/20261001-letter-aclu-norcal-and-eff-marin-sheriff

Access to accurate information about reproductive and maternal health can be critical. But on Meta's platforms, simply talking about prescription medication, abortion care, or one's own medical experiences can be enough to trigger content removals and account restrictions.

That's why EFF recently submitted a public comment to the Meta Oversight Board in its consideration of a case involving an Instagram post about prescription drugs during pregnancy and childbirth. The case touches upon a topic we’ve been documenting for some time; last year we collected stories from individuals who had experienced censorship of reproductive health information on various platforms. Meta in particular stood out: Its moderation systems routinely fail to distinguish between prohibited drug transactions and legitimate discussion of medications, including educational information and people's firsthand experiences with healthcare.

Through our Stop Censoring Abortion project, EFF collected nearly 100 submissions from healthcare providers, clinics, educators, advocates, researchers, and others whose reproductive health content had been removed or suppressed by social media platforms. What we found was alarming: systemic over-enforcement, confusing policies, arbitrary takedowns, sudden account bans, de-ranking, and appeals that too often went nowhere.

Talking About Medication Isn't the Same as Selling It

In almost every case we reviewed, the censored posts and accounts did not actually violate the platforms' stated rules. Meta frequently cited its Restricted Goods and Services policy, which prohibits attempts to buy, sell, trade, donate, gift, or request pharmaceutical drugs. But the content EFF documented overwhelmingly consisted of factual or educational information—not attempts to sell or distribute drugs.

The consequences were significant. For example, the Miscarriage+Abortion Hotline had its Instagram account restricted and posts removed even though it was providing information about legally obtaining medication rather than offering pharmaceuticals for sale. Red River Women's Clinic and the RISE reproductive health research center at Emory University had accounts locked after posting about mifepristone.

Other users reported having their content quietly de-ranked or “shadowbanned,” limiting its reach without giving them meaningful notice or recourse. We believe educational content and people's experiences involving reproductive healthcare and medication should not be suppressed in this way.

And when Meta gets these decisions wrong, the appeals process too often fails to fix them. In several cases EFF documented, accounts were restored only after journalists drew attention to the problem or someone with a personal connection inside Meta intervened. A moderation system shouldn't require knowing the right person to get an erroneous decision reversed.

Meta Can—and Must—Do Better

Our submission calls on Meta to make five changes—the same five changes we asked for last year.

First, Meta should publish clear, understandable policies so users can know what content is permitted and what might result in removal, downranking, or account suspension. Second, those rules must be enforced consistently and fairly. Third, Meta must provide meaningful explanations for enforcement decisions, including what rule was violated and how users can appeal. Fourth, users need a functional appeals system that doesn't depend on insider access.

Finally, Meta should expand human review. Reproductive healthcare is precisely the sort of nuanced and context-dependent subject that automated moderation systems struggle to understand. As our research shows, automated systems can mistake education for drug sales, misinterpret terminology, overlook cultural and political context, and even classify legitimate advocacy as dangerous content. Human moderators should therefore play a greater role when automated systems flag sensitive healthcare information or political expression.

Meta has chosen to allow discussion of reproductive healthcare, including abortion, on its platforms. That commitment means little if its moderation systems nevertheless prevent people from accessing or sharing that information.

At a moment when reproductive rights are under attack around the world, the stakes are particularly high. Restricting access to essential healthcare information can have profound consequences, especially for people who already face barriers to reproductive care.

Users deserve a system in which rules aren't applied arbitrarily, appeals actually work, and vital health information isn't silenced because an automated system failed to understand its context. Meta can—and must—do better.

You can read our comment in full below.

(This appeared as an op-ed published February 12, 2026 in the San Jose Spotlight, written by Huy Tran (SIREN), Jeffrey Wang (CAIR-SFBA), and Jennifer Pinsof.)

As ICE and other federal agencies continue their assault on civil liberties, local leaders are stepping up to protect their communities. This includes pushing back against automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, which are tools of mass surveillance that can be weaponized against immigrants, political dissidents and other targets.

