(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.

Related Cases: SIREN and CAIR-CA v. San Jose

Report from EFF, Center for Just Journalism, and IPVM Helps Cut Through Sales Hype

SAN FRANCISCO — A new report released today offers journalists tips on cutting through the sales hype about police surveillance technology and report accurately on costs, benefits, privacy, and accountability as these invasive and often ineffective tools come to communities across the nation. 

The “Selling Safety” report is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Just Journalism (CJJ), and IPVM. 

Police technology is often sold as a silver bullet: a way to modernize departments, make communities safer, and eliminate human bias from policing with algorithmic objectivity. Behind the slick marketing is a sprawling, under-scrutinized industry that relies on manufacturing the appearance of effectiveness, not measuring it. The cost of blindly deferring to advertising can be high in tax dollars, privacy, and civil liberties. 

“Selling Safety” helps journalists see through the spin. It breaks down how policing technology companies market their tools, and how those sales claims — which are often misleading — get recycled into media coverage. It offers tools for asking better questions, understanding incentives, and finding local accountability stories. 

“The industry that provides technology to law enforcement is one of the most unregulated, unexamined, and consequential in the United States,” said EFF Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia. “Most Americans would rightfully be horrified to know how many decisions about policing are made: not by public employees, but by multi-billion-dollar surveillance tech companies who have an insatiable profit motive to market their technology as the silver bullet that will stop crime. Lawmakers often are too eager to seem ‘tough on crime’ and journalists too often see an easy story in publishing law enforcement press releases about new technology. This report offers a glimpse into how the police-tech sausage gets made so reporters and lawmakers can recognize the tactics of glossy marketing pitches, manufactured effectiveness numbers, and chumminess between companies and police.” 

“Surveillance and other police technologies are spreading faster than public understanding or oversight, leaving journalists to do critical accountability work in real time. We hope this report helps make that work easier,” said Hannah Riley Fernandez, CJJ’s Director of Programming. 

"The surveillance technology industry has a documented pattern of making unsubstantiated claims about technology,” said Conor Healy, IPVM's Director of Government Research. “Marketing is not a substitute for evidence. Journalists who go beyond press releases to critically examine vendor claims will often find solutions are not as magical as they may seem. In doing so, they perform essential accountability work that protects both taxpayer dollars and civil liberties." 

EFF also maintains resources for understanding various police technologies and mapping those technologies in communities across the United States. 

For the “Selling Safety” report:  https://www.eff.org/document/selling-safety-journalists-guide-covering-police-technology

For EFF’s Street-Level Surveillance hub: https://sls.eff.org/ 

For EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance: https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/ 

Contact:  BerylLiptonSenior Investigative Researcherberyl@eff.org

Report from EFF, Center for Just Journalism, and IPVM Helps Cut Through Sales Hype

SAN FRANCISCO — A new report released today offers journalists tips on cutting through the sales hype about police surveillance technology and report accurately on costs, benefits, privacy, and accountability as these invasive and often ineffective tools come to communities across the nation. 

The “Selling Safety” report is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Just Journalism (CJJ), and IPVM. 

Police technology is often sold as a silver bullet: a way to modernize departments, make communities safer, and eliminate human bias from policing with algorithmic objectivity. Behind the slick marketing is a sprawling, under-scrutinized industry that relies on manufacturing the appearance of effectiveness, not measuring it. The cost of blindly deferring to advertising can be high in tax dollars, privacy, and civil liberties. 

“Selling Safety” helps journalists see through the spin. It breaks down how policing technology companies market their tools, and how those sales claims — which are often misleading — get recycled into media coverage. It offers tools for asking better questions, understanding incentives, and finding local accountability stories. 

“The industry that provides technology to law enforcement is one of the most unregulated, unexamined, and consequential in the United States,” said EFF Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia. “Most Americans would rightfully be horrified to know how many decisions about policing are made: not by public employees, but by multi-billion-dollar surveillance tech companies who have an insatiable profit motive to market their technology as the silver bullet that will stop crime. Lawmakers often are too eager to seem ‘tough on crime’ and journalists too often see an easy story in publishing law enforcement press releases about new technology. This report offers a glimpse into how the police-tech sausage gets made so reporters and lawmakers can recognize the tactics of glossy marketing pitches, manufactured effectiveness numbers, and chumminess between companies and police.” 

“Surveillance and other police technologies are spreading faster than public understanding or oversight, leaving journalists to do critical accountability work in real time. We hope this report helps make that work easier,” said Hannah Riley Fernandez, CJJ’s Director of Programming. 

"The surveillance technology industry has a documented pattern of making unsubstantiated claims about technology,” said Conor Healy, IPVM's Director of Government Research. “Marketing is not a substitute for evidence. Journalists who go beyond press releases to critically examine vendor claims will often find solutions are not as magical as they may seem. In doing so, they perform essential accountability work that protects both taxpayer dollars and civil liberties." 

EFF also maintains resources for understanding various police technologies and mapping those technologies in communities across the United States. 

