Why Is the EFF Shielding Terrorist Sympathizers from Basic Police Surveillance? The Outrageous Lawsuit That Puts Jihadist Travel Privacy Above American Lives

When Defending Civil Liberties Starts Feeling Like a Blindfold

I’ve spent years supporting the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Even when I disagreed with their politics, I respected the mission: defend civil liberties, check government overreach, and keep technology from becoming a surveillance weapon. But this time? I’m not so sure they’re fighting on the right side of the line.

In Santa Clara County Superior Court, the EFF just filed a lawsuit on behalf of CAIR (yes, THAT CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood’s polished American mouthpiece) and an immigrant-rights group to stop the San Jose Police Department from searching automated license-plate reader (ALPR) data without a warrant.

Their new lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), targets the San Jose Police Department for searching data from automated license plate readers (ALPRs) without a warrant. And while privacy matters, and warrantless dragnet surveillance is a serious issue, something about this particular battle crosses into uncomfortable territory. It feels less like protecting rights and more like kneecapping law enforcement in the age of global terrorism, extremist funding networks, and radicalized lone actors who exploit our legal system to hide in plain sight.

Yes, Privacy Is Fragile, But So Is National Security

Let’s get this straight: ALPRs can be intrusive. They track vehicle movements, map patterns, and create a digital footprint of daily life. I get the concern. When the lawsuit argues that ALPR data “provides an intimate window into a person’s life,” they’re not wrong. Carpenter v. United States made that point clear when the Supreme Court ruled that historical cell-site location data requires a warrant because of its ability to reconstruct someone’s movements down to the minute.

Fine. Reasonable. Constitutional.

But here’s the part that gnaws at me: terrorists, extremist financiers, and violent actors know this too. They understand the legal boundaries. They know exactly which surveillance techniques require warrants, which are limited, and which civil liberties groups will fight tooth and nail to restrict. They exploit every inch of that space.

So when groups launch legal campaigns demanding that law enforcement never access certain datasets without jumping through additional judicial hoops, it raises a serious question: are we protecting civil liberties, or handcuffing those trying to stop real threats?

The Lawsuit’s Message: Trust No Police, Trust All Technology, But Only When Convenient

The rhetoric behind the lawsuit is drenched in distrust of police, amplified by claims that mass surveillance is inherently discriminatory, inherently chilling, inherently dangerous. And yes—unchecked surveillance is all of those things.

But context matters. San Jose isn’t pulling people over without cause. They aren’t installing hidden trackers on cars. They’re using ALPRs mounted in public spaces, roads anyone can see, to catch stolen vehicles, violent criminals, human traffickers, and yes, people funding or aiding terrorism. The idea that any access to this data without a warrant is, by itself, a constitutional crisis ignores real-world threats.

And it becomes even harder to take seriously when activists stretch their argument to warn that ALPRs might detect whether someone traveled to another state for healthcare. The technology wasn’t built for that. That framing is political theater, not forensic analysis.

We Need Guardrails, Not Paralysis

Nobody wants a surveillance state. Nobody wants police reconstructing someone’s life story without oversight. But we also shouldn’t pretend that the only danger in the world is the government. There are people—yes, radicalized individuals and networks—who exploit privacy protections as tactical shields.

The right balance isn’t “surveil everything without restraint,” but it certainly isn’t “paralyze every investigative tool with lawsuits until officers can’t follow basic leads.” When the San Jose Police Department deploys nearly 500 ALPRs and stores the data for a year, the question shouldn’t be whether the technology is inherently evil; it should be how to ensure it’s used properly while still enabling investigations that keep the public safe.

Wake Up, America

This isn’t about immigrant rights. This is about creating deliberate blind spots for the exact people who want us dead. CAIR isn’t some random Muslim civil-rights group; its founders openly celebrated Hamas, and multiple officials have been convicted of terror-related crimes. When they run crying to the EFF because police might notice their members’ cars, decent people should ask why.

I still believe in the Fourth Amendment. I don’t want cops reading my emails or sticking GPS trackers on my bumper without a warrant. But photographing a license plate on a public road is no more a “search” than an officer writing down what he sees while walking his beat.

The EFF just crossed a red line. They chose the side of people who pray for our destruction over the side of cops trying to prevent the next 9/11. That’s not a principle. That’s suicide disguised as civil liberties.

If this lawsuit succeeds, every terrorist in America will be handed a “Get Out of Surveillance Free” card, courtesy of the useful idiots at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Bottom Line: We Cannot Keep Fighting Yesterday’s Battles While Today’s Threats Evolve

EFF’s heart is in the right place, but the battlefield has shifted. Technology isn’t just a tool for surveillance—it’s a weapon wielded by those who want to undermine democratic societies from within. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make us freer. It makes us vulnerable.

If privacy advocates want credibility in a world full of real threats, they need to fight for balanced oversight—not blanket restrictions that make tracking dangerous actors nearly impossible.

Never again should we let the privacy of monsters trump the lives of innocents.

We are screwing ourselves and handcuffing those who keep us safe.

— Steve

FYI…