Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
9 26-0294 Subject: OPD Community Safety Cameras Policy And FLOCK Agreement
From: Oakland Police Department
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution (1) Approving The Oakland Police Department Surveillance Use Policy "DGO I-32.1 - Community Safety Camera System" And The Acquisition Of Security Cameras And Related Technology; (2) Awarding A Two Year Agreement To Flock Safety For Acquisition Of Automated License Plate Reader And Pan Tilt Zoom Cameras, Operating System Technology, And Related Services At A Cost Not To Exceed Two-Million Two-Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Five-Hundred Dollars ($2,252,500); And (3) Waiving The Competitive Multiple-Step Solicitation Process Required For The Acquisition Of Information Technology Systems And Waiving The Local And Small Local Business Enterprise Program Requirements
As a 22-year Oakland resident, I strongly support keeping the Flock cameras in place. Research and local data show that this technology helps reduce crimes such as car break-ins, vehicle theft, and other property offenses — all of which had been on the rise in our city. Since the Flock cameras were installed, Oakland has seen sharp declines in these types of incidents.
While it’s true that correlation doesn’t prove causation, the timing and scale of these improvements suggest that the cameras have played an important role in deterring and solving property crimes.
At the same time, I understand and respect the community’s concerns about privacy. We can and should address those through clear safeguards — such as strict data-retention limits, transparent oversight, and prohibitions on data sharing with outside or federal agencies. Many other cities have successfully adopted similar guardrails while keeping their camera networks effective and accountable.
Oakland can find that same balance: protecting both public safety and personal privacy. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to continue supporting the Flock camera program, with robust privacy protections in place.
I understand that the Privacy Advisory Commission expressed concern about trusting Flock as a vendor. I share the belief that technology partners must always be held accountable, but that’s exactly what Oakland’s contract achieves. The City owns all ALPR and community camera data. The agreement includes 30-day retention, no ICE access, full audit rights, and termination for any misuse. These are structural safeguards that don’t depend on “trust.” They rely on oversight, documentation, and enforceable legal terms.
Oakland has built one of the strongest frameworks in the nation for civilian control of technology. I urge the Council to focus on that accountability system rather than vendor reputation alone. Thank you for listening. Pamela Darrow, District 1
The privacy issue is real. And I do hope that the council will take all reasonable steps to protect the privacy of residents. But the issue of a severe shortage of police officers is also an issue. With the city needing something close to 900 officers, according to its own consultants, and having fewer than 600 genuinely available to protect us, this is an inexpensive technological advance that will help deter and solve crime, at least until we have a police force that's appropriate for Oakland's population. On balance, I support use of the flock cameras. Refusing to do so would be an invitation to criminals to come to Oakland and work, where the chances of getting caught are even further diminished. Please use common sense and vote for both: Reasonable privacy protections AND protections for the residents of Oakland you represent. Thank you.
I am a resident of District 2 in Oakland. I encourage the City Council to trust the policy experts on the Privacy Commission, and vote NO on the Flock contract.
Two weeks ago, hundreds of people showed up at the Public Safety Committee to advocate AGAINST the Flock contract. Please do not silence them, and go against the majority. People have legitimate concerns over Flock, and the contract should not be extended.
First, Flock has promised safeguards. OPD has promised safeguards. However, we know that Flock is a private entity and can easily break commitment they have with anyone they have a contract. Even the most progressive cities across the United States, such as Eureka, Richmond and Santa Cruz, have already cancelled their contract with Flock. These cities probably have more safeguards than Oakland. However, they came to a conclusion that this company lies and do not do their part to safeguard their data.
Second, OPD indicates that Flock camera reduces crime. We all know that correlation does not equal causation. Crime has been dropping all across the country. The $2.5 million is better served on solutions that are scientifically proven to work to reduce crime, and not Flock, a solution that is tenuous, at best, for reducing crime. We need to support other programs, instead of Flock.
Please. Listen to the Privacy Commission. Listen to your constituents. They are the ones that live and work in Oakland, and see the problems associated with Flock. NO.
I am a resident of District 7 and I strongly support OPD using Flock cameras. They have been shown to combat crime, and the contract has safeguards in place to protect civil rights. Please vote to keep this essential tool to help our officers fight crime.
Carlos Blythe
7 Orinda Vista Dr.
Oakland, 94605
415-720-0917
I am an Oakland resident speaking in strong support of the Flock Safety expansion. I want to address the elephant in the room immediately: Privacy. We all value it. But we must stop treating 'privacy' and 'safety' as mutually exclusive. We can—and must—have both.
The pilot data is undeniable. In just six months, Oakland saw an 11% increase in violent crime clearance rates and nearly 100 arrests directly linked to this technology. These aren’t just numbers; they represent families getting closure and dangerous offenders being taken off our streets.
Look at our neighbors. San Francisco reported a 33% drop in property crime and a 13% drop in violent crime after fully integrating these systems. San Leandro uses a public transparency portal that audits every search, proving that these tools can be used responsibly without 'spying' on law-abiding residents. Even Richmond, despite recent administrative hurdles, credited this tech with identifying suspects in 12 separate homicide cases.