For the “Selling Safety” report:  https://www.eff.org/document/selling-safety-journalists-guide-covering-police-technology

For EFF’s Street-Level Surveillance hub: https://sls.eff.org/ 

For EFF’s Atlas of Surveillance: https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/ 

Contact:  BerylLiptonSenior Investigative Researcherberyl@eff.org

The New York Times reported that Meta is considering adding face recognition technology to its smart glasses. According to an internal Meta document, the company may launch the product “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” 

This is a bad idea that Meta should abandon. If adopted and released to the public, it would violate the privacy rights of millions of people and cost the company billions of dollars in legal battles.   

Your biometric data, such as your faceprint, are some of the most sensitive pieces of data that a company can collect. Associated risks include mass surveillance, data breach, and discrimination. Adding this technology to glasses on the street also raises safety concerns.  

 This kind of face recognition feature would require the company to collect a faceprint from every person who steps into view of the camera-equipped glasses to find a match. Meta cannot possibly obtain consent from everyone—especially bystanders who are not Meta users.  

Dozens of state laws consider biometric information to be sensitive and require companies to implement strict protections to collect and process it, including affirmative consent.  

Meta Should Know the Privacy and Legal Risks  

Meta should already know the privacy risks of face recognition technology, after abandoning related technology and paying nearly $7 billion in settlements a few years ago.  

In November 2021, Meta announced that it would shut down its tool that scanned the face of every person in photos posted on the platform. At the time, Meta also announced that it would delete more than a billion face templates. 

Two years before that in July 2019, Facebook settled a sweeping privacy investigation with the Federal Trade Commission for $5 billion. This included allegations that Facebook’s face recognition settings were confusing and deceptive. At the time, the company agreed to obtain consent before running face recognition on users in the future.   

In March 2021, the company agreed to a $650 million class action settlement brought by Illinois consumers under the state's strong biometric privacy law. 

And most recently, in July 2024, Meta agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle claims that its defunct face recognition system violated Texas law.  

 Privacy Advocates Will Continue to Focus our Resources on Meta  

 Meta’s conclusion that it can avoid scrutiny by releasing a privacy invasive product during a time of political crisis is craven and morally bankrupt. It is also dead wrong.  

Now more than ever, people have seen the real-world risk of invasive technology. The public has recoiled at masked immigration agents roving cities with phones equipped with a face recognition app called Mobile Fortify. And Amazon Ring just experienced a huge backlash when people realized that a feature marketed for finding lost dogs could one day be repurposed for mass biometric surveillance.  

The public will continue to resist these privacy invasive features. And EFF, other civil liberties groups, and plaintiffs’ attorneys will be here to help. We urge privacy regulators and attorneys general to step up to investigate as well.  

The New York Times reported that Meta is considering adding face recognition technology to its smart glasses. According to an internal Meta document, the company may launch the product “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.” 

This is a bad idea that Meta should abandon. If adopted and released to the public, it would violate the privacy rights of millions of people and cost the company billions of dollars in legal battles.   

Your biometric data, such as your faceprint, are some of the most sensitive pieces of data that a company can collect. Associated risks include mass surveillance, data breach, and discrimination. Adding this technology to glasses on the street also raises safety concerns.  

 This kind of face recognition feature would require the company to collect a faceprint from every person who steps into view of the camera-equipped glasses to find a match. Meta cannot possibly obtain consent from everyone—especially bystanders who are not Meta users.  

Dozens of state laws consider biometric information to be sensitive and require companies to implement strict protections to collect and process it, including affirmative consent.  

Meta Should Know the Privacy and Legal Risks  

Meta should already know the privacy risks of face recognition technology, after abandoning related technology and paying nearly $7 billion in settlements a few years ago.  

In November 2021, Meta announced that it would shut down its tool that scanned the face of every person in photos posted on the platform. At the time, Meta also announced that it would delete more than a billion face templates. 

Two years before that in July 2019, Facebook settled a sweeping privacy investigation with the Federal Trade Commission for $5 billion. This included allegations that Facebook’s face recognition settings were confusing and deceptive. At the time, the company agreed to obtain consent before running face recognition on users in the future.   

In March 2021, the company agreed to a $650 million class action settlement brought by Illinois consumers under the state's strong biometric privacy law. 

And most recently, in July 2024, Meta agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle claims that its defunct face recognition system violated Texas law.  

 Privacy Advocates Will Continue to Focus our Resources on Meta  

 Meta’s conclusion that it can avoid scrutiny by releasing a privacy invasive product during a time of political crisis is craven and morally bankrupt. It is also dead wrong.  

Now more than ever, people have seen the real-world risk of invasive technology. The public has recoiled at masked immigration agents roving cities with phones equipped with a face recognition app called Mobile Fortify. And Amazon Ring just experienced a huge backlash when people realized that a feature marketed for finding lost dogs could one day be repurposed for mass biometric surveillance.  

The public will continue to resist these privacy invasive features. And EFF, other civil liberties groups, and plaintiffs’ attorneys will be here to help. We urge privacy regulators and attorneys general to step up to investigate as well.  

