I urge the council to permanently reject and ban the use of:

* (H) Cellebrite, an Israeli digital forensics firm that tests its technologies on illegally occupied Palestinians living under Apartheid, and
* (A) ALPRs, a widely abused technology from a vendor (Flock) that has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to keep our data safe. While the intent of the guidelines from SB34 and Oakland's contract are good, we've seen time and again in nationwide reporting and local lawsuits that this technology will continue to be abused for enforcement efforts this community finds unacceptable (immigration, healthcare, protest, etc) and stalking by law enforcement officers. Other vendors are no better, only less reported on.

The only effective oversight for an ALPR network like Oakland's would be a judicial warrant requirement for ANY search or hotlist addition.

There is NO excuse for sending Oakland tax dollars to Israel in 2026.

I also want to highlight that the annual Flock report demonstrates that the technology is being used responsibly and for legitimate public safety purposes. The report shows documented case uses, audit processes, controlled access, and investigative value tied to crimes and public safety incidents — not indiscriminate surveillance. Importantly, Oakland already has one of the strongest surveillance oversight frameworks in California through Chapter 9.64, including reporting requirements, use policies, retention limits, and Privacy Commission review.
There are important concerns about surveillance technology and the potential misuse of sensitive location data. But the debate should not be framed as surveillance versus privacy. It should be about governance.
Society already manages information far more sensitive than license plate data. Medical records reveal HIV status, mental health treatment, reproductive care, and other deeply personal information. We don't eliminate electronic health records because they could be abused or shared improperly. Instead, we require strict access controls, audit logs, retention limits, oversight, and penalties for misuse.
Police technologies should be held to the same standard. Strong privacy protections, transparent policies, independent audits, and meaningful accountability can protect civil liberties while allowing legitimate public safety uses. The question isn't whether sensitive data exists; it's whether we govern it responsibly.

I am a longtime Oakland resident and demand that Oakland City Council stop the partnership with FLOCK. FLOCK is an untrustworthy company with a track record of breaking privacy clauses in its contracts and exposing community member data to the dark web, to ICE, and to the highest bidder. We own our freedom and our privacy, it should not be sold to a corporation.

Flock cameras do not make our city safer. They have been used by bad actors, to stalk women, the wrong people have been arrested. These are a poison to our society and do not make us safer.

As your constituent, I urge you to pass legislation that bans the use of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) in our communities.

ALPRs are being used to track our movements, spy on people, and compile detailed databases on everywhere we travel in our vehicles. And it's far too easy for this data to be abused and misused.

You have the power to protect us from this Big Brother surveillance, and that starts with passing legislation to remove Flock cameras from Oakland and canceling any future Flock contracts.

I have commented on this issue before and feel frustrated that despite repeatedly opposing the use of Flock in Oakland, OPD and the City Council have moved forward with Flock contracts.

Your constituents do not want Flock cameras on their streets, in their businesses, or at their schools. Please listen to the overwhelming majority of citizens opposing Flock and cancel the contracts.

I am a resident of Oakland and I am deeply opposed to the use of the mass surveillance of Flock in our city. lt undermines community safety efforts in Oakland, as Flock has repeatedly lied about sharing data with ICE and Border Patrol, in violation of local and statewide sanctuary policies.

This expanded contract poses a serious threat to our immigrant communities, as well as those seeking reproductive care. Surveillance will be weaponizied against the people, and we’ve seen it happen time and time again. Like Los Altos Hills, and Santa Cruz, we too can cancel our Flock contracts, and invest a city that is invested in its people.

absolutely not. This is just one step closer to something awful. We can hardly even park anywhere anymore. The level of control you are eliciting is horrible. They want us to pay for parking on sundays too. And before we know it they will ticket us $100 for going 26 mph in a 25mph zone. You just wait

I am an Oakland resident and voter and urge you to oppose the expansion of the use of Flock surveillance equipment. Since installing these cameras, Oakland police have broken California law by sharing Flock data with federal agencies, including ICE. Even though OPD promises to stop sharing that data, Flock as a company is not beholden to do so. That is unacceptable for a sanctuary city like Oakland.

Flock also poses a threat by increasing OPD's capacity for violence against and incarceration of our Black, Brown, immigrant, undocumented, unhoused, disabled, and working-class communities. Surveillance does not create safety. It expands police power. And we know historically that police power does not lower crime - investing in social services for our communities does. I demand we take the hefty sum of money from the Flock surveillance contract and use it to fund those services instead.

As an Oakland resident and healthcare provider, I'm opposed to Oakland expanding Flock system when there have been many documented law enforcement abuses of this technology, such as stalking people to violate first amendment rights, immigration rights, reproductive rights, along with facilitating more biased policing and discriminatory searches. Please vote to stop Flock and stand in solidarity with other sanctuary cities like Los Angeles.

As a homeowner and resident of Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood, I object on strong terms to Oakland's contract with the city of Oakland. Flock is a sloppy, expensive, unaccountable organization and Flock data has been repeatedly used for illegal and unethical purposes, including: ICE accessing data to arrest immigrants, out-of-state entities accessing Flock data to hunt women seeking abortions, and officers using Flock data to stalk their exes. This surveillance tech has no proven efficacy in reducing crime, while introducing a 1984-esque surveillance environment into our daily lives.
Recently, many cities and organizations have canceled their Flock contracts, including the Los Angeles Police Department. I ask that Oakland follow suit.

I URGE THE COUNCIL TO OPPOSE THE EXPANSION OF FLOCK, especially as other jurisdictions are ending their contracts. Invest the funds to other uses that don’t harm public safety and privacy.

