I am a district 3 resident and I STRONGLY oppose the use of Flock cameras and license plate readers.

Oaklanders are subject to constant warrantless tracking of our movements, creating a detailed record of where we go, when, and how often. Studies have shown this data does little to prevent crime, but it does plenty to target immigrants, protesters, abortion seekers, and other groups who are supposed to feel at home here in Oakland. It's also fantastic at helping cops stalk people, as we've seen repeatedly in the media recently.

Flock's own audit reports and numerous investigative journalism pieces have documented cases of law enforcement agencies sharing this data across state lines and with federal agencies like ICE. This kind of surveillance should not exist in Oakland at all, and it certainly should not be run by a for-profit tech company with a terrible track record, zero meaningful oversight, and no accountability for abuse.

It shocks me that this is even an issue Oakland. Use this money to invest in our community, not surveil it. The vast majority of Oaklanders oppose this tech, as you can see by these public comments, and it is the City Council's job to represent us. Do so.

My name is Sophie, and I’m an Oakland district 1 resident. I am writing to strongly oppose Flock technologies and the expansion of their use. Surveillance does not increase safety, but further endangers all of us especially marginalized folks. It’s time to divest from Flock and other oppressive and violent technologies and invest in community care.

Vote no to the expansion of Flock camera use. It is unacceptable we keep providing tax payer dollars to these technologies that are used against residents. They do not improve public safety, they only improve the ability to discriminate and criminalize our neighbors. Stop buying this technology and do your jobs

VOTE NO ON FLOCK!
OPD should be ashamed of itself. Oakland already has 290 Flock cameras across the city. Since installing these cameras, Oakland police have broken California law by sharing Flock data with federal agencies, including ICE. In a sanctuary city like Oakland, this puts Black, Brown, immigrant, undocumented, unhoused, disabled, and working-class communities at even greater risk. Surveillance does not create safety. It expands police power. You're constituents don't want this!! If LAPD can cancel their flock with Flock, so can we.

My name is Mary Sanders and I am a proud Oakland resident. I am writing to share my opposition to Flock and other surveillance technologies. These technologies which have been employed and tested in places like Occupied Palestine have shown to be harmful and violate our inherent right for privacy. I am not safer because a camera is constantly surveilling me as I go for a morning walk. Let's spend money on community driven initiatives that have shown to be more impactful than tracking our right to move freely. I believe Oakland can do better. We deserve more. Thank you for you time, Mary

Absolutely not. No, I do not want a corrupt surveillance technology in our town. I am a resident of Oakland District 1 and want an end to the Flock contracts.

Flock has lied about having contracts with Border Patrol and DHS, and has provided data to ICE on many occasions. The cameras and software have been easily hacked, they've shared data that was supposed to be kept private, and law enforcement officers have used their personal access to harass and stalk citizens. Beyond moral issues, they're a bad business: they have lied about business practices, data storage, using data to train AI, and their affiliations countless number of times. Mass surveillance will not keep us safe—get Flock out of Oakland now!

I am a resident of Oakland District 3 and I strongly oppose the use of Flock in Oakland and by the Oakland Police Department. Flock does absolutely nothing to promote safety. Instead, research overwhelmingly shows that Flock is routinely used by police to endanger the lives of women, children, queer and trans people, Black people, immigrants, people of color, and others targeted by racialized and gendered state violence. Police departments across the country routinely use Flock surveillance to stalk and harass women. Flock has been proven to be ineffective at reducing or preventing crime. All Flock does is surveil and increase police violence in low-income neighborhoods and Black and brown communities. Santa Cruz and Mountain View have ended their contracts with Flock, as have a growing number of cities across the country. Oakland City Council needs to listen to its constituents and end Oakland's contract with Flock.

FLOCK CANNOT BE
TRUSTED
We know that Flock cameras and automated license plate readers have been used against poor people, women, organizers, immigrants, and other marginalized communities.

I am a resident of Oakland District 3 and strongly oppose the use of Flock, along with Cellebrite and Peregrine, by the Oakland Police Department. These technologies do not serve to protect our communities and are ineffective at preventing crime. They use our taxpayer funds to surveil our communities, most often our low income neighborhoods made up of Black and brown residents. Flock has a long track record of collaborating with ICE, an organization that has repeatedly been weaponized to kidnap community members who abide by the law and deserve to be in this country. Cities like Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, Denver, and Austin have ended their contracts with Flock due to public backlash and a lack of tangible results from their partnerships with the company. Oakland needs to join this growing list of cities around the country and end our city’s contract with Flock.

Oakland already has 290 Flock cameras across the city. In 2025 alone, those cameras scanned more than 638 million license plates, creating a massive database of where people drive, park, work, worship, organize, and seek care.