Update February 25, 2026: Discord announced yesterday that it will delay the global rollout of its age verification system to the "second half of 2026", instead of March. The company also said it has announced stricter requirements for partners offering facial age estimation, including that the process must be entirely on-device— Discord said one of its initial partners, Persona, "did not meet that bar."

Discord has begun rolling out mandatory age verification and the internet is, understandably, freaking out.

At EFF, we’ve been raising the alarm about age verification mandates for years. In December, we launched our Age Verification Resource Hub to push back against laws and platform policies that require users to hand over sensitive personal information just to access basic online services. At the time, age gates were largely enforced in polities where it was mandated by law. Now they’re landing in platforms and jurisdictions where they’re not required.

Beginning in early March, users who are either (a) estimated by Discord to be under 18, or (b) Discord doesn't have enough information on, may find themselves locked into a “teen-appropriate experience.” That means content filters, age gates, restrictions on direct messages and friend requests, and the inability to speak in “Stage channels,” which are the large-audience audio spaces that power many community events. Discord says most adults may be sorted automatically through a new “age inference” system that relies on account tenure, device and activity data, and broader platform patterns. Those whose age isn’t estimated due to lack of information or who are estimated to not be adults will be asked to scan their face or upload a government ID through a third-party vendor if they want to avoid the default teen account restrictions.

We’ve written extensively about why age verification mandates are a censorship and surveillance nightmare. Discord’s shift only reinforces those concerns. Here’s why:

The 2025 Breach and What's Changed Since

Discord literally won our 2025 “We Still Told You So” Breachies Award. Last year, attackers accessed roughly 70,000 users’ government IDs, selfies, and other sensitive information after compromising Discord’s third-party customer support system.

To be clear: Discord is no longer using that system, which involved routing ID uploads through its general ticketing system for age verification. It now uses dedicated age verification vendors (k-ID globally and Persona for some users in the United Kingdom).

That’s an improvement. But it doesn’t eliminate the underlying potential for data breaches and other harms. Discord says that it will delete records of any user-uploaded government IDs, and that any facial scans will never leave users’ devices. But platforms are closed-source, audits are limited, and history shows that data (especially this ultra-valuable identity data) will leak—whether through hacks, misconfigurations, or retention mistakes. Users are being asked to simply trust that this time will be different.

Age Verification and Anonymous Speech

For decades, we’ve taught young people a simple rule: don’t share personal information with strangers online.

Age verification complicates that advice. Suddenly, some Discord users will now be asked to submit a government ID or facial scan to access certain features if their age-inference technology fails. Discord has said on its blog that it will not associate a user’s ID with their account (only using that information to confirm their age) and that identifying documents won’t be retained. We take those commitments seriously. However, users have little independent visibility into how those safeguards operate in practice or whether they are sufficient to prevent identification.

Even if Discord can technically separate IDs from accounts, many users are understandably skeptical, especially after the platform’s recent breach involving age-verification data. For people who rely on pseudonymity, being required to upload a face scan or government ID at all can feel like crossing a line.

Many people rely on anonymity to speak freely. LGBTQ+ youth, survivors of abuse, political dissidents, and countless others use aliases to explore identity, find support, and build community safely. When identity checks become a condition of participation, many users will simply opt out. The chilling effect isn’t only about whether an ID is permanently linked to an account; it’s about whether users trust the system enough to participate in the first place. When you’re worried that what you say can be traced back to your government ID, you speak differently—or not at all.

No one should have to choose between accessing online communities and protecting their privacy.

Age Verification Systems Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Discord says it is trying to address privacy concerns by using device-based facial age estimation and separating government IDs from user accounts, retaining only a user’s age rather than their identity documents. This is meant to reduce the risks associated with retaining and collecting this sensitive data. However, even when privacy safeguards are in place, we are faced with another problem: There is no current technology that is fully privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate. Facial age estimation tools are notoriously unreliable, particularly for people of color, trans and nonbinary people, and people with disabilities. The internet has now proliferated with stories of people bypassing these facial age estimation tools. But when systems get it wrong, users may be forced into appeals processes or required to submit more documentation, such as government-issued IDs, which would exclude those whose appearance doesn’t match their documents and the millions of people around the world who don’t have government-issued identity documents at all.

Even newer approaches (things like age inference, behavior tracking, financial database checks, digital ID systems) expand the web of data collection, and carry their own tradeoffs around access and error. As we mentioned earlier, no current approach is simultaneously privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate across all demographics. 

That’s the challenge: the technology itself is not fit for the sweeping role platforms are asking it to play.

That’s the challenge: the technology itself is not fit for the sweeping role platforms are asking it to play.

The Aftermath

Discord reports over 200 million monthly active users, and is one of the largest platforms used by gamers to chat. The video game industry is larger than movies, TV, and music combined, and Discord represents an almost-default option for gamers looking to host communities.

Many communities, including open-source projects, sports teams, fandoms, friend groups, and families, use Discord to stay connected. If communities or individuals are wrongly flagged as minors, or asked to complete the age verification process, they may face a difficult choice: submit to facial scans or ID checks, or accept a more restricted “teen” experience. For those who decline to go through the process, the result can mean reduced functionality, limited communication tools, and the chilling effects that follow. 

