The Oakland City Council voted to approve the Oakland Police Department’s Flock Safety camera expansion plan Tuesday in a well-attended meeting that saw passionate expressions of support for and opposition against the plan.
Councilmembers Rowena Brown, Zac Unger, Charlene Wang, Janani Ramachandran, Noel Gallo, Kevin Jenkins, and Ken Houston voted in favor, while Councilmember Caroll Fife voted against the proposal.
The 7-1 vote means that the city will now enter into a two-year contract with security camera manufacturer Flock Safety for the use of 290 automated license plate reader cameras — also called Flock cameras — across Oakland.
The proposal also authorizes OPD to acquire 40 new pan-tilt-zoom cameras and to integrate privately owned security cameras into its surveillance network. Footage and data gathered from the various cameras will then be consolidated into an online database called FlockOS, which is managed by Flock Safety.
The $2.25 million proposal has drawn strong support and fierce opposition from citizen groups over the past few months. Supporters include business owners and residents who believe the expansion will help OPD reduce crime and protect the city’s businesses. Meanwhile, activists and privacy watchdog organizations oppose the proposal, concerned that federal agencies could access and use the data stored on FlockOS to target immigrants and individuals coming to California to seek reproductive and gender-affirming care.
Safeguards built in
At Tuesday’s meeting, Lt. Gabriel Urquiza told councilmembers that there are enough safeguards baked into the contract to ensure that no federal or out-of-state agencies will have access to the data stored on FlockOS. Urquiza also said OPD has made 98 arrests, recovered 32 vehicles, and recovered 29 guns because of ALPR camera data since July 2024.
“One of the primary objectives of this technology is deterrence,” he said, “and we’re seeing a significant drop-off in homicides and carjackings.”
Following Urquiza’s presentation, the City Council heard from 145 members of the public, who expressed support and opposition to the proposal.
Supporters like Vietnamese immigrant Tuan Ngo emphasized that ALPR cameras are necessary to protect immigrant businesses from crime, especially at a time when OPD has only 509 sworn officers, far fewer than the 877 officers recommended by a study that the City Council released in April.
“No immigrants have been deported from Oakland because of Flock cameras,” said Ngo. “However, many violent robbers, criminals have been caught because of it.”
Meanwhile, other speakers urged councilmembers to reject the proposal, citing Flock Safety’s checkered record in protecting data collected from its cameras.
“Oakland residents should not fear driving to work, church, or school. We are a sanctuary city that protects civil rights, and I urge you to reject this contract.” Alberto Parra, Oakland resident, addressing the City Council
The cities of Richmond and Santa Cruz have shut down Flock camera operations in the past month in light of these privacy breaches, and critics of the OPD proposal urged Oakland councilmembers to do the same.
“Oakland residents should not fear driving to work, church, or school,” said Alberto Parra, an Oakland resident. “We are a sanctuary city that protects civil rights, and I urge you to reject this contract.”
Proposal met with resistance before Council’s vote
In October, Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission voted 4-2 against the proposal, citing privacy concerns. In a Nov. 18 meeting, the Public Safety Committee arrived at a 2-2 deadlock as councilmembers Houston and Wang voted in favor of the proposal while Brown and Fife voted against.
Then, the proposal was added to the agenda of Thursday’s Rules and Legislation Committee meeting, a move that surprised many. After failing to pass the Public Safety Committee, it was expected that an amended version of the proposal would first have to be introduced and passed through the same committee again. Instead, the Rules and Legislation Committee — comprising Ramachandran, Brown, Unger, and Wang — scheduled the proposal for a full vote in the next council meeting on Tuesday.
Before voting on the proposal, Wang and Brown proposed amending the proposal to include additional safeguards to ensure that Flock cannot share data with out-of-state agencies. The amendments also set out a framework of five independent compliance audits to be conducted over the two-year term of the contract.
Ramachandran and Unger conceded that the expansion was not a perfect solution but maintained that it was necessary for public safety anyway.
“We have a lot of safeguards,” said Ramachandran. “I’ve been a skeptic (of Flock) but we really need this.”