Supporters and opponents of the use of automated license plate readers made their voices heard Tuesday at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors meeting.
Police departments use these cameras to investigate crimes like stolen vehicles, but privacy watchdogs have raised concerns about federal agencies being able to access the camera data — a violation of state law — and using it for targeted surveillance.
The board is considering extending the county’s contract with Atlanta-based license plate reader firm Flock Safety for the use of its cameras in the county’s unincorporated communities, at a cost of around $300,000. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office is pushing to extend the contract through July 2026.
In its recommendation to the board, the Sheriff’s Office called the technology “extremely beneficial,” leading to the arrest of violent offenders, the recovery of stolen vehicles, and a decrease in violent crime.
The Sheriff’s Office emphasized that it would own the data collected by the cameras, and that, in compliance with state law, it will not be shared with federal agencies.
But speakers at Tuesday’s meeting raised concerns that federal agencies could still access the data collected by the cameras for targeted surveillance of immigrants, and out-of-state individuals seeking reproductive and gender-affirming care.
They pointed to Bay Area cities like Richmond, Santa Cruz, and Mountain View which paused their Flock cameras after discovering that federal agencies could search the camera data, despite the firm’s assurances otherwise.
A news release dated Jan. 30 from the Mountain View Police Department stated, “from August to November 2024, several federal law enforcement agencies accessed Mountain View’s Flock Safety ALPR system for one camera via a ‘nationwide’ search setting that was turned on by Flock Safety. This setting was enabled without MVPD’s permission or knowledge.”
Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director for Oakland Privacy, a citizens’ coalition that focuses on privacy issues, emphasized that the technology poses significant privacy risks, despite the best intentions of a sheriff’s office.
“Flock is not operating in good faith, and you have no control over where the data goes,” she said.
But supporters of the technology — like Edward Escobar of the Coalition for Community Engagement, a citizens’ group that describes itself as advocating for business owners, immigrants, and residents — told the board that Flock cameras are an essential law enforcement tool that protects county residents, including immigrants, who are impacted by crime.
Escobar, a public safety advocate who was behind the recalls of both Mayor Sheng Thao and District Attorney Pam Price, pointed to Oakland, where the city council approved the police department’s $2.25 million proposal to expand its Flock surveillance network in December. While there was considerable debate about privacy concerns there too, the council deemed the technology necessary for public safety in the end. However, the council added stricter amendments to protect privacy, including restrictions about sharing data with federal immigration authorities or other law enforcement.
“Latino and immigrant families are bearing the brunt of a crime wave that they did not create,” Escobar said, urging the board to approve the contract extension.
After listening to public comment, the board directed the Sheriff’s Office to prepare a presentation to respond to privacy concerns and deliver it during the next meeting on April 21.
“Under this administration, there are things happening that are not normal, including the potential for surveillance,” said Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas. “We have to take this [technology] seriously because it does have the potential to cause harm in our community.”