Most importantly, Discord did not have to “comply in advance” by requiring age verification for all users, whether or not they live in a jurisdiction that mandates it. Other social media platforms and their trade groups have fought back against more than a dozen age verification laws in the U.S., and Reddit has now taken the legal fight internationally. For a platform with as much market power as Discord, voluntarily imposing age verification is unacceptable. 

So You’ve Hit an Age Gate. Now What?

Discord should reconsider whether expanding identity checks is worth the harm to its communities. But in the meantime, many users are facing age checks today.

That’s why we created our guide, “So You’ve Hit an Age Gate. Now What?” It walks through practical steps to minimize risk, such as:

• Submit the least amount of sensitive data possible.
• Ask: What data is collected? Who can access it? How long is it retained?
• Look for evidence of independent, security-focused audits.
• Be cautious about background details in selfies or ID photos.

There is unfortunately no perfect option, only tradeoffs. And every user will have their own unique set of safety concerns to consider. Amidst this confusion, our goal is to help keep you informed, so you can make the best choices for you and your community.

In light of the harms imposed by age-verification systems, EFF encourages all services to stop adopting these systems when they are not mandated by law. And lawmakers across the world that are considering bills that would make Discord’s approach the norm for every platform should watch this backlash and similarly move away from the idea.

If you care about privacy, free expression, and the right to participate online without handing over your identity, now is the time to speak up.

Join us in the fight.

Discord has begun rolling out mandatory age verification and the internet is, understandably, freaking out.

At EFF, we’ve been raising the alarm about age verification mandates for years. In December, we launched our Age Verification Resource Hub to push back against laws and platform policies that require users to hand over sensitive personal information just to access basic online services. At the time, age gates were largely enforced in polities where it was mandated by law. Now they’re landing in platforms and jurisdictions where they’re not required.

Beginning in early March, users who are either (a) estimated by Discord to be under 18, or (b) Discord doesn't have enough information on, may find themselves locked into a “teen-appropriate experience.” That means content filters, age gates, restrictions on direct messages and friend requests, and the inability to speak in “Stage channels,” which are the large-audience audio spaces that power many community events. Discord says most adults may be sorted automatically through a new “age inference” system that relies on account tenure, device and activity data, and broader platform patterns. Those whose age isn’t estimated due to lack of information or who are estimated to not be adults will be asked to scan their face or upload a government ID through a third-party vendor if they want to avoid the default teen account restrictions.

We’ve written extensively about why age verification mandates are a censorship and surveillance nightmare. Discord’s shift only reinforces those concerns. Here’s why:

The 2025 Breach and What's Changed Since

Discord literally won our 2025 “We Still Told You So” Breachies Award. Last year, attackers accessed roughly 70,000 users’ government IDs, selfies, and other sensitive information after compromising Discord’s third-party customer support system.

To be clear: Discord is no longer using that system, which involved routing ID uploads through its general ticketing system for age verification. It now uses dedicated age verification vendors (k-ID globally and Persona for some users in the United Kingdom).

That’s an improvement. But it doesn’t eliminate the underlying potential for data breaches and other harms. Discord says that it will delete records of any user-uploaded government IDs, and that any facial scans will never leave users’ devices. But platforms are closed-source, audits are limited, and history shows that data (especially this ultra-valuable identity data) will leak—whether through hacks, misconfigurations, or retention mistakes. Users are being asked to simply trust that this time will be different.

Age Verification and Anonymous Speech

For decades, we’ve taught young people a simple rule: don’t share personal information with strangers online.

Age verification complicates that advice. Suddenly, some Discord users will now be asked to submit a government ID or facial scan to access certain features if their age-inference technology fails. Discord has said on its blog that it will not associate a user’s ID with their account (only using that information to confirm their age) and that identifying documents won’t be retained. We take those commitments seriously. However, users have little independent visibility into how those safeguards operate in practice or whether they are sufficient to prevent identification.

Even if Discord can technically separate IDs from accounts, many users are understandably skeptical, especially after the platform’s recent breach involving age-verification data. For people who rely on pseudonymity, being required to upload a face scan or government ID at all can feel like crossing a line.

Many people rely on anonymity to speak freely. LGBTQ+ youth, survivors of abuse, political dissidents, and countless others use aliases to explore identity, find support, and build community safely. When identity checks become a condition of participation, many users will simply opt out. The chilling effect isn’t only about whether an ID is permanently linked to an account; it’s about whether users trust the system enough to participate in the first place. When you’re worried that what you say can be traced back to your government ID, you speak differently—or not at all.

No one should have to choose between accessing online communities and protecting their privacy.

Age Verification Systems Are Not Ready for Prime Time

Discord says it is trying to address privacy concerns by using device-based facial age estimation and separating government IDs from user accounts, retaining only a user’s age rather than their identity documents. This is meant to reduce the risks associated with retaining and collecting this sensitive data. However, even when privacy safeguards are in place, we are faced with another problem: There is no current technology that is fully privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate. Facial age estimation tools are notoriously unreliable, particularly for people of color, trans and nonbinary people, and people with disabilities. The internet has now proliferated with stories of people bypassing these facial age estimation tools. But when systems get it wrong, users may be forced into appeals processes or required to submit more documentation, such as government-issued IDs, which would exclude those whose appearance doesn’t match their documents and the millions of people around the world who don’t have government-issued identity documents at all.