In recent weeks, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Cruz, East Palo Alto and Santa Clara County have begun reconsidering their ALPR programs. San Jose should join them. This dangerous technology poses an unacceptable risk to the safety of immigrants and other vulnerable populations.

ALPRs are marketed to promote public safety. But their utility is debatable and they come with significant drawbacks. They don’t just track “criminals.” They track everyone, all the time. Your vehicle’s movements can reveal where you work, worship and obtain medical care. ALPR vendors like Flock Safety put the location information of millions of drivers into databases, allowing anyone with access to instantly reconstruct the public’s movements.

But “anyone with access” is far broader than just local police. Some California law enforcement agencies have used ALPR networks to run searches related to immigration enforcement. In other situations, purported issues with the system’s software have enabled federal agencies to directly access California ALPR data. This is despite the promises of ALPR vendors and clear legal prohibitions.

Communities are saying enough is enough. Just last week, police in Mountain View decided to turn off all of the city’s Flock cameras, following revelations that federal and other unauthorized agencies had accessed their network. The cameras will remain inactive until the City Council provides further direction.

Other localities have shut off the cameras for good. In January, Los Altos Hills terminated its contract with Flock following concerns about ICE. Santa Cruz severed relations with Flock, citing rising tensions with ICE. Most recently, East Palo Alto and Santa Clara County are reconsidering whether to continue their relationships with Flock, given heightened concern for the safety of immigrant communities.

California law prohibits local police from disclosing ALPR data to out-of-state or federal agencies. But at least 75 California police agencies were sharing these records out-of-state as recently as 2023. Just last year, San Francisco police allowed access to out-of-state agencies and 19 searches were related to ICE.

Even without direct access, ICE can exploit local ALPR systems. One investigation found more than 4,000 cases where police had made searches on behalf of federal law enforcement, including for immigration investigations.

Increasing the risk is that law enforcement routinely searches these networks without first obtaining a warrant. In San Jose, police aren’t required to have any suspicion of wrongdoing before searching ALPR databases, which contain a year’s worth of data representing hundreds of millions of records. In a little over a year, San Jose police logged more than 261,000 ALPR searches, or nearly 700 searches a day, all without a warrant.

Two nonprofit organizations, SIREN and CAIR California, represented by Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California, are currently suing to stop San Jose’s warrantless searches of ALPR data. But this is only the first step. A better solution is to simply turn these cameras off.

San Jose cannot afford delay. Each day these cameras remain active, they collect sensitive location data that can be misused to target immigrant families and violate fundamental freedoms. It is a risk materializing across California. City leaders must act now to shut down ALPR systems and make clear that public safety will not come at the expense of privacy, human dignity or community trust.

As reproductive rights face growing attacks globally, access to content about reproductive healthcare and abortion online has never been more critical. The internet has essential information on topics like where and how to access care, links to abortion funds, and guidance on ways to navigate potential legal risks. Reproductive rights activists use the internet to organize and build community, and healthcare providers rely on it to distribute accurate information to people in need. And for those living in one of the 20+ states where abortion is banned or heavily restricted, the internet is often the only place to find these potentially life-saving resources.  

Nonetheless, both the government and private platforms are increasingly censoring abortion-related speech, at a time when we need it most. Anti-abortion legislators are actively trying to pass laws to limit online speech about abortion, making it harder to share critical resources, discuss legal options, seek safe care, and advocate for reproductive rights. At the same time, social media platforms have increasingly cracked down on abortion-related content, leading to the suppression, shadow-banning, and outright removal of posts and accounts.  

This year, we worked tirelessly to fight censorship of abortion-related information online—whether it originated from the largest social media platforms or the largest state in the U.S.   

As defenders of free expression and access to information online, we have a role to play in understanding where and how this is happening, shining a light on practices that endanger these rights, and taking action to ensure they’re protected. This year, we worked tirelessly to fight censorship of abortion-related information online—whether it originated from the largest social media platforms or the largest state in the U.S.   

