Under the deal, Flock would maintain a network of 290 automated license plate reader cameras that monitor vehicles on Oakland\u2019s roads. The department also wanted councilmembers to approve a policy that would allow police to incorporate private cameras into Flock\u2019s system.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Councilmembers Charlene Wang and Ken Houston voted in favor, resulting in a tie. Wang tried unsuccessfully to broker a compromise by suggesting an amendment that would impose a $200,000 penalty for any incident where Flock causes the unauthorized sharing of data.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The department\u2019s proposal<\/a> has faced strong headwinds from the public for months. Oakland\u2019s Privacy Advisory Commission, a volunteer board that weighs the pros and cons of new technologies and advises the council and OPD, refused<\/a> to endorse the police department\u2019s plan, citing concerns about Flock, which has shared access to data with federal law enforcement agencies, potentially making it available for immigration enforcement and investigating people seeking abortion services<\/a>. California state law prohibits police departments from sharing license plate reader data with the feds.\u00a0<\/p>\n A new lawsuit also challenges Oakland\u2019s ability to deploy license plate readers Shortly before Tuesday\u2019s meeting, a former member of the Privacy Advisory Commission sued<\/a> the department for allegedly breaking state and local law by repeatedly sharing its ALPR data with federal authorities. And while some business owners and residents strongly support OPD\u2019s plan, they were outnumbered at City Hall by people protesting against the contract.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWhat I would like to see is a complete rejection of Flock,\u201d Fife said, prompting raucous cheers from most of the roughly 100 people packed into the chambers.\u00a0<\/p>\n OPD has the option to bring the proposal back to council for scheduling, but it will still need to be passed out of the public safety committee before it receives an up-down vote by the full City Council.\u00a0<\/p>\n A police department spokesperson told The Oaklandside that OPD \u201cis disappointed by last night\u2019s vote. The camera system is an essential tool for ensuring safety in our community. We will consider the community\u2019s concerns before presenting the item again.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Over the course of Tuesday evening, dozens of public commenters told the committee that they didn\u2019t believe Flock was a trustworthy company.\u00a0<\/p>\n Several pointed to alleged security issues with Flock\u2019s cameras and the political leanings of the company\u2019s investors<\/a>. Some appeared to reference a video<\/a> that was recently posted online by Benn Jordan, a YouTuber with over 900,000 subscribers. In the video, Jordan explored technical vulnerabilities and other issues with Flock products. He also brought up Oakland and disclosed that he has been informally \u201cconsulting\u201d with some councilmembers and shared his research with them. It\u2019s unclear with whom he spoke.\u00a0<\/p>\n Many of the speakers at Tuesday\u2019s meeting said they were afraid that Flock would share Oakland data with federal immigration agencies. Lisa Hoffman, co-executive director of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, an organization that provides legal services to immigrants, said she believes the contract will put Oakland immigrant residents in \u201cgrave danger.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cFlock has violated contracts with other sanctuary cities by sharing data with the federal government for immigration enforcement and lying about it,\u201d Hoffman said, adding that cities have terminated their contracts because of this. \u201cWhy would Oakland choose to spend $2.25 million building the very surveillance infrastructure that will be weaponized against our immigrant neighbors?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Federal agents accessing license plate reader data is driving some cities to rethink their Flock contracts<\/p>\n Flock cameras have been posted on utility poles around Oakland since 2024, and the Oakland City Council \u2013 including Fife \u2013 approved<\/a> an agreement to procure the cameras in 2023 with little fanfare.\u00a0<\/p>\n But attitudes toward Flock shifted earlier this year after media outlets reported that ICE had obtained access<\/a> to data from Flock systems through local police departments in other states. Over the summer, the San Francisco Standard reported<\/a> that SFPD had accessed Oakland\u2019s ALPR system and turned over data to federal law enforcement agencies.\u00a0<\/p>\n OPD officials have repeatedly asserted that, as a sanctuary city, Oakland doesn\u2019t share data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A state law, SB34, also prohibits local police from sharing ALPR data with law enforcement agencies outside of California. Representatives from Flock have also argued that the company does not own the data collected by its cameras and that agencies decide with whom to share their information.\u00a0<\/p>\n Some cities in other states ended<\/a> their contracts with Flock after the company disclosed that it had briefly partnered<\/a> with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and provided the agency with access to ALPR data. In October, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden wrote in a letter<\/a> to Flock\u2019s CEO stating his belief that \u201cabuses of your products are not only likely but inevitable\u201d and encouraged local Oregon communities to remove the company\u2019s cameras.\u00a0<\/p>\n The backlash against Flock and ALPR cameras has been building<\/a> in the Bay Area. On Wednesday, the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other groups filed a lawsuit against San Jose over the use of warrantless searches of the city\u2019s ALPR data, the East Bay Times<\/a> reported. The plaintiffs claim this practice is unconstitutional and allows law enforcement\u2014including federal agencies\u2014to continuously monitor the movements of San Jose residents and visitors.\u00a0<\/p>\n In Berkeley, a police watchdog organization recently reported<\/a> that an audit of external law enforcement searches of the city\u2019s ALPR data turned up a case where someone used the search terms \u201cICE\u201d and \u201cCBP.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Some Oaklanders still support the department\u2019s surveillance proposal Wang, who spent much of the meeting Tuesday night trying to maintain order in the rowdy chamber, quizzed OPD about some of the issues raised by critics.\u00a0<\/p>\n During the meeting, OPD Acting Lieutenant Gabriel Urquiza credited Flock cameras for helping drive down violent crime since 2024, in concert with the revamped anti-gun violence program Ceasefire. According to a recent report<\/a> shared with the privacy commission, OPD logged 240 \u201cenforcement actions\u201d in Flock between August 2024 and February 2025. Of these, OPD was able to generate 112 leads, 55 of which were cleared by arrests.\u00a0<\/p>\n Urquiza also stressed several safeguards, including a provision in the city\u2019s proposed contract to terminate the deal with Flock in the event that the federal government were to take over Oakland or the police department.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/IMG_8342-1600x1200.jpg\")
Cat Brooks, Executive Director of the Anti-Police Terror Project, speaking in front of City Hall on Nov. 18, 2025. Brooks was one of dozens of people who urged councilmembers to reject a contract with Flock Safety. Credit: Eli Wolfe \/ The Oaklandside. <\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/large-Flock-cameras_RR_11-18-25.jpg\")
Flock Safety supporters Tuan Ngo and Edward Escobar hold up signs reading, \u201cCameras solve crime\u201d and \u201cMore Flock safety cameras\u201d at the City Council\u2019s Public Safety Committee meeting at Oakland City Hall on Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Credit: Roselyn Romero \/ The Oaklandside. <\/p>\n