Even newer approaches (things like age inference, behavior tracking, financial database checks, digital ID systems) expand the web of data collection, and carry their own tradeoffs around access and error. As we mentioned earlier, no current approach is simultaneously privacy-protective, universally accessible, and consistently accurate across all demographics. 

That’s the challenge: the technology itself is not fit for the sweeping role platforms are asking it to play.

That’s the challenge: the technology itself is not fit for the sweeping role platforms are asking it to play.

The Aftermath

Discord reports over 200 million monthly active users, and is one of the largest platforms used by gamers to chat. The video game industry is larger than movies, TV, and music combined, and Discord represents an almost-default option for gamers looking to host communities.

Many communities, including open-source projects, sports teams, fandoms, friend groups, and families, use Discord to stay connected. If communities or individuals are wrongly flagged as minors, or asked to complete the age verification process, they may face a difficult choice: submit to facial scans or ID checks, or accept a more restricted “teen” experience. For those who decline to go through the process, the result can mean reduced functionality, limited communication tools, and the chilling effects that follow. 

Most importantly, Discord did not have to “comply in advance” by requiring age verification for all users, whether or not they live in a jurisdiction that mandates it. Other social media platforms and their trade groups have fought back against more than a dozen age verification laws in the U.S., and Reddit has now taken the legal fight internationally. For a platform with as much market power as Discord, voluntarily imposing age verification is unacceptable. 

So You’ve Hit an Age Gate. Now What?

Discord should reconsider whether expanding identity checks is worth the harm to its communities. But in the meantime, many users are facing age checks today.

That’s why we created our guide, “So You’ve Hit an Age Gate. Now What?” It walks through practical steps to minimize risk, such as:

• Submit the least amount of sensitive data possible.
• Ask: What data is collected? Who can access it? How long is it retained?
• Look for evidence of independent, security-focused audits.
• Be cautious about background details in selfies or ID photos.

There is unfortunately no perfect option, only tradeoffs. And every user will have their own unique set of safety concerns to consider. Amidst this confusion, our goal is to help keep you informed, so you can make the best choices for you and your community.

In light of the harms imposed by age-verification systems, EFF encourages all services to stop adopting these systems when they are not mandated by law. And lawmakers across the world that are considering bills that would make Discord’s approach the norm for every platform should watch this backlash and similarly move away from the idea.

If you care about privacy, free expression, and the right to participate online without handing over your identity, now is the time to speak up.

Join us in the fight.

Criticize the government online? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) might ask Google to cough up your name. By abusing an investigative tool called "administrative subpoenas," DHS has been demanding that tech companies hand over users' names, locations, and more. We're explaining how companies can stand up for users—and covering the latest news in the fight for privacy and free speech online—with our EFFector newsletter.

For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue tracks our campaign to expand end-to-end encryption protections, a bill to stop government face scans from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others, and why Section 230 remains the best available system to protect everyone’s ability to speak online.

Prefer to listen in? In our audio companion, EFF Senior Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo explains how Homeland Security's lawless subpoenas differ from court orders. Find the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

LISTEN TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 38.3 - 🗣 Homeland Security Wants Names

Want to stay in the fight for privacy and free speech online? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight against unlawful government surveillance when you support EFF today!

Criticize the government online? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) might ask Google to cough up your name. By abusing an investigative tool called "administrative subpoenas," DHS has been demanding that tech companies hand over users' names, locations, and more. We're explaining how companies can stand up for users—and covering the latest news in the fight for privacy and free speech online—with our EFFector newsletter.

For over 35 years, EFFector has been your guide to understanding the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and the law. This latest issue tracks our campaign to expand end-to-end encryption protections, a bill to stop government face scans from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and others, and why Section 230 remains the best available system to protect everyone’s ability to speak online.

Prefer to listen in? In our audio companion, EFF Senior Staff Attorney F. Mario Trujillo explains how Homeland Security's lawless subpoenas differ from court orders. Find the conversation on YouTube or the Internet Archive.

LISTEN TO EFFECTOR

EFFECTOR 38.3 - 🗣 Homeland Security Wants Names

Want to stay in the fight for privacy and free speech online? Sign up for EFF's EFFector newsletter for updates, ways to take action, and new merch drops. You can also fuel the fight against unlawful government surveillance when you support EFF today!

Surveillance technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy private donors have long helped provide local law enforcement “free” access to surveillance equipment that bypasses local oversight. The result is predictable: serious accountability gaps and data pipelines to other entities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that expose millions of people to harm.

The cost of “free” surveillance tools — like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), networked cameras, face recognition, drones, and data aggregation and analysis platforms — is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties. 

The cost of “free” surveillance tools is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties.

