by Aila F.
Did you know that Oakland currently has several hundred automated license plate readers (ALPRs) spread across the city…and they have captured over 600,000,000 license plates in the last year alone? Provided by a company called Flock, these readers send data to Oakland’s police department — with the alleged purpose of helping to fight crime. Unfortunately, the data can instead be used to threaten the safety of citizens who have committed no crimes — especially our immigrant neighbors. And it can take millions of budget dollars away from resources like affordable housing and mental health outreach that actually keep us safe. That’s why Bay Area residents have been loud and clear: these surveillance technologies have no place in our communities.
Yet, the Oakland City Council continues to vote in favor of contracts with Flock — as well as Cellebrite, another surveillance software company. With three council members up for re-election this November, we need to keep the pressure on and make sure Oakland City Council knows that we know they’ve made a big mistake.
Recent Flock data breach in San Francisco highlights the risks
A Flock data breach in San Francisco revealed the inherent risks of this technology. California law prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with out-of-state or federal agencies without a court order or warrant issued by a California court. Despite this, last June, a routine audit by the San Francisco Police Department caught the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center improperly querying its Flock license-plate network on behalf of federal and out-of-state agencies.
The audit found 299 instances over roughly a year, funneled through a federally linked intelligence-sharing hub. According to Mission Local, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were among the agencies accessing the data. While SFPD said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “are not among the agencies identified,” it doesn’t mean the data didn’t eventually reach those agencies. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ICE and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have repeatedly used Flock nationwide to go after immigrants without warrants.
The June disclosure is not San Francisco’s first breach: a February class-action lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court against Flock Safety alleged federal and out-of-state agencies accessed data from the city’s Flock cameras 1.6 million times in seven months, likely violating the state law that bars sharing this data outside California without case-by-case authorization.
Lessons are not lost on East Bay residents
These are exactly the types of scenarios that East Bay residents expressed concern about via public comment at Oakland City Council meetings in December 2025 and May 2026 — comments that for the most part fell on deaf ears.
In December 2025, Oakland’s council voted 7–1 to approve a $2.25 million, two-year Flock contract expanding the city’s camera network past 330 cameras. This happened despite hours of public comment running roughly two-to-one against it and Oakland’s own Privacy Advisory Commission recommending against it. Carroll Fife cast the lone “no” vote, with the other council members — Rowena Brown, Noel Gallo, Ken Houston,, Kevin Jenkins, Janani Ramachandran, Zac Unger, and Charlene Wang — all voting “yes.”
In May, the council approved (again, despite vocal opposition from constituents) a separate $140,000 contract renewal with Cellebrite, which makes digital forensics and intelligence tools. The Israeli firm is under active contract with ICE for immigration enforcement. Its tools also have been used to extract data from Palestinian detainees in Gaza. This time, the vote was 6–2, with Fife and Ramachandran voting no, citing Cellebrite’s poor human-rights record. Brown, Gallo, Houston, Jenkins, Unger, and Wang voted yes again.
Guys, what the Flock?!
Terms for Oakland council seats are staggered. This year, Districts 2 (Charlene Wang), 4 (Janani Ramachandran), and 6 (Kevin Jenkins) are up in the November 3 election. If Wang, Ramachandran, and Jenkins want to keep their seats, they need to show voters they’ve actually listened to the communities who packed those meetings and said no.
Wang and Jenkins voted yes on both surveillance contracts. Ramachandran voted yes on Flock but broke with the majority on Cellebrite. Unlike Fife — who used her no vote to publicly call Cellebrite a “horrible, horrible” human-rights offender and pressed the Oakland Police Department on why every surveillance tool before the council seems to come with a troubling track record — Ramachandran did not make a public statement explaining her vote or condemning the company. It’s a fair guess that she recognized the contract was indefensible and didn’t want her name on it.
Recognizing a problem quietly isn’t the same as standing up and saying so. While it’s disappointing that Ramachadran didn’t accompany her “no” vote with a verbal, firm stance on why this technology is harmful to our communities, the shift in her voting from December to May is notable. We take it as a sign that we need to keep showing up at City Council meetings and making our voices heard, especially as we ramp up to November elections.
Sanctuary-city policies mean nothing if councilmembers keep signing off on tools with documented pipelines to ICE. Multi-million dollar contracts with surveillance technology companies — that fuel devastation in Gaza and threaten our immigrant communities at home — don’t keep us safe.
WE KEEP US SAFE!
