Last week, a friend and I responded to a call to verify ICE sightings near McClymonds High School. And before that, a rapid response call near Hoover Elementary School. We have stopped counting the number of similar calls. Some of you, City Councillors, are on record as opposing ICE. But how can we take your word seriously when you intend to vote in favor of extending the city's contract with Flock Safety. It is well known that Flock and OPD continuously and knowingly share data with ICE. Many news outlets and non-profit organizations, such as WIRED and the ACLU, have widely reported on this. So your promises that the data Flock collects in Oakland will be kept away from ICE ring hollow. How could they not, when California is home to two fusion centers, allowing Flock and other surveillance companies to sidestep sanctuary laws and still profit from this collaboration? How could they not, when we know that some of you have opened your ears and your purses to Chris Moore and his pro-ICE, pro-human rights violations landlord lobby? Make no mistake: should you vote in favor of extending Flock's contract, we will not forget you voted to ease ICE's campaign of terror in Oakland. We will make sure our neighbors do not forget you cast a pro-ICE vote.

I am appalled that council and supporters of Flock are using the language of "public safety" to push this measure through. Crime is obviously a problem that needs to continue to be addressed in Oakland, but Flock cameras will not make us safer. This company has a history of improperly securing data and despite continued assurances to the contrary, they have shared data with CBP. If you are a citizen who supports this measure I implore you to do more research into why so many cities are ditching Flock (Eugene, Oregon for example). If you are a council person who supports this proposal I pray that you can find it in your heart to actually work in the best interest of Oaklanders, not the big tech/crypto interests that keep pouring money into our local elections. You are accountable to us, your constituents, not the oligarchs who want to track us and monetize every aspect of our lives. There are a million ways we can spend this money to reduce crime, and working with Flock is not one of them. We are watching, and we will remember whose side you are on.

You've already heard the arguments countless times. Please actually LISTEN to what you are hearing. People expressing support for cameras aren't necessarily understanding the harmful impact Flock has specifically had nationwide despite overwhelming reports. (That must all just be fake news right?) Several cities across the country have already removed them because they're shady af. We have to acknowledge there's a large constituency that wants cameras BUT it doesn't have to be Flock. The PAC might've approved it years ago when it was originally installed but they listened this year when new information came up and advised against its expansion, when it was clear how Flock's systems were aligning with a right-wing political slump with gaping loopholes in oversight. We can ask for more from our city officials. What's really holding you back from researching other options?

The opposition isn't just ideological, its practical- there are absolutely concrete alternatives to Flock cameras that would create more safety without succumbing us to a surveillance state. For $2.25M, Oakland could fund business district investments and residential improvements that are proven to build trust, not destroy it – all with documented success. These include: improved lighting in business districts and residential neighborhoods, safety ambassadors (already working downtown), violence prevention (already reduced District 4 crime by 36%), and mental health crisis response.

I strongly oppose this legislation. It is irresponsible to expose so many Oakland residents to danger with such a technically and morally unreliable company. Let us not fall victim to the moral panic and doom loop narrative that a certain Piedmont billionaire is crafting. Show that Oakland will stand against facist superPACs.

I work in Oakland and oppose the expansion and continuation of FLOCK. A private company funded by city money being all the data for anyone who travels in Oakland is not the answer to our social issues.

Just choose a different technology company that doesn't sell our data to federal agencies, that isn't insecure, that isn't owned by white supremacist oligarchs. Why are you so intent on aligning yourselves with a fascist administration, and bypassing committee to do so?

How many times do Oakland residents have to speak against Flock cameras before you believe us: No Flock cameras in Oakland!

Flock cameras are insecure. For example, anyone can walk up to one and configure it to send the video feed to them!

If OPD wants license plate readers to assist in their operations then they can do a competitive bid for a secure camera system that doesn't send data to ICE.

I am a District 4 resident who has lived in Oakland for 3 decades. I strongly urge the city council to approve funding for the contract renewal. I have reservations about wide-spread surveillance and despite these concerns support the ALPR program.
Oakland has become a place where many non-residents come to behave poorly. Many believe what happens in Oakland stays in Oakland. With a reduced number of patrol officers on streets, many are committing crimes with few consequences.
Oakland has neither the support programs to protect ALL citizens of our Town, ensuring ALL PEOPLE’S CIVIL RIGHTS are maintained. With as few as 26 police officers on patrol per shift to protect 400,000 residents, taking away any proven tool is not the answer right now.
Updating the program policy and penalties for improper use may be appropriate to continue to discuss. Flock has already added security to prevent mis-use and CA SB 274 should add penalties for improper use.
After careful consideration the PAC voted 7-1 for the FLOCK APLR program. Those merits still exist. Much of the disruptive opposition is ideological and does not address resident’s immediate need and desire to remain safe. Turning off Flock now does not stop Federal immigration actions, the main objection presented.

