Privacy Harm Is Harm

"Every day, corporations track our movements through license plate scanners, building detailed profiles of where we go, when we go there, and who we visit. When they do this to us in violation of data privacy laws, we've suffered a real harm-period. We shouldn't need to prove we've suffered additional damage, such as physical injury or monetary loss, to have our day in court."

"This case implicates critical questions about whether a California privacy law, enacted to protect people from harmful surveillance, is not just words on paper, but can be an effective tool for people to protect their rights and safety. California's Constitution and laws empower people to challenge harmful surveillance at its inception without waiting for its repercussions to manifest through additional harms. A foundation for these protections is article I, section 1, which grants Californians an inalienable right to privacy."

EFF joined an amicus brief in Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, a lawsuit by drivers alleging violations of a California statute regulating Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs). A state trial court dismissed the case after interpreting the statute to require proof of additional physical or monetary harm beyond privacy violations. The brief argues that California law and the state Constitution, including article I, section 1, protect the right to privacy and allow challenges to harmful surveillance at inception. The brief asserts that privacy harms extend beyond financial, mental, or physical injuries. The defendant, Digital Recognition Network (DRN Data), is a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions that provides access to a massive searchable database.

Read at Electronic Frontier Foundation