The collection and sharing of our data quietly generates detailed records of people’s movements and associations that can be exposed, hacked, or repurposed without their knowledge or consent. Those records weaken sanctuary and First Amendment protections while facilitating the targeting of vulnerable people.   

Cities can and should use their power to reject federal grants, vendor trials, donations from wealthy individuals, or participation in partnerships that facilitate surveillance and experimentation with spy tech. 

If these projects are greenlit, oversight is imperative. Mechanisms like public hearings, competitive bidding, public records transparency, and city council supervision aid to ensure these acquisitions include basic safeguards — like use policies, audits, and consequences for misuse — to protect the public from abuse and from creeping contracts that grow into whole suites of products. 

Clear policies and oversight mechanisms must be in place before using any surveillance tools, free or not, and communities and their elected officials must be at the center of every decision about whether to bring these tools in at all.

Here are some of the most common methods “free” surveillance tech makes its way into communities.

Trials and Pilots

Police departments are regularly offered free access to surveillance tools and software through trials and pilot programs that often aren’t accompanied by appropriate use policies. In many jurisdictions, trials do not trigger the same requirements to go before decision-makers outside the police department. This means the public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city. 

The public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city.  

In Denver, Colorado, the police department is running trials of possible unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program from two competing drone vendors: Flock Safety Aerodome drones (through August 2026) and drones from the company Skydio, partnering with Axon, the multi-billion dollar police technology company behind tools like Tasers and AI-generated police reports. Drones create unique issues given their vantage for capturing private property and unsuspecting civilians, as well as their capacity to make other technologies, like ALPRs, airborne. 

Functional, Even Without Funding 

We’ve seen cities decide not to fund a tool, or run out of funding for it, only to have a company continue providing it in the hope that money will turn up. This happened in Fall River, Massachusetts, where the police department decided not to fund ShotSpotter’s $90,000 annual cost and its frequent false alarms, but continued using the system when the company provided free access. 

 Police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later.

In May 2025, Denver's city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety ALPR cameras after weeks of public outcry over mass surveillance data sharing with federal immigration enforcement. But Mayor Mike Johnston’s office allowed the cameras to keep running through a “task force” review, effectively extending the program even after the contract was voted down. In response, the Denver Taskforce to Reimagine Policing and Public Safety and Transforming Our Communities Alliance launched a grassroots campaign demanding the city “turn Flock cameras off now,” a reminder that when surveillance starts as a pilot or time‑limited contract, communities often have to fight not just to block renewals but to shut the systems off.

 Importantly, police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later. 

Gifts from Police Foundations and Wealthy Donors

Police foundations and the wealthy have pushed surveillance-driven agendas in their local communities by donating equipment and making large monetary gifts, another means of acquiring these tools without public oversight or buy-in.

In Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF) attempted to use its position as a private entity to circumvent transparency. Following a court challenge from the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Lucy Parsons Labs, a Georgia court determined that the APF must comply with public records laws related to some of its actions and purchases on behalf of law enforcement.
In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen has financially supported a supercharging of the city’s surveillance infrastructure, donating $9.4 million to fund the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) Real-Time Investigation Center, where a menu of surveillance technologies and data come together to surveil the city’s residents. This move comes after the billionaire backed a ballot measure, which passed in March 2025, eroding the city’s surveillance technology law and allowing the SFPD free rein to use new surveillance technologies for a full year without oversight.

Free Tech for Federal Data Pipelines

Federal grants and Department of Homeland Security funding are another way surveillance technology appears free to, only to lock municipalities into long‑term data‑sharing and recurring costs. 

Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security (UASI) Initiative, and Department of Justice programs like Byrne JAG, the federal government reimburses states and cities for "homeland security" equipment and software, including including law‑enforcement surveillance tools, analytics platforms, and real‑time crime centers. Grant guidance and vendor marketing materials make clear that these funds can be used for automated license plate readers, integrated video surveillance and analytics systems, and centralized command‑center software—in other words, purchases framed as counterterrorism investments but deployed in everyday policing.

Vendors have learned to design products around this federal money, pitching ALPR networks, camera systems, and analytic platforms as "grant-ready" solutions that can be acquired with little or no upfront local cost. Motorola Solutions, for example, advertises how SHSP and UASI dollars can be used for "law enforcement surveillance equipment" and "video surveillance, warning, and access control" systems. Flock Safety, partnering with Lexipol, a company that writes use policies for law enforcement, offers a "License Plate Readers Grant Assistance Program" that helps police departments identify federal and state grants and tailor their applications to fund ALPR projects. 

Grant assistance programs let police chiefs fast‑track new surveillance: the paperwork is outsourced, the grant eats the upfront cost, and even when there is a formal paper trail, the practical checks from residents, councils, and procurement rules often get watered down or bypassed.

