Photo from the Flock Safety website
On August 19, community organizations held a meeting about the 133 Flock cameras across the city. Community members are speaking out against the cameras because they say it’s an issue of invading privacy.
The public emphasized that the city council did not hear them on this matter and that they felt unheard and dismissed. Several community members are concerned about where Flock cameras are located and have asked for a map showing their locations. Ariel Dyer stated that a Deflock map is available to locate all camera locations in the area. Additionally, the map provides information on routes to avoid these cameras, timelines, analysis, and networks. Bakersfield currently has a broad range of Flock cameras in the Downtown and Southwest areas.
Although the BPD Transparency portal states that using the data for immigration purposes is prohibited, community members stated that it is still frustrating and hard to trust, as multiple agencies have access to the data.
Dyer discussed the agencies that have direct access to Flock cameras: Bakersfield Police Department (BPD), Kern County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO), 500+ law enforcement agencies nationwide, Flock Safety, ICE, and federal agencies. She added that although BPD says ICE does not have access, other information stated otherwise.
Several residents are concerned that ICE can target them using Flock cameras. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), they have seen how this mass surveillance tool can be weaponized and abused by law enforcement. ICE and CBP have repeatedly used Flock to go after immigrants without warrants.
ACLU stated that Flock Safety has lost credibility because it has repeatedly lied to City Councils, Police Departments, and the public across the Country.According to the ACLU, documents show that an automatic license plates reader company has lied about its operations,underscoring the need for reputable governments to avoid working with Flock Safety.
Ucedrah Osby, a community member, shared her thoughts on Flock cameras being invasive and that it’s alarming that there is no policy in place.
“My thoughts on Flock cameras are that they’re highly invasive and that they’re not giving us a choice. The fact that there’s no policy is alarming, right? There’s no Flock policy. We don’t know where their data is going,” said Osby. “The DOJ doesn’t know what’s going on with our local police department, and they want to know why, so that’s very alarming and concerning for not just me, but, like, the entire city of Bakersfield.”
Jason Cosper and Dyer presented important information they researched on Flock Safety, surveillance tech in Kern County, and a real-time information center. Dyer explained that they have been successful because the police department uses AI infrastructure to look for things.
Cosper noted that Flock cameras are solar-powered and equipped with automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that read license plate data. He mentioned that Flock cameras are motion-activated and that AI analyzes the recordings to create a vehicle fingerprint. He explained that, with this data, it will create a way to recognize cars as they move forward and add them to a searchable database that police and KCSO can use.
Dyer addressed that, from a law enforcement official’s view, there are incentives to use Flock cameras. Police can use it to track missing people or investigate hit-and-runs. Her main concern is that police can use warrantless searches to locate potential suspects and view them at any time. She continued to discuss that they have received data from the BPD on their Flock usage, laws, and data accessed. According to the BPD transparency portal, there have been 1,429 searches conducted in the last 30 days.
Cosper explained that there is a $430,000-per-year signed contract until May 2030, with a $3,000,000 spending cap. Cosper asked the public where the money should be allocated instead. Community members emphasized that the money should be used to serve the community in different ways, such as through sewer rates.
As shown in Deflock data, 100 cities have canceled, rejected, or deactivated their contracts. According to the ACLU Northern CA, communities across the country are fighting back and winning. Cities are canceling Flock contracts under public pressure, and ACLU affiliates across the country are passing state legislation to regulate ALPRs.
Dyer discussed that there are other surveillance technologies in Kern County. She said that local businesses use a camera registry that allows them to share information with local law enforcement. She explained that ShotSpotter notifies all law enforcement and that it’s often concentrated in communities of color and disadvantaged communities.
Dyer said that drones are used to monitor the city for various surveillance purposes and that police officers use body cameras. Still, she emphasized that they are not always transparent to the public or the law. Dyer provided another technology tool, known as a cell site simulator, which mimics a cell tower and can be used to share an individual’s information.
Cosper explained that BPD uses a Real-time information center, also known as the RTIC, which enables BPD to share data with other cameras across the city.
At the end of the presentation, the public shared their concerns and thoughts about Flock cameras. David Abbasi, a member of the public, made remarks about the expansion of Flock safety cameras and the privacy violations it poses to the Fourth Amendment.
“This is a real due process crisis. Automated license plate readers are notoriously error-prone; a misread plate or reliance on scale data can easily lead to an innocent resident being subjected to a high-risk, unconstitutional felony traffic stop,” said Abbasi. “By deploying these cameras, the local government is inviting immense civil liability, outsourcing our Fourth Amendment rights to a private vendor with an unacceptable margin of error.”
Fernando Aguilar, an organizer with the Dolores Huerta Foundation, shared that Flock cameras invade the community’s right to privacy and violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
“So, for me, Flock cameras are a huge invasion of our privacy. Obviously, especially when it comes to the Constitution, it violates our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for due process. So, this is very concerning, especially seeing it here so local in Bakersfield, said Aguilar. “Yeah, I don’t agree with mass surveillance. It’s very concerning to see how quickly our societies become dystopian and fascist regimes.”
Aguilar spoke about how he hopes to raise awareness about removing Flock cameras and to empower the community to voice their concerns at the city council meeting.
“I hope to gain by voicing on my concerns, or my perspective on Flock cameras, is to A have them out, just period, and B let my youth know, because I am an organizer with DHF, and they themselves have brought up the fact that they’re concerned about Flock cameras. They’re very much for having a public comment at the city council meeting,” said Aguilar. “So, after this meeting, I’ll be informing them, so hopefully attend the city council meeting, and hopefully this lets them know that they’re empowered enough to voice out their concerns, just as how I’m empowered enough to voice out my concerns here in this interview.”
José Galindo, a community member, spoke about the public’s demands regarding Flock cameras.
“The demands that should be considered for these Flock cameras are the transparency between how they’re being used, when they’re being accessed, and how many times they’re being accessed,” said Galindo. “And the follow-up to the action of why they were accessed, to the sense of saying, if you’re accessing the Flock camera because there’s a criminal on the loose, therefore there’s a proper referral to be said. And if not that, if they’re just being used to track community members, then that flags us to feel unsafe.”