Exposing Social Media Censorship 

At the start of 2025, we launched the #StopCensoringAbortion campaign to collect and spotlight the growing number of stories from users that have had abortion-related content censored by social media platforms. Our goal was to better understand how and why this is happening, raise awareness, and hold the platforms accountable.  

Thanks to nearly 100 submissions from educators, advocates, clinics, researchers, and influencers around the world, we confirmed what many already suspected: this speech is being removed and restricted by platforms at an alarming rate. Across the submissions we received, we saw a pattern of over enforcement, lack of transparency, and arbitrary moderation decisions aimed at reproductive health and reproductive justice advocates.  

Notably, almost none of the submissions we reviewed actually violated the platforms’ stated policies. The most common reason Meta gave for removing abortion-related content was that it violated policies on Restricted Goods and Services, which prohibit any “attempts to buy, sell, trade, donate, gift or ask for pharmaceutical drugs.” But the content being removed wasn’t selling medications. Most of the censored posts simply provided factual, educational information—content that’s expressly allowed by Meta.  

In a month-long 10-part series, we broke down our findings. We examined the trends we saw, including stories of individuals and organizations who needed to rely on internal connections at Meta to get wrongfully censored posts restored, examples of account suspensions without sufficient warnings, and an exploration of Meta policies and how they are wrongly applied. We provided practical tips for users to protect their posts from being removed, and we called on platforms to adopt steps to ensure transparency, a functional appeals process, more human review of posts, and consistent and fair enforcement of rules.  

Social media platforms have a First Amendment right to curate the content on their sites—they can remove whatever content they want—and we recognize that. But companies like Meta claim they care about free speech, and their policies explicitly claim to allow educational information and discussions about abortion. We think they have a duty to live up to those promises. Our #StopCensoringAbortion campaign clearly shows that this isn’t happening and underscores the urgent need for platforms to review and consistently enforce their policies fairly and transparently.  

Combating Legislative Attacks on Free Speech  

On top of platform censorship, lawmakers are trying to police what people can say and see about abortion online. So in 2025, we also fought against censorship of abortion information on the legislative front.  

EFF opposed Texas Senate Bill (S.B.) 2880, which would not only outlaw the sale and distribution of abortion pills, but also make it illegal to “provide information” on how to obtain an abortion-inducing drug. Simply having an online conversation about mifepristone or exchanging emails about it could run afoul of the law.  

On top of going after online speakers who create and post content themselves, the bill also targeted social media platforms, websites, email services, messaging apps, and any other “interactive computer service” simply for hosting or making that content available. This was a clear attempt by Texas legislators to keep people from learning about abortion drugs, or even knowing that they exist, by wiping this information from the internet altogether.  

We laid out the glaring free-speech issues with S.B. 2880 and explained how the consequences would be dire if passed. And we asked everyone who cares about free speech to urge lawmakers to oppose this bill, and others like it. Fortunately, these concerns were heard, and the bill never became law.

Our team also spent much of the year fighting dangerous age verification legislation, often touted as “child safety” bills, at both the federal and state level. We raised the alarm on how age verification laws pose significant challenges for users trying to access critical content—including vital information about sexual and reproductive health. By age-gating the internet, these laws could result in websites requiring users to submit identification before accessing information about abortion or reproductive healthcare. This undermines the ability to remain private and anonymous while searching for abortion information online. 

Protecting Life-Saving Information Online 

Abortion information saves lives, and the internet is a primary (and sometimes only) source where people can access it.  

As attacks on abortion information intensify, EFF will continue to fight so that users can post, host, and access abortion-related content without fear of being silenced. We’ll keep pushing for greater accountability from social media platforms and fighting against harmful legislation aimed at censoring these vital resources. The fight is far from over, but we will remain steadfast in ensuring that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access life-saving information and make informed decisions about their health and rights.

This article is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2025.