As a native Oaklander, I am in vehement opposition to the use and expansion of Flock surveillance systems. Oaklanders have shown up time and time again to voice our overwhelming opposition to the City's contracting with Flock, and unlike LAPD who listened to the community they claim to serve and protect and cancelled their contract with Flock, OPD seems beholden to no one and our concerns are left to fall on deaf ears.

It is disingenuous to frame this expansion as a matter of "public safety" when the public is loudly proclaiming it does not make us feel safe! It has been verified that OPD has already violated state law in it's use and distribution of data collected by Flock - this resolution cannot purport to be acting in the interests of public safety by handing even more power, access, and latitude to organizations that have already demonstrated a propensity to undermine public trust.

At the bare minimum, this committee should listen to the overwhelming sentiment of it's constituents and vote NO on this expansion, and further actions should be taken to curtail this contract in it's entirety and the dangerous precedent of overreach it has enabled.

I am a proud citizen and voter in Oakland but I’m ashamed our city leaders want to keep partnering with Flock. Flock has proven to be an untrustworthy company, sharing private data with federal agencies in ways that violate state law and our status as a sanctuary city. Police officers in other cities have used Flock to stalk and harass residents, especially women and non-white ethnicities. To extend Flock’s contract would be a dangerous expansion of surveillance and unaccountable power. This is not a pathway to greater public safety. Please vote NO on Flock expansion, and follow LAPD’s example by cancelling any existing contracts.

I am an Oakland resident and voter and urge you to oppose the expansion of the use of Flock surveillance equipment in our communities. 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. Since installing these cameras, Oakland police have broken California law by sharing Flock data with federal agencies, including ICE. This technology does not make our communities safer!

I’m proud to call Oakland home, but ashamed by the city’s use of Flock. Oakland residents deserve to have their privacy protected, and to move through the community without surveillance. I strongly oppose this resolution.

As an Oakland teacher and resident, I strongly oppose the expansion of Flock cameras.

Flock is a clear overreach of state surveillance and violence. It serves the opposite purpose of increased safety and threatens the security and well-being of residents in their own neighborhood. Say NO to Flock!

This proposal is a dangerous escalation of surveilance on the people of Oakland.

The Nevada Sentencing Commission released an 8 page document in 2022 that outlines three methods of increasing public safety and crime prevention rates. All of these methods included statistically significant decreases in crime rates of up to 51% in some instances with far cheaper and much more well-researched implementations. Interventions like the report by the commission mentions quote,
"Lowered emergency room visits by 80%. Reduced the number of jail days by 130%. Reduced probability of committing crime by 80%. And increased the probability of employment by 24%."
These interventions were not an increase of police budget and not a contract with Flock. The intervention that resulted in this incredible decrease on the strain of city infrastructure was providing access to safe and stable, affordable housing.

We know that Flock and an increase of police budget will not keep the residents of The Town safe, nor will it be used for its supposed purpose. Across the country, Flock cameras are being accessed and abused by police and others who obtain access to their feeds to stalk and harass people, especially women and minorities.

Voting to oppose this motion is the bare minimum. The people of Oakland deserve better. We deserve a city government that supports us through policy, funding, and public programs. We deserve dignity, privacy, and safety. Of which, Flock provides none and scorns all.

I am strongly opposed to using Flock's system. Oakland should be cancelling all contracts with Flock, not expanding its use. The proposal to use it for welfare checks is particularly alarming and is likely to scare people away from seeking the help they need. Please vote no!

Members of the Public Safety Committee: I live and work in Oakland and care about this comunity. I urge you to discontinue the use of Flock Safety surveillance equipment and to remove these cameras from our communuties.

It is deeply disappointing that the city has invested in a mass surveillance system with such an untrustworthy vendor like Flock that has repeatedly lied about sharing data with ICE and Border Patrol in violation of local and statewide sanctuary policies. While ALPRs have been around for some time, Flock Safety is the first to create a nationwide mass-surveillance system out of its customers’ cameras.

This Flock contract means:
-More risk for immigrant families from ICE and CBP using local plate data
-More exposure for abortion care seekers being targeted by out-of-state prosecutors
-More risk for protesters, union members, and community organizers to be surveilled and tracked.
-More opportunities for stalkers or abusers to access and abuse location data
-Greater risk to privacy protections from hacks and data breaches exposing sensitive information
-Targeting immigrant, Black, brown, and low-income communities while failing to address the root causes of harm.

Despite sweeping marketing claims, independent evaluations have not shown Flock systems to reduce violent crime. And finally, contracting with Flock risks triggering unbudgeted legal defense costs for the city.

Please do the right thing. Suspend this contract.

As an Oakland resident, I urge the Council to REJECT this report and SUSPEND ALPR/Flock use under OMC 9.64.
The report's core claim is false. In Attachment E Section F says OPD is "not aware of any violations." Yet in July 2025 the SF Standard, using OPD's own logs, documented 200+ searches of Oakland's data for federal reasons, an ICE-related fulfillment, and a CHP "ICE case" — violating SB 34 and Oakland's sanctuary policy.
The audit is a sham. DGO I-12 requires auditing outside-agency searches. OPD audited 496 of its OWN queries and ZERO of the ~2.5 million external searches — the very searches shown to include ICE queries. OPD even admits it has no visibility into what other agencies do with the data.
"Compliance" is just a signed checkbox, with no verification and no enforcement.
No public outreach was done and the Racial Equity Analysis was skipped — for a system that scanned 638 million plates in 2025.
Under OMC 9.64, continued use requires that benefits outweigh costs, that civil rights are safeguarded, and that no less-invasive alternative exists. None is true here. The AG has sued El Cajon for identical conduct; Oakland already faces litigation.
Set aside the prior cost-benefit determination. Suspend ALPR now, order an independent audit of all outside-agency searches, and refer violations to the Attorney General.