To those concerned about civil liberties: I agree with you. That is why I am asking the Council to approve this technology with strict, best-in-class guardrails—mirroring San Leandro’s transparency portal and a strict 30-day data retention policy.
We cannot ask our first responders to do a 2025 job with 1990s tools. Denying this technology doesn't protect our privacy; it only protects those who prey on our community. Please follow the data, listen to the victims, and vote yes.
As a 22-year Oakland resident, I strongly support keeping the Flock cameras in place. Research and local data show that this technology helps reduce crimes such as car break-ins, vehicle theft, and other property offenses — all of which had been on the rise in our city. Since the Flock cameras were installed, Oakland has seen sharp declines in these types of incidents.
While it’s true that correlation doesn’t prove causation, the timing and scale of these improvements suggest that the cameras have played an important role in deterring and solving property crimes.
At the same time, I understand and respect the community’s concerns about privacy. We can and should address those through clear safeguards — such as strict data-retention limits, transparent oversight, and prohibitions on data sharing with outside or federal agencies. Many other cities have successfully adopted similar guardrails while keeping their camera networks effective and accountable.
Oakland can find that same balance: protecting both public safety and personal privacy. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Council to continue supporting the Flock camera program, with robust privacy protections in place.
I understand that the Privacy Advisory Commission expressed concern about trusting Flock as a vendor. I share the belief that technology partners must always be held accountable, but that’s exactly what Oakland’s contract achieves. The City owns all ALPR and community camera data. The agreement includes 30-day retention, no ICE access, full audit rights, and termination for any misuse. These are structural safeguards that don’t depend on “trust.” They rely on oversight, documentation, and enforceable legal terms.
Oakland has built one of the strongest frameworks in the nation for civilian control of technology. I urge the Council to focus on that accountability system rather than vendor reputation alone. Thank you for listening. Pamela Darrow, District 1
The privacy issue is real. And I do hope that the council will take all reasonable steps to protect the privacy of residents. But the issue of a severe shortage of police officers is also an issue. With the city needing something close to 900 officers, according to its own consultants, and having fewer than 600 genuinely available to protect us, this is an inexpensive technological advance that will help deter and solve crime, at least until we have a police force that's appropriate for Oakland's population. On balance, I support use of the flock cameras. Refusing to do so would be an invitation to criminals to come to Oakland and work, where the chances of getting caught are even further diminished. Please use common sense and vote for both: Reasonable privacy protections AND protections for the residents of Oakland you represent. Thank you.
I am a resident of District 2 in Oakland. I encourage the City Council to trust the policy experts on the Privacy Commission, and vote NO on the Flock contract.
Two weeks ago, hundreds of people showed up at the Public Safety Committee to advocate AGAINST the Flock contract. Please do not silence them, and go against the majority. People have legitimate concerns over Flock, and the contract should not be extended.
First, Flock has promised safeguards. OPD has promised safeguards. However, we know that Flock is a private entity and can easily break commitment they have with anyone they have a contract. Even the most progressive cities across the United States, such as Eureka, Richmond and Santa Cruz, have already cancelled their contract with Flock. These cities probably have more safeguards than Oakland. However, they came to a conclusion that this company lies and do not do their part to safeguard their data.
Second, OPD indicates that Flock camera reduces crime. We all know that correlation does not equal causation. Crime has been dropping all across the country. The $2.5 million is better served on solutions that are scientifically proven to work to reduce crime, and not Flock, a solution that is tenuous, at best, for reducing crime. We need to support other programs, instead of Flock.
Please. Listen to the Privacy Commission. Listen to your constituents. They are the ones that live and work in Oakland, and see the problems associated with Flock. NO.
I am a resident of District 7 and I strongly support OPD using Flock cameras. They have been shown to combat crime, and the contract has safeguards in place to protect civil rights. Please vote to keep this essential tool to help our officers fight crime.
Carlos Blythe
7 Orinda Vista Dr.
Oakland, 94605
415-720-0917
I am an Oakland resident speaking in strong support of the Flock Safety expansion. I want to address the elephant in the room immediately: Privacy. We all value it. But we must stop treating 'privacy' and 'safety' as mutually exclusive. We can—and must—have both.
The pilot data is undeniable. In just six months, Oakland saw an 11% increase in violent crime clearance rates and nearly 100 arrests directly linked to this technology. These aren’t just numbers; they represent families getting closure and dangerous offenders being taken off our streets.
Look at our neighbors. San Francisco reported a 33% drop in property crime and a 13% drop in violent crime after fully integrating these systems. San Leandro uses a public transparency portal that audits every search, proving that these tools can be used responsibly without 'spying' on law-abiding residents. Even Richmond, despite recent administrative hurdles, credited this tech with identifying suspects in 12 separate homicide cases.
To those concerned about civil liberties: I agree with you. That is why I am asking the Council to approve this technology with strict, best-in-class guardrails—mirroring San Leandro’s transparency portal and a strict 30-day data retention policy.
We cannot ask our first responders to do a 2025 job with 1990s tools. Denying this technology doesn't protect our privacy; it only protects those who prey on our community. Please follow the data, listen to the victims, and vote yes.