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. And get here we are again have to reject the unsafe and unsecure and unscrupulous technology. Are our constituents really representing the people of Oakland? Or are they taking bribes on the side?
Why do have to vote and another meeting for the third time??

I strongly oppose expanding a surveillance contract with Flock.

NO! NO! NO! The Oakland community does not need nor want Flock cameras. Councilmembers: stand with the community and not the right wing and big money?

I am the co-leader of the Immigrant Rights Action Team of Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. We strongly oppose the renewal of the Flock contract in Oakland for the following reasons.
1. Flock Cameras Will Assist ICE in Collecting Data.
• With a renewed interest in traffic stops (https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/5647146-immigration-enforcement-tactics-change/) we expect Flock and related ALPR tech to exacerbate and worsen an economic lockdown for migrants. We must stop contributing to mass surveillance infrastructure in this nation, especially under an authoritarian-leaning regime.

2. Gathering our data is unconstitutional. In California, SB 34 (the ALPR Privacy Act) governs how law enforcement agencies use ALPRs. Flock has shown that its security measures are insufficient to comply with this law. This contract will increase city liability.

3. The Limited Law Enforcement Utility Does Not Justify Use
• The Staff Report argues, without substantial evidence other than crime trends, that the mere presence of ALPRs has deterred and reduced homicides. The real intent is to build up surveillance networks and privatize security.

4. Where This Leads
• The integration of surveillance technologies such as Flock Safety's license plate readers and Palantir's ImmigrationOS platform signifies a shift toward comprehensive monitoring of individuals' movements and behaviors. (Wired).

I am a district 2 resident and I strongly OPPOSE this Flock contract. More surveillance is not more security and puts all citizens at risk. My car was stolen from my garage at home recently and immediately reported to OPD. It took 6+ weeks for it to turn up abandoned in Hayward. I have overwhelming doubts that even with access to surveillance data that Flock collects, OPD would have made any inroads in recovering my car sooner if at all. It simply is not a priority for them with or without tools like Flock. The data that Flock collects is simply rife for abuse by individuals and groups that have access to that data.

I oppose this (and any) contract with Flock. Neither OPD nor Flock have demonstrated the ability or will to adequately protect its systems and data from invasive, malevolent inquiries from federal agencies and other law enforcement entities.

Excessive surveillance harms our community, and working with this company opens Oakland residents and visitors to an unconscionably high risk — the exact opposite of what our government should be doing for our communities. It’s horrific to contemplate using taxpayer dollars to unequivocally increase harassment and violation of the rights of our neighbors, not to mention the violence we’ve seen from OPD and ICE/CBP this year.

I urge you to respect the recommendation of Privacy Advisory Commission. The safety and well-being of our neighbors cannot be sacrificed in the name of “public safety,” especially for a surveillance program that specifically undermines public safety.

Like many residents of Oakland, I am a transplant. In my home state of Texas, a county sheriff queried Flock ALPR cameras nationwide for woman based on a call alleging she’d had an abortion. The sheriff’s office claimed it was a missing person search, despite documenting it as a death investigation for a non-viable fetus. The woman had a self-managed abortion (for which she cannot be prosecuted under Texas law) and had been reported to law enforcement by her partner after he violently assaulted her.

I expect better of Oakland. Vote this contract down.

D1 resident.

I am an Oakland resident and I oppose FLOCK

I've lived in Oakland's District 2 for 23 years. I support continued use of the Flock cameras to assist our beleaguered police department in holding to account carjackers, robbers, and burglars.

I am a resident of District 3 and I strongly OPPOSE the contract with Flock.

The artificial urgency with which this item is being added to an already overloaded agenda reeks of manipulation. Over and over again, Oakland residents, researchers, and technology experts have proven how questionable this tech startup's track record is and how weak and faulty the technology is. Oakland residents have been showing up in overwhelming numbers to express concern around deploying mass surveillance infrastructure with an untrustworthy company backed by Peter Thiel. Yet councilmembers continue to rush to satisfy OPD's desire for this contract.

The $2.25 million could be invested in evidence-based crime prevention programs with proven effectiveness that address root causes rather than surveillance that enriches a startup with documented security problems.

I am a District 1 resident and I strongly oppose this contract

I oppose this contract because it violates citizens’ privacy, will supply sensitive data to ICE, and wastes financial resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

NO to the Flock contract. I am emailing you outraged that City Council appears to be shirking transparency and bypassing the democratic process in order approve OPD’s Community Safety Camera System use policy and FLOCK Safety Contract at a special meeting just before the holidays.

This is a contract that your own privacy experts on the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission rejected in October. This is a contract that members of this Council rejected at the Public Safety Committee in November. The only thing that has changed since November is a new lawsuit over OPD’s illegal data sharing with ICE using existing Flock technology. Why are you ignoring serious and documented risks in OPD’s handling of Flock Safety’s real-time surveillance access when it threatens the safety and privacy protections of millions of Oaklanders and Bay Area residents like me?