The Berkeley City Council pushed forward Tuesday night with efforts to find technology vendors for new surveillance technology after the city declined a contract in May with controversial surveillance company Flock Safety. But the council also adopted police policy changes intended to secure that technology as it faces intense public backlash.
The City Council was also expected to vote on placing amendments to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance on the November ballot but delayed those considerations until their next meeting.
The city now looks to solicit bids from technology vendors for a host of services including drones as first responders, unmanned aircraft systems, automated license plate readers, a new investigative software and community video streams. The council authorized $2.4 million to install and contract this technology for up to four years.
The city committed to run this technology through a competitive bidding process after its May rejection of the expanded Flock Safety contract.
Flock, which currently provides 52 automated license plate readers around Berkeley, has inundated the city with criticism from a public worried about expanded surveillance and the possibility of the data Flock collects falling into the hands of the federal government, especially immigration enforcement agencies.
Police departments across the Bay Area have reportedly provided ALPR data to out-of-state agencies, either directly or indirectly through partnerships with other California police departments — an apparent violation of state law.
Once that data slips out of the hands of California police, it can end up in the hands of the federal government.
In light of those risks, public commenters Tuesday night once again rallied against the city’s surveillance efforts, which one described as “Orwellian.”
“I am concerned at each step of the way that the train on surveillance just keeps moving faster and faster and faster,” said local activist Kelly Hammargren. “And I think it is time to stop, to pull the emergency break and to really consider what you are doing and the impact on the public and what kinds of risks you are taking for this city.”
City officials defended the ALPR system, saying it would help solve crimes, and uplifted the potential utility of the new video streams and investigative software on the table.
The community video streams would allow private businesses who already own and operate security cameras to partner with the Berkeley Police Department and provide access to their feeds when needed, according to Strategic Planning and Accountability Manager Arlo Malmberg. Opting into this system would remain entirely voluntary.
The investigative software would collect and centralize information already collected by the BPD from various sources and allow for faster collection of information. The hope, for police, is that both of these technologies will save the department money on overtime by speeding up investigations.
Whatever company the city ultimately partners with will be governed by the policies the council adopts for BPD on Tuesday night.
Malmberg, who gave a presentation on the policies to council, said that neither the community video technology will support immigration enforcement activities, or law enforcement operations that may restrict reproductive or gender-affirming care. Malmberg affirmed that BPD will not use facial recognition software on any data it collects.
Malmberg added that access to these systems will be limited among BPD staff and the department will audit their use twice a year.
While public commenters expressed skepticism about this technology — including that, while businesses may have to opt into the community video stream service, passersby have no choice in whether it may record them or not — the council largely signalled trust in the police.
“I trust our police to follow their own rules. I have to because we let them have guns. If our police didn’t follow their own rules we’d have a much bigger problem, but they do,” said District 5 Councilmember Shoshana O’Keefe. “We’re making the rules here and I am going to assume they will follow them, and if they don’t, then we will find out and there will be consequences.”
The final vote on the new policies came down to District 4 Councilmember Igor Tregub abstaining and District 7 Councilmember Cecilia Lunaparra voting against. District 3 Councilmember Ben Bartlett was absent from the meeting.
“I’m fundamentally unconvinced that these tools are what our constituency wants and are without risk,” Lunaparra said. “I seriously worry about further encroachment on our civil liberties.”