D2 resident who opposes FLOCK for the reasons many of my fellow citizens have spelled out. No renewal!

I'm here once again to say say the same thing and will continue to show up every month to reiterate the same message if needed. I’m urging the council to reject the expansion of Flock’s license-plate surveillance system because it threatens our privacy, increases the risk of misuse, and diverts resources from approaches that actually make our communities safer. Oakland already saw nearly 189 million license-plate scans in just six months — a scale of mass data collection that sweeps up every resident, not just those suspected of wrongdoing. Expanding this system, especially by integrating private cameras, creates a centralized network with little transparency or meaningful oversight, and it puts immigrant, Black, and Brown communities at the greatest risk of being over-policed. Instead of investing millions in a tool that has shown limited evidence of reducing harm, we should prioritize solutions that build trust, address root causes of violence, and protect the civil liberties of everyone who calls Oakland home.

I work in Oakland and strongly oppose this dangerous Flock contract. There have been over 5000 letters to the Oakland mayor expressing concern and rejection of Flock surveillance tech. Over 70% of public e-comments in the last public meeting opposed Flock. Over 200 speakers waited in for over 6 hours to voice their opposition to Flock. As you can see, Oakland’s residents vehemently oppose this surveillance contract that would put our and our neighbors’ lives at risk.

Oakland's economy and culture depends on all residents—regardless of immigration status—feeling safe to live, work, shop, and build their lives here. As an important stakeholder in Oakland, I urge you to reject any OPD use policy or contract that invests in Flock Safety's dangerous surveillance systems.

Brooklyn Basin resident but YALL ALREADY KNOW THAT. Yet again I am expressing strong opposition to flock and its uses in Oakland. OPD won’t turn on GPS in their vehicles that actually would help the community because of fear of accountability. But oppressing residents’ privacy is the big brother world you propel us towards.

From George Orwell’s 1984:
“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

I want to start by saying I am a strong advocate of reducing crime in Oakland and have been for years. HOWEVER, it's ridiculous that you are even considering awarding a contract to FLOCK, especially after two Privacy Commissioners resigned over their unheeded warnings about the Flock company. We all want less crime, but this is NOT the way to do it. It's ineffective and dangerous - and why six cities (Oak Park, Eugene, Evanston, Austin, Denver, and Sedona) have already terminated their contracts with FLOCK. Please reject the OPD Community Safety Camera System use policy and FLOCK Safety Contract.

Any contract with Flock threatens Oakland's sanctuary city protections by creating surveillance infrastructure that will be exploited by federal immigration enforcement, despite Oakland's ongoing litigation to defend sanctuary jurisdictions. Surveillance companies like Flock are largely unregulated—Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission named this when it rejected OPD’s use policy and Flock contract.

As a resident in D1, I oppose to the renewal of Flock in oakland. There’s too much evidence that Flock and opd will not be able to keep the data safe from

In light of the very serious safety concerns with FLOCK's hardware and software, which were illustrated quite well in a YouTube video by cyber security experts in collaboration with Benn Jordan, it seems completely ridiculous to pass this agenda item. FLOCK's tech is not secure, can be accessed by any number of bad actors, and can be accessed by ICE so that they can spy on Oakland residents, and identify targets for future immigration raids. If the Oakland City Council takes seriously the responsibility to protect our undocumented neighbors, they cannot pass this agenda item.

It should be telling that the Richmond Police Chief disabled that city's flock cameras after learning about the discoverability of local data in their nationwide database. There is no safeguard that can prevent our local data from being accessed nationally, FLOCK's software is simply not up to the task of ensuring the security of our data. It would be frivolous and irresponsible for the Oakland city council to give any of its budget to this company, especially if you plan to do so without engaging in the competitive multiple-step solicitation process required for the acquisition of information technology systems. There is no reason to rush this contract expansion, unless someone has a financial stake in seeing FLOCK perform better as a company. They make bad tech, they will compromise the privacy of Oakland residents, and investing any more money in them will be a sunken cost.

Please don't do this.

My name is Lisa Hoffman and I have lived in Oakland for 25 years.

I am a co-Executive Director of East Bay Sanctuary Covenant which provides legal and social services to immigrants, including free weekly clinics in the Fruitvale.

Every day, we hear from people who are too afraid to leave their homes for fear they will be kidnapped and never see their families again.

We believe this Flock contract will put Oakland immigrant residents in grave danger.

Over the past months, Flock has violated contracts with other Sanctuary cities by sharing their data with the federal government for immigration enforcement and lying about it.

As a result, many cities have terminated their contracts with Flock.

Why would Oakland choose to spend $2.25 million dollars building the very surveillance infrastructure that will be weaponized against our immigrant neighbors?

I want my friends and neighbors to feel safe going to school, work, and local businesses without fear that every security camera in Oakland could be used to deport them.

There are other options for public safety. Please vote No on the new Flock contract.

I live in district 2. I spoke at the public safety committee in opposition and it is quite frustrating that the voices of the people and the vote of that committee are not being respected. The public concerns have not been addressed in amendments to the proposal. This is a company that has shown it can not be trusted with sensitive data. Vote no on this contract and do a proper process to address community concerns around safety that doesn't presuppose an outcome of mass surveillance as the solution.

I strongly oppose approving the proposed Flock contract and OPD Community Safety Camera policy.

This contract would expand a privately run surveillance system that collects and aggregates license plate and camera data at scale, with insufficient safeguards and oversight. Flock has a documented history of its systems being accessed by outside agencies in other jurisdictions, and OPD itself has previously violated state law around data sharing. Promises about “policy controls” are not substitutes for enforceable technical limits and independent auditing.

