Flock Safety is an AI surveillance company whose systems and services have been

contracted by the City of Berkeley since 2023. According to the original proposal that was

approved by Berkeley City Council this past July, the contract’s purpose is

“to deploy a critical tool to deter crime and support criminal investigations.” 

​

However, while advertised as a secure tool for local law enforcement,

data collected from Flock cameras pose serious threats to the privacy and safety

of our community.

 

Flock Safety systems utilize cameras and trained AI models to identify people or

objects in patterns, systematically collecting vast sets of data for cities that contract with

their services. Flock’s automatic license plate readers (ALPRs)—which are currently stationed

at intersections across the city—consistently identify and catalogue

unique vehicle information such as license plate numbers, bumper stickers,

dents and scratches, and vehicle model. 

 

Flock recently announced that existing ALPR cameras can soon be upgraded to video-enabled status.

Additionally, the company currently uses fixed Condor cameras to capture both audio and visuals at pedestrian intersections, parks, and entrances to neighborhoods. 

 

In California, data sharing is limited under the Automated License Plate Recognition Act of 2015 (SB 34). SB 34 bill states that data cannot be used for immigration enforcement or any non-felony crime related purposes. However, this has not been upheld on occasions where Flock data has been subpoenaed and sought after by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies within the Trump administration— a clear violation of the law.

 

In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the Oakland Police Department (OPD) have both been exposed for funneling information to seven federal agencies, including the FBI. In July, OPD also illegally shared data with ICEduring an investigation conducted by the immigration agency in July. In another case, SFPD illegally shared data with Texas cops who were collecting information for ICE; a search log revealed that the phrases "Assist Ice” and “ICE Fugitive,” as well as specific ICE detention numbers, were entered into Flock’s database. 

 

Illegal sharing of Flock data is not an isolated incident; it reflects a deeper, more troubling pattern. For example, a report from the University of Washington’s Center for Human Rights recently found that at least eight law enforcement agencies in the state of Washington shared data from their Flock networks directly with US Border Patrol. There were also instances where law enforcement conducted searches on behalf of federal immigration agencies, and at least another ten networks were accessed via “back doors” without explicit authorization from police departments. 

 

Like in California, these searches were illegal. In response, at least four Seattle-area police departments have changed their Flock surveillance programs.

 

Incidents in other states also show Flock’s data collection poses a threat not only to undocumented people, but also people seeking abortions. According to a 404 Media investigation published in May, a Texas sheriff allegedly searched for a woman seeking an abortion under the guise of locating a missing person, using Flock databases to search terms such as “had abortion” and “search for female.” The sheriff’s office accessed data from 83,000 Flock cameras during the nationwide search, including cameras in Washington and Illinois where abortion is still protected under state law.

 

Information collected by Flock systems is stored on data servers owned by Amazon, which could leave the data even more vulnerable to federal investigations. Unlike sanctuary cities such as Berkeley, Amazon has no legal obligation to withhold data from ICE. While there’s currently no public record of a contract allowing federal agency access to data stored on their servers, Amazon did share data from private servers with law enforcement in 2022, resulting in a congressional investigation. 

 

But the two corporations have just recently signed a contract of their own, showing a deepening relationship between Amazon and Flock. In October, Amazon’s Ring doorbell surveillance company partnered with Flock to expand their reach of available surveillance footage, which will allow law enforcement who contract with Flock to request footage through Ring’s Neighbor app. The partnership will allow for corporate and federal collection of data right from people’s front doors, leaving more opportunities for information to be leaked to agencies like ICE.

 

These examples of Flock’s poor data security illustrate the ease with which federal law enforcement could target vulnerable East Bay communities using Flock technology. Berkeley has entrusted the company with collecting extensive datasets that track our movements through the city in the name of safety, but this surveillance is putting the most vulnerable members of our community at risk. 

