Podcast Summary: "America Under Surveillance with Michael Soifer"
Software Engineering Daily | January 15, 2026
Guest: Michael Soifer (Attorney, Institute for Justice)
Host: Kevin Ball
Overview
This episode explores the rapid expansion of government-run surveillance technology in the United States, focusing on automated license plate readers (ALPRs), the legal and ethical challenges these systems pose, and the difficulty of keeping legislation and oversight in step with technological change. Michael Soifer, an attorney specializing in Fourth Amendment rights at the Institute for Justice (IJ), discusses the institute's lawsuit against the city of Norfolk, Virginia, and broader issues of privacy, legislative lag, and how technologists and everyday citizens can engage in the fight for civil liberties.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. What Are Flock Cameras and Automated License Plate Readers?
- Flock cameras read license plates and various vehicle features (“vehicle fingerprinting”)—including make, model, color, and other distinctive attributes (like bumper stickers or roof racks)—at high speeds and log the data into searchable police databases. [03:00]
- Police can use these cameras to track the long-term movement of vehicles within a city, building a "rich picture" of people's daily lives. In Norfolk, VA, a network of 172 Flock cameras makes it nearly impossible to drive any distance without being tracked. [03:00]
“We saw the police chief briefing the city council... telling them it would be difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere. We thought that was just bonkers.”
—Michael Soifer [04:00]
2. Why This Is Different from Corporate Tracking
- While web and app companies collect user data, government surveillance is fundamentally different due to the vast power imbalance and lack of consumer “opt-out.” [05:56]
- After Carpenter v. United States (2018), which required warrants for cell-site location info, law enforcement increasingly sought to “cut out the middleman” by collecting data directly themselves, leading to widespread, unregulated deployment of government-owned surveillance tools.
“The government is just different. It's collecting information to keep tabs on us in a way that just wasn't possible in the past.”
—Michael Soifer [06:00]
3. The Slow Pace and Outdated Basis of Regulation
- Law and regulation lag behind: legal cases can take nearly a decade to reach resolution, and Supreme Court precedent still relies on 1980s-era “beeper in a vat” cases.
- Flock's rapid, “startup-style” rollout outpaced meaningful oversight—“move fast and break things” doesn’t work well when what’s at stake is constitutional order. [09:55]
“So courts and legislatures have been very, very slow to regulate it. ...This technology rolled out a lot faster than courts or legislatures could regulate it.”
—Michael Soifer [11:10]
4. The Fourth Amendment and the Balance of Interests
- The Fourth Amendment is intended to balance public safety with privacy and liberty by requiring warrants for invasive searches based on probable cause, reviewed by a neutral judge. [14:22]
- Modern surveillance tools upend this balance by allowing for “pervasive, permeating” monitoring of the general, law-abiding public without individualized suspicion.
“For law abiding people, where police have no reason to suspect you of any wrongdoing, of committing any crime, you should be left alone to go about your day without having your movements tracked in a huge police database.”
—Michael Soifer [16:56]
5. Data Retention, Minimization, and Use Cases
- The core distinction: real-time alerts for “hot list” matches (e.g., stolen cars) are useful law enforcement tools. Mass, long-term data retention and retroactive tracking are what cross the line, unless a warrant has been obtained. [17:29]
- Cites New Hampshire’s policy: delete LPR data within three minutes unless there is a direct law enforcement reason to retain.
6. Comparison with Private Sector Data Protections (GDPR etc.)
- US government data-collection faces far fewer restrictions than private companies, who may be subject to regulations like GDPR in Europe or CCPA in California. [22:14]
- Law enforcement access to this sensitive data is often loosely protected (example: lack of mandatory strong authentication; unsecured sharing across departments/agencies).
“...Very, very minimal regulation when the government is collecting kind of similar information for its own means and often frankly not guarding that information even as well as tech companies might.”
—Michael Soifer [22:49]
7. The Role of Citizen and Technologist Engagement
- Legislation is slowly emerging at the state and city level (e.g., Virginia recently reduced ALPR data retention from 30 to 21 days).
- Meaningful change is likely to be local and incremental for the foreseeable future: city councils, statehouses, and citizen pressure all matter—a handful of passionate residents can have an outsized impact.
- The Institute for Justice’s Plate Privacy Project (PPP) offers a model “PEEPS Act” bill for responsible surveillance policy, emphasizing data minimization, warrant requirements, robust audit trails, access restrictions, and true oversight. [25:16, 47:21]
“Oftentimes people don't even know what's going on with their local legislatures or even their state legislatures... When you're interested in an issue, just reaching out can often have an outsized impact.”
—Michael Soifer [37:14]
Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes
- On the “move fast and break things” model of Flock's rollout:
“I don't think the model of like move fast and break things works well when the thing you're breaking is our constitutional order.”
—Michael Soifer [11:00] - On becoming a plaintiff in public interest litigation:
“That's the crazy thing, is that there are trade-offs between maintaining your privacy and bringing these cases publicly. And I'm hugely grateful to our Norfolk clients, who are very private people, but have put themselves out there...”
—Michael Soifer [33:38] - On the audit-logging “solution” and lack of oversight:
“Flock always points to... this audit tool that they can use, and it's really their job to oversee how their officers are using the system. ...But what we found out in Norfolk is that no one audited it for two years.”
—Michael Soifer [43:37] - On the limits of trusting good intentions:
“The real way to prevent this information from being abused is not to have it in the first place and not just to trust that the government right now will not abuse it. Because... they're always susceptible to future abuse.”
—Michael Soifer [50:00] - On accountability and best practices:
“Even if you do think that, hey, police should have this type of stuff, they should have at least the same level of safeguards that we expect companies to put in place. Of course, and they don't have anywhere near that.”
—Michael Soifer [51:52] - On who polices the police:
“Really the question of who police is the police comes up and oftentimes it's no one.”
—Michael Soifer [52:18]
Suggested Actions & Further Resources
- Find out about surveillance in your locality:
- IJ's Plate Privacy Project: [Google "Plate Privacy Project" or visit IJ’s website] [39:08]
- deflock.me: Map of Flock camera locations [39:08]
- Model Legislation Reference:
- PPP’s model “PEEPS Act” bill for cities and states [47:21]
- Engagement Tips:
- Attend city council meetings—local government can be surprisingly responsive [37:14]
- Contact local/state representatives and advocate for transparency and oversight [36:19]
- Participate in (or file) amicus briefs to inform the courts from a technologist’s perspective [34:54]
- Media engagement and op-eds can also be influential [36:19]
Conclusion: The Broader Challenge
License plate readers are “just the start of a new era of big police surveillance.” Without robust legal, civic, and technological pushback, mass data retention—ostensibly “just in case”—threatens to erode constitutional protections for everyone, not only those suspected of wrongdoing. Ongoing vigilance, technical expertise, and civic engagement are all essential in defending individual rights.
“You don't have to mistrust the government writ large. You just have to believe that there can be bad actors.” —Kevin Ball [51:03]