There is also little evidence that mass camera and license-plate surveillance meaningfully improves public safety outcomes. What it does do is normalize constant monitoring of residents while diverting millions of dollars away from approaches that actually reduce harm: street lighting, violence interruption, safety ambassadors, and mental-health crisis response. Those investments improve safety without expanding surveillance or risking misuse of sensitive data.

Finally, this proposal has already been rejected by the Public Safety Committee, and the Privacy Advisory Commission voted against FlockOS due to serious concerns about vendor trustworthiness and privacy risk. Advancing this contract without resolving those concerns disregards the advisory bodies specifically tasked with protecting Oakland residents.

Please vote no on the Flock contract and redirect resources toward proven, community-centered safety solutions.

I live in District 5. I reject the OPD Community Safety Camera System use policy and FLOCK Safety Contract, as recommended by the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission.

I am alarmed at the risks posed by OPD use of Flock surveillance systems that connect privately-owned cameras into a nationwide tracking network—a network which ICE and other federal agencies can access for deportation investigations.

Even if Oakland regulates this use, there is little accountability when companies like Flock and police departments violate the law. This already happened last July when local police shared ALPR data with federal agencies for immigration enforcement.

I am disturbed by Flock’s video management system (VMS) integration. It can co-opt private security cameras without explicit consent, turning small business systems into extensions of a national surveillance network. When people fear government tracking leads to deportation, they avoid shopping in those neighborhoods, endangering local commerce.

Oakland already has proven models for effective public safety. The $2.25 million could fund improved lighting, safety ambassador programs, and violence prevention and mental health response. These initiatives address root causes of crime rather than merely expand the surveillance state.

I urge you to reject any OPD policy or contract that invests in Flock Safety's dangerous surveillance systems.

My safety should not come at the expense of my privacy

I strongly oppose the use of Flock and this proposed agreement. Flock already has a demonstrated history of poor data and privacy protection. The lack of meaningful safeguards and Flock’s own history of broken promises is exactly what your own experts on the Privacy Advisory Commission warned about when it rejected FlockOS in a 4-2 vote. This item has continually been pushed in council meetings, despite wide spread, continous opposition. If you care about the health, wellbeing, and safety of Oakland residents, this funding could be redirected to help people meet their basic needs - food access, employment, education, health care, etc.

This $2.52 million dollar contract is wasteful at best and harmful to our communities at worst. Reject this contract with Flock.

I'm strongly opposed to the Flock Contract. This zombie proposal has been rejected several times yet keeps coming back over the wishes of Oakland residents and the committees specializing in these matters. The city council can't just disregard these processes to force through something a few people are trying to force on residents. Consider what your role is. It's to work for the people, not rule over us.

It is clear the vast majority of Oakland residents oppose Flock’s surveillance technology. Going through with this contract would be a clear affront to democratic processes that are in place to have residents shape what happens in their own city. Respect democracy

I strongly oppose the Camera System use policy and the FLOCK Contract. Recording huge amounts of data is not likely to decrease the hours is takes Oakland's police officers and other employees to provide for the same level of public safety. It will, however, decrease the safety of immigrants, people seeking reproductive and gender-affirming health care and their health care providers, and potentially all of us who actively resist Trump's authoritarian takeover. We already know that FLOCK data is not effectively secured from use by agencies of the federal government and those of other states--breaches of Oakland data as well as access by Texas of date other states thought was secure prove this. The measure failed to pass through both the Privacy Advisory Commission and the Public Safety Committee, so it should not even be on the agenda today. Please vote no.

Why are we moving towards a situation where we are being survived without our consent in public places? We can easily prevent this if you vote against this contract. Racial profiling, inaccuracies, companies working with state and federal governments are changing their stances and complying with agencies like ICE (who conduct illegal activity). As a Black Oakland resident, I do not want my property or image on any of these surveillance cameras. Instead of the city doing its job to promote public safety, it’s installing inaccurate and harmful devices to track our movements out and about. It’s not how we should go about safety. This isn’t what safety looks like.

I urge you, please, to keep Oakland residents in mind. It’s very clear that much of the public is against this contract. Please listen to your constituents and vote this contract down.

I strongly oppose the Flock Agreement. This is a disgusting attempt to ram through the measure by bypassing the public safety committee (which already voted against this) and widespread community opposition. DO NOT expand Flock surveillance in Oakland

I am categorically opposed to the use of flock cameras in my (Fruitvale) neighborhood, especially as their use and the unregulated misuse of the data they gather has and will be used to conduct ICE raids on my neighbors. I am also frustrated that the Flock company has allowed their data to be used to track women seeking abortions. These abuses are not worth the alleged safety they promise but do not actually deliver. Take them down, and don’t renew the contract.

Surveillance is not safety. At a time with public trust in policing, federal immigration enforcement, and technology companies’ use of our data and alliances with the Trump administration is so low, it is irresponsible to award this contract to such a company in this industry. It is very reasonable for folks to be concerned that the data collected as part of this contract will not be used responsibly.

Furthermore, Flock also advertises its “drone as first responder” technology and it is nothing short of terrifying. It’s not yet clear to me if this is part of this initial contract, but I am concerned that it may be added as part of a future contract expansion. I do not want to live in a city policed by faceless, remotely-operated drones.

Please consider alternative uses of this funding. Additional staffing via recruitment and retention efforts will help more effectively respond to issues in Oakland with human, measured responses.