 

Beyond concerns about data sharing, it is also notable that Flock’s claims about crime prevention are often wildly exaggerated and based on cherry-picked data. In San Marino, an affluent neighborhood in Los Angeles, Flock trumpeted that the installment of their cameras reduced crime—specifically residential burglaries—by 70 percent from 2020–2021. In reality, residential burglaries in San Marino experienced a five percent increase from 2020–2023. Rates of more serious crimes like murder and larceny were completely unchanged. Is Flock’s price tag—which runs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars—really worth those kinds of results?

 

This leaves us with the question: “If not Flock, then what?”

 

It is commonly understood that surveillance tools enable police to respond to crime, but capturing an unlawful act on camera doesn’t stop the act from happening. Flock might argue that their cameras prevent crime indirectly through deterrence, but effective crime prevention requires real community solutions— not a culture of fear. Do we really want to build a community on a foundation of suspicion and threat? 

 

It’s cliché to invoke, but constant government surveillance is the premise of a certain dystopian novel by one George Orwell. When governments overreach their authority, like we’re seeing right now with the Trump administration, mass surveillance makes it dangerous for people to exercise their First Amendment rights. 

 

If the City of Berkeley is genuinely concerned with public safety, it needs to invest in community-based solutions that maximize community involvement, such as new programs that provide job training, violence interruption, and affordable housing. These approaches are more effective than throwing surveillance-based solutions at a social problem. Our city leaders would do well to learn from the experiences of people in East Palo Alto who, through the civic engagement of residents, were able to bring their murder rate down to almost zero. 

 

We at Berkeley Copwatch believe that mass surveillance of our communities is a misguided and harmful approach to public safety that erodes public trust. At a time when the Bay Area is under assault from federal agencies—and with the knowledge that Flock and city governments have failed to guarantee the security of surveillance data gathered by their cameras—we must ask ourselves if our vision of public safety extends to the most vulnerable communities among us. 

 

In Oakland, many residents have been organizing in opposition to the Oakland City Council’s upcoming vote to renew its Flock contract. On October 2, after three hours of public comment, Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Committee voted 4-2-1 to recommend the city reject contract renewal with the surveillance company. The decision is now up to Oakland council members, who will deliver the final vote. 

 

The Berkeley City Council will soon also vote on the extension of multiple contracts with Flock Safety. One of these proposed contracts would allow for a four-year term of Flock’s fixed Condor-model surveillance cameras at a cost of $310,000. Another larger contract would lease out 16 ALPRs at an operating cost of $5,000 per camera, per year, for an unspecified length of time. The former was first introduced during a regular council meeting on September 9, but was pushed back to an as-of-yet undetermined date due to concerns about Flock data being illegally shared with ICE and other federal agencies.

 

Berkeley is one of 18 sanctuary cities on the Trump administration’s shortlist for crackdowns. To protect ourselves and our neighbors, our community needs to stand together and put an end to the city’s contract with Flock. We urge you to call your local council member and tell them to vote “No” on the upcoming contract extension.

 

Mayor: Adena Ishii

Phone: (510) 981-7100 Email: mayor@berkeleyca.gov

District 1: Rashi Kesarwani

Phone (510) 981-7110 Email: rkesarwani@berkeleyca.gov

District 2: Terry Taplin

Phone: (510) 981-7120 Email: ttaplin@berkeleyca.gov

District 3: Ben Bartlett

Phone: (510) 981-7130 Email: bbartlett@berkeleyca.gov

District 4: Igor Tregub

Phone: (510) 981-7140 Email: itregub@berkeleyca.gov

District 5: Shoshana O’Keefe

Phone: (510) 981-7150 Email: sokeefe@berkeleyca.gov

District 6: Brent Blackaby

Phone: (510) 981-7160 Email: bblackaby@berkeleyca.gov

District 7: Cecilia Lunaparra

Phone: (510) 981-7170 Email: clunaparra@berkeleyca.gov

District 8: Mark Humbert

Phone: (510) 981-7180 Email: mhumbert@berkeleyca.gov