On paper, these systems arrive “for free” through a federal grant; in practice, they lock cities into recurring software, subscription, and data‑hosting fees that quietly turn into permanent budget lines—and a lasting surveillance infrastructure—as soon as police and prosecutors start to rely on them. In Santa Cruz, California, the police department explicitly sought to use a DHS-funded SHSP grant to pay for a new citywide network of Flock ALPR cameras at the city's entrances and exits, with local funds covering additional cameras. In Sumner, Washington, a $50,000 grant was used to cover the entire first year of a Flock system — including installation and maintenance — after which the city is on the hook for roughly $39,000 every year in ongoing fees. The free grant money opens the door, but local governments are left with years of financial, political, and permanent surveillance entanglements they never fully vetted.

The most dangerous cost of this "free" funding is not just budgetary; it is the way it ties local systems into federal data pipelines. Since 9/11, DHS has used these grant streams to build a nationwide network of at least 79–80 state and regional fusion centers that integrate and share data from federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners. Research shows that state fusion centers rely heavily on the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (especially SHSP and UASI) to "mature their capabilities," with some centers reporting that 100 percent of their annual expenditures are covered by these grants. 

Civil rights investigations have documented how this funding architecture creates a backdoor channel for ICE and other federal agencies to access local surveillance data for their own purposes. A recent report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) describes ICE agents using a Philadelphia‑area fusion center to query the city’s ALPR network to track undocumented drivers in a self‑described sanctuary city.

Ultimately, federal grants follow the same script as trials and foundation gifts: what looks “free” ends up costing communities their data, their sanctuary protections, and their power over how local surveillance is used.

Protecting Yourself Against “Free” Technology

The most important protection against "free" surveillance technology is to reject it outright. Cities do not have to accept federal grants, vendor trials, or philanthropic donations. Saying no to "free" tech is not just a policy choice; it is a political power that local governments possess and can exercise. Communities and their elected officials can and should refuse surveillance systems that arrive through federal grants, vendor pilots, or private donations, regardless of how attractive the initial price tag appears. 

For those cities that have already accepted surveillance technology, the imperative is equally clear: shut it down. When a community has rejected use of a spying tool, the capabilities, equipment, and data collected from that tool should be shut off immediately. Full stop.

And for any surveillance technology that remains in operation, even temporarily, there must be clear rules: when and how equipment is used, how that data is retained and shared, who owns data and how companies can access and use it, transparency requirements, and consequences for any misuse and abuse. 

“Free” surveillance technology is never free. Someone profits or gains power from it. Police technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy donors do not offer these systems out of generosity; they offer them because surveillance serves their interests, not ours. That is the real cost of “free” surveillance.

Surveillance technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy private donors have long helped provide local law enforcement “free” access to surveillance equipment that bypasses local oversight. The result is predictable: serious accountability gaps and data pipelines to other entities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that expose millions of people to harm.

The cost of “free” surveillance tools — like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), networked cameras, face recognition, drones, and data aggregation and analysis platforms — is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties. 

The cost of “free” surveillance tools is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties.

The collection and sharing of our data quietly generates detailed records of people’s movements and associations that can be exposed, hacked, or repurposed without their knowledge or consent. Those records weaken sanctuary and First Amendment protections while facilitating the targeting of vulnerable people.   

Cities can and should use their power to reject federal grants, vendor trials, donations from wealthy individuals, or participation in partnerships that facilitate surveillance and experimentation with spy tech. 

If these projects are greenlit, oversight is imperative. Mechanisms like public hearings, competitive bidding, public records transparency, and city council supervision aid to ensure these acquisitions include basic safeguards — like use policies, audits, and consequences for misuse — to protect the public from abuse and from creeping contracts that grow into whole suites of products. 

Clear policies and oversight mechanisms must be in place before using any surveillance tools, free or not, and communities and their elected officials must be at the center of every decision about whether to bring these tools in at all.

Here are some of the most common methods “free” surveillance tech makes its way into communities.

Trials and Pilots

Police departments are regularly offered free access to surveillance tools and software through trials and pilot programs that often aren’t accompanied by appropriate use policies. In many jurisdictions, trials do not trigger the same requirements to go before decision-makers outside the police department. This means the public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city. 

The public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city.  

In Denver, Colorado, the police department is running trials of possible unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program from two competing drone vendors: Flock Safety Aerodome drones (through August 2026) and drones from the company Skydio, partnering with Axon, the multi-billion dollar police technology company behind tools like Tasers and AI-generated police reports. Drones create unique issues given their vantage for capturing private property and unsuspecting civilians, as well as their capacity to make other technologies, like ALPRs, airborne. 

Functional, Even Without Funding 

We’ve seen cities decide not to fund a tool, or run out of funding for it, only to have a company continue providing it in the hope that money will turn up. This happened in Fall River, Massachusetts, where the police department decided not to fund ShotSpotter’s $90,000 annual cost and its frequent false alarms, but continued using the system when the company provided free access. 

 Police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later.

In May 2025, Denver's city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety ALPR cameras after weeks of public outcry over mass surveillance data sharing with federal immigration enforcement. But Mayor Mike Johnston’s office allowed the cameras to keep running through a “task force” review, effectively extending the program even after the contract was voted down. In response, the Denver Taskforce to Reimagine Policing and Public Safety and Transforming Our Communities Alliance launched a grassroots campaign demanding the city “turn Flock cameras off now,” a reminder that when surveillance starts as a pilot or time‑limited contract, communities often have to fight not just to block renewals but to shut the systems off.

