Oakland Council Expands Flock License Plate Reader Network Despite Privacy Concerns

The Oakland City Council voted Tuesday to expand the city’s network of automated license plate reader cameras, overriding strong objections from privacy advocates who warned the move could expose residents to federal surveillance.

The 7-1 vote approves a new two-year, $2.25 million contract with Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based technology firm that holds major contracts in over 40 Bay Area cities. It came at the end of a contentious meeting that drew more than 140 public speakers and stretched late into the evening.

The deal allows the Oakland Police Department to maintain its existing network of 291 cameras and add 40 new “pan-tilt-zoom” cameras to monitor high-traffic corridors and illegal dumping sites. The new terms go into effect immediately and prevent the existing camera network from going dark on Jan. 1, when the previous authorization was set to expire.

“This system makes the Department more efficient as it allows for information related to disruptive/violent criminal activities to be captured … and allows for precise and focused enforcement,” OPD wrote in its proposal to the council.

While supporters argued the technology is a vital “resource multiplier” for an understaffed police force, some critics blasted the council for what they called an “undemocratic” and “backdoor” process.

Tuesday’s vote was particularly charged because the Public Safety Committee had previously deadlocked on the contract last month. However, just last week, the Rules Committee fast-tracked the item to the full council, a move that privacy groups said was designed to bypass committee-level opposition.

Councilmember Carroll Fife, the sole “no” vote on Tuesday, criticized her colleagues for advancing a contract with a company that has faced national scrutiny over data sharing with federal entities.

“I don’t know how we get up and have several press conferences talking about how we are supportive of a sanctuary city status, but then use a vendor that has been shown to have a direct relationship with Border Control,” Fife said from the dais. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Earlier this year, the San Francisco Standard reported that federal agencies had accessed data from Oakland’s cameras. Last month, the city of Richmond deactivated its own camera network after discovering that federal officials could search their database.

The Oakland Police Department, meanwhile, has defended the technology as an essential tool for solving violent crimes.

Lt. Gabriel Urquiza told the council that since the cameras were first deployed in July 2024, the system has led to 232 arrests and the recovery of 68 firearms. Department data shows carjackings dropped from an average of 40 per month before the cameras were installed to 17 per month in 2025.

To address privacy concerns, the council adopted a series of amendments proposed by Councilmembers Charlene Wang and Rowena Brown. The new contract includes:

• A strict prohibition on sharing data with federal immigration agencies or out-of-state law enforcement for the purpose of investigating reproductive health care or gender-affirming care.
• A “two-key” approval system requiring both the city’s chief privacy officer and the OPD information technology director to authorize any new data-sharing relationships.
• A mandate for quarterly independent compliance audits overseen by the city auditor.
• A requirement that the city begin a request for proposal process within 18 months to identify potential alternative vendors, preventing an automatic renewal with Flock.

Many of the provisions, such as the prohibition on sharing data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or for out-of-state abortion investigations, reiterate existing Oakland sanctuary policies and California state law.

“My goal is to ensure that Oakland’s legislation is fully aligned with state law, as well as the essential protections that are needed in the policy,” Brown said. “I do want to minimize the potential risk this technology presents.”

The debate highlighted deep divisions within the city. While privacy advocates dominated much of the public comment during Tuesday’s meeting, many business owners from Chinatown and Little Saigon urged the council to pass the measure.

“We need to have cameras in order to protect the merchants so they feel safe and can open longer hours,” said Josephine Hui, member of the Toishan-Oakland Chinatown Patrol Team.

However, opponents argued that the system’s potential for abuse outweighed its benefits.

“Why don’t we really prevent crime by funding [the Department of Violence Prevention]? Violence prevention programs have been proven to stop crime,” said Hannah Zuckerman, a District 2 resident. “We do not need data being shared, and license plate data is personal data.”

While the city-funded network is expanding, some neighborhoods are not waiting for municipal action. Residents in the foothills Oakmore neighborhood recently fundraised to install their own private Flock cameras to assist OPD.