Now OPD wants to expand the reasons officers can search this surveillance system, further leaking into our everyday lives and infringing on our civil liberties. This is an unacceptable violation of our trust and privacy

I am a resident, parent with kids in Oakland public schools, homeowner and voter in Oakland. I urge the City Council to vote no to any expansion in the use of FLOCK to surveil its residents or expand data collection on its residents. I urge the City Council to reconsider its contract altogether with FLOCK, as information collected by FLOCK could endanger members of our communities by ICE.

No on Flock. No on Cellebrite. Oakland should terminate any involvement with Flock and Cellebrite. Both of these technologies have been used by ICE and Homeland Security to kidnap our neighbors and then they are flown or bussed across the country to intentionally eliminate access to community support, and held in inhumane conditions and/or deported to countries with horrible human rights records. The claim that Oakland has restrictions on data sharing is moot when the companies involved can ahd have accessed the data collected to assist ICE in their illegal activities.

If we do not cancel the Flock and Cellebrite contracts we need to declare that we are no longer a sanctuary city since the Council will have decided to cooperate with entities that assist ICE and Homeland Security with illegal kidnappings.

Oakland's Flock cameras already scan 638M+ plates a year, tied to a company backed by Trump-aligned investors. ICE and out-of-state agencies have accessed CA Flock data despite sanctuary laws. More cameras means more surveillance infrastructure ripe for federal misuse.
Say no to expansion.

Please vote NO on the Flock expansion in Oakland. Our city should not be sharing Flock data with federal agencies, including ICE but we also should not be expanding surveillance for lower-level issues through the police. Please keep Oakland a sanctuary city!

OPD has shared Flock data with federal agencies, including ICE, in violation of California law. That’s not a hypothetical risk. It already happened.

Now OPD is asking to expand the reasons officers can search this database — adding things like reckless driving, sideshows, illegal dumping, and welfare checks. A welfare check is supposed to be about getting someone help, not pulling them into a surveillance system that’s already shown it can’t be trusted to follow the law.

This is how surveillance expands. It’s introduced as a narrow public safety tool, and then the list of acceptable uses keeps growing until it covers almost everything.

Oakland calls itself a sanctuary city. If that means anything, it has to mean we don’t hand federal agencies more tools to target our own residents. This expansion would put Black, Brown, immigrant, undocumented, unhoused, disabled, and working-class Oaklanders at greater risk — the very communities sanctuary policies are supposed to protect.

As a small business owner here, I want a safe city too. But surveillance isn’t safety — it’s just more police power, aimed at the people who can least afford to be watched.

I’m asking the Committee to vote no on this expansion, and to hold OPD accountable for the ICE data-sharing that already occurred.

As an Oakland resident and public school teacher in the Bay Area, I strongly oppose the spending of public funds on surveillance technology. NO on Flock - the other opposed comments illustrate the many ways that Flock and others like them provide access of this data in ways that will only make our most vulnerable community members LESS safe. Absolutely no spending on anything that will aid and abet the rising authoritarianism of the federal government. Even IF it were truly to remain local, surveillance like this is consistently faulty, proven to perpetuate institutional biases, and won’t make our everyday lives safer. Spend our tax dollars on meaningful services like harm reduction, mental health, education, housing, and healthcare!

The comments before have already highlighted the truly almost endless examples of flock abuse and shady practices that should be more than enough reason to without hesitation vote on any further business with Flock. But I am adding my voice to this to hopefully drive home for the council that not only is expanding the flock contract the wrong thing to do morally or financially, it is also very unpopular with your constituents. The people of Oakland deserve better than big brother monitoring their every move and allowing that data to be sent to federal agencies with increasingly fascist goals and activities. If you actually care about making Oakland safer for all of us, provide money to our schools, job training and opportunities, etc not endless money to cops and surveillance.

Given the significant security concerns of Flock ALPR data being accessed by outside state and federal agencies, including ICE and federal immigration enforcement, I urge the committee and broader City Council to be wary of any expansion of Flock in Oakland.

Absolutely NO on Flock expansion. Surveillance does not equal safety. Flock is an demonstrably untrustworthy company that will absolutely hurt our communities:
When Mountain View disabled its 30 Flock cameras, investigators found a "national lookup" setting had been switched on for one camera without the city being told, and a separate "statewide lookup" feature had been active on 29 of the 30 cameras for 17 straight months before the city discovered and disabled it. During that period, more than 250 agencies that had never signed a data agreement with Mountain View ran an estimated 600,000 searches in a single year, according to public-records reporting

A Texas case where a sheriff's department ran a nationwide Flock search logging the reason "had an abortion, search for female" (reported by 404Media/EFF), and Massachusetts data being accessible to roughly 7,000 outside agencies and organizations despite a state "Shield Law" barring cooperation with out-of-state abortion/gender-care investigations, per ACLU reporting.

Washington state enabled direct, 1:1 sharing of their Flock networks with U.S. Border Patrol at some point in 2025, Flock audits revealed apparent "back door" access by Border Patrol to the networks of at least ten Washington police departments that had not explicitly authorized such searches.