 Importantly, police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what’s “free” today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later. 

Gifts from Police Foundations and Wealthy Donors

Police foundations and the wealthy have pushed surveillance-driven agendas in their local communities by donating equipment and making large monetary gifts, another means of acquiring these tools without public oversight or buy-in.

In Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF) attempted to use its position as a private entity to circumvent transparency. Following a court challenge from the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Lucy Parsons Labs, a Georgia court determined that the APF must comply with public records laws related to some of its actions and purchases on behalf of law enforcement.
In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen has financially supported a supercharging of the city’s surveillance infrastructure, donating $9.4 million to fund the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) Real-Time Investigation Center, where a menu of surveillance technologies and data come together to surveil the city’s residents. This move comes after the billionaire backed a ballot measure, which passed in March 2025, eroding the city’s surveillance technology law and allowing the SFPD free rein to use new surveillance technologies for a full year without oversight.

Free Tech for Federal Data Pipelines

Federal grants and Department of Homeland Security funding are another way surveillance technology appears free to, only to lock municipalities into long‑term data‑sharing and recurring costs. 

Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security (UASI) Initiative, and Department of Justice programs like Byrne JAG, the federal government reimburses states and cities for "homeland security" equipment and software, including including law‑enforcement surveillance tools, analytics platforms, and real‑time crime centers. Grant guidance and vendor marketing materials make clear that these funds can be used for automated license plate readers, integrated video surveillance and analytics systems, and centralized command‑center software—in other words, purchases framed as counterterrorism investments but deployed in everyday policing.

Vendors have learned to design products around this federal money, pitching ALPR networks, camera systems, and analytic platforms as "grant-ready" solutions that can be acquired with little or no upfront local cost. Motorola Solutions, for example, advertises how SHSP and UASI dollars can be used for "law enforcement surveillance equipment" and "video surveillance, warning, and access control" systems. Flock Safety, partnering with Lexipol, a company that writes use policies for law enforcement, offers a "License Plate Readers Grant Assistance Program" that helps police departments identify federal and state grants and tailor their applications to fund ALPR projects. 

Grant assistance programs let police chiefs fast‑track new surveillance: the paperwork is outsourced, the grant eats the upfront cost, and even when there is a formal paper trail, the practical checks from residents, councils, and procurement rules often get watered down or bypassed.

On paper, these systems arrive “for free” through a federal grant; in practice, they lock cities into recurring software, subscription, and data‑hosting fees that quietly turn into permanent budget lines—and a lasting surveillance infrastructure—as soon as police and prosecutors start to rely on them. In Santa Cruz, California, the police department explicitly sought to use a DHS-funded SHSP grant to pay for a new citywide network of Flock ALPR cameras at the city's entrances and exits, with local funds covering additional cameras. In Sumner, Washington, a $50,000 grant was used to cover the entire first year of a Flock system — including installation and maintenance — after which the city is on the hook for roughly $39,000 every year in ongoing fees. The free grant money opens the door, but local governments are left with years of financial, political, and permanent surveillance entanglements they never fully vetted.

The most dangerous cost of this "free" funding is not just budgetary; it is the way it ties local systems into federal data pipelines. Since 9/11, DHS has used these grant streams to build a nationwide network of at least 79–80 state and regional fusion centers that integrate and share data from federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners. Research shows that state fusion centers rely heavily on the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (especially SHSP and UASI) to "mature their capabilities," with some centers reporting that 100 percent of their annual expenditures are covered by these grants. 

Civil rights investigations have documented how this funding architecture creates a backdoor channel for ICE and other federal agencies to access local surveillance data for their own purposes. A recent report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) describes ICE agents using a Philadelphia‑area fusion center to query the city’s ALPR network to track undocumented drivers in a self‑described sanctuary city.

Ultimately, federal grants follow the same script as trials and foundation gifts: what looks “free” ends up costing communities their data, their sanctuary protections, and their power over how local surveillance is used.

Protecting Yourself Against “Free” Technology

The most important protection against "free" surveillance technology is to reject it outright. Cities do not have to accept federal grants, vendor trials, or philanthropic donations. Saying no to "free" tech is not just a policy choice; it is a political power that local governments possess and can exercise. Communities and their elected officials can and should refuse surveillance systems that arrive through federal grants, vendor pilots, or private donations, regardless of how attractive the initial price tag appears. 

For those cities that have already accepted surveillance technology, the imperative is equally clear: shut it down. When a community has rejected use of a spying tool, the capabilities, equipment, and data collected from that tool should be shut off immediately. Full stop.

And for any surveillance technology that remains in operation, even temporarily, there must be clear rules: when and how equipment is used, how that data is retained and shared, who owns data and how companies can access and use it, transparency requirements, and consequences for any misuse and abuse. 

“Free” surveillance technology is never free. Someone profits or gains power from it. Police technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy donors do not offer these systems out of generosity; they offer them because surveillance serves their interests, not ours. That is the real cost of “free” surveillance.