The Berkeley City Council held its bimonthly meeting on June 30, 2026, with topics concerning the residents’ opinions about the use of new surveillance technology, including Flock cameras and other security tools. Most of the speakers said they opposed the new technology because of concerns about privacy, safety, and how personal information could be used. However, the lack of voices in support of using new Flock technology also raises questions about whether those voices exist and if they do, are they simply not sharing their opinions publicly.

Surveillance tools, while intended to improve safety, raised many privacy concerns during the meeting. Council members discussed issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for technologies such as Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs), Flock Safety camera systems, drones, investigative software, and community video streams. ALPRs refer to cameras that automatically record license plates and the time and location of the image capture. Flock Safety is a security company that uses AI to detect and identify crime. Flock works with police departments, businesses, and housing communities, but its use of AI surveillance has received immense pushback from Berkeley residents due to privacy concerns. Drones were also discussed, which use aerial view cameras to help during search-and-rescue operations, disaster assessments, and other crime or incident documentation. Additionally, investigative software is used by law enforcement to analyze data and help collect evidence, and community video streams allow police to access or request existing surveillance video recordings from businesses and schools, and use this data in investigations. Ultimately, the majority of residents voiced their opposition towards surveillance technology due to concerns about privacy and data usage transparency.

While the debate over expanding surveillance technology took place at both the Police Accountability Board (PAB) meeting on June 17 and the City Council meetings on June 30, there was a notable difference in public comment delivery based on which body was being addressed: the respectful tone used by attendees at the PAB was contrasted with intense emotions expressed by the public  at the City Council Meeting. At the PAB, speakers delivered words of appreciation for “the work that the PAB did in slowing down the rush to flock technology” and voiced confidence that the PAB would “continue to…help us get sane and actual safe leasing in the city.” However, during the June 30 meeting, this collegial tone shifted as residents said surveillance took away civil liberties, highlighting an opposing dynamic between the public and the council: “…I’ve never seen Berkeley as organized as we are against Flock” one resident said. This change in delivery is driven by the fact that the Council holds actual power to approve policy while the PAB serves an advisory role. In addition, residents connected the issue to national politics, pointing to the recent Trump v Slaughter ruling to argue that “institutional protections are important because power shifts hands.” Simply put, the resident said that if a future, more aggressive Berkeley City Council took office, they could easily undo privacy rules and use those same implemented cameras and surveillance technology for problematic purposes.

During the public comment section of this council meeting about security measures and surveillance technology, there was a clear side that most members of the public supported. The public was overwhelmingly on the side of not having new Flock cameras installed due to major concerns about security and privacy for citizens. The vast majority of speakers said Flock and similar companies may take advantage of the people they are observing, and shared their overall fears about surveillance technology, privacy, data sharing, and what they said was a lack of PAB review before the proposal moved forward.

It was notable that there didn’t seem to be an opposing side to the argument. While there are people who support the installation of more security and surveillance tools, there seemed to be little to no public comments from those community members at these two important meetings. Residents who support expanding surveillance may be choosing to remain anonymous and may decide not to participate during public comment at city meetings. Overall, opposition to  installing more surveillance technology in Berkeley was the dominant view expressed, with very little input from those who believe these types of technologies should be introduced and expanded.

–Genevieve Yang, Minna Oshry, and Layla Tohidi