|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Against staff recommendations, the East Palo Alto City Council doubled down on a three-year contract with surveillance company Flock without the option to back out and receive a refund amid rising community concerns.
Mayor Webster Lincoln and Council members Mark Dinan and Martha Barragan voted in December 2025 to sign a three-year contract renewal of its Flock Automated License Plate Reader technology despite community concerns over immigration and data sharing. The trio of council members assured the community that the technology could be canceled at any time if used improperly.
But Flock representatives withdrew the option to cancel without penalty in recent contract negotiations with the city. The technology costs approximately $90,000 annually.
“[Flock] insisted that if we cancel early, we pay the remainder of the three-year contract in full at the time of cancellation,” Police Chief Jeff Liu said on Tuesday. “That is not in the city’s best interest.”
City staff and police – who are in favor of the technology – recommended on Tuesday that the council instead adopt a one-year contract to ensure autonomy and financial responsibility. The City council denied that recommendation.
Lincoln and Dinan were in favor of a motion to approve year-long contracts. Vice Mayor Ruben Abrica and Council member Carlos Romero were in favor of cancelling the contract in the interest of data security. Barragan did not speak during the discussion and abstained from two motions proposing that the Flock contract be shortened or cancelled.
Because the council couldn’t agree on a motion, the three-year contract approved in 2025 was upheld.
Flock cameras, which originally gained popularity for their low-cost surveillance abilities, are under fire after investigations found many local and national police agencies often share data without their permission. Nearby jurisdictions, including Atherton, Menlo Park and Mountain View, have shared data with other law enforcement agencies in violation of local policies without the knowledge of police, according to various media reports.
In East Palo Alto, where the police department struggles with low-staffing, the 24/7 surveillance cameras have been described as “vital.” But in a largely immigrant community, residents have expressed consistent mistrust of the technology since their original adoption in 2024.
“We’ve taken extra steps to protect our data, to make sure that our data does not get breached,” Liu said on Tuesday. “Since deployment in late 2024, Flock has helped us identify suspect vehicles, locate witnesses, resolve crimes a lot more quickly.”
Dozens of attendees, who ranged from East Palo Alto residents to advocates from neighboring cities, overwhelmingly spoke against the cameras, citing a federal administration that has used new routes to locate immigrants and frequent data breaches.
“East Palo Alto is responsible when Flock data is shared illegally with outside law enforcement agencies,” said Kathy Baird during public comment. “Thus, it is wise to limit the contract and then cancel it.”
Dinan and Lincoln expressed ongoing support for the technology, with Lincoln distinguishing “theoretical” harm pertaining to data breaches from “real harm.” While Lincoln told this publication that he believes the community concerns are legitimate, he noted at the Tuesday meeting that the technology has not been used for immigration enforcement or in other ways that caused “real harm.”
“The evidence that we have seen is that we’ve solved sexual assaults and all the crimes that [police] displayed,” Lincoln said.
Throughout the council meeting, community members expressed frustration over public comment constraints and claimed that council members have disregarded the concerns of constituents. At one point, attendees approached the dais to complain about a cut-off on public speakers.
The meeting highlighted rising tensions in East Palo Alto, as newer council members continued to clash with more longstanding ones over policy and organization decisions.
Clarification: The story was modified to clarify Mayor Webster Lincoln’s position.
