The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing for alternative transportation, or some other cause, think that they have done no wrong despite warnings of the potential for something like this being raised way back when the cameras and the ALPRs were being put up.
These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
Flock is absolutely designed to facilitate and encourage this kind of abuse. They have extensive data sharing built in to their system while promising agencies that the users "own" the data.
My local police department just recently got a grant for these and is in the process of setting them up, and I'm working with a number of local technologists and activists to shut it down. We are showing up at every police commission meeting and every city council meeting and keeping actively engaged with local press. I spent almost three hours yesterday having coffee with a police commissioner and I have meeting requests from a number of other local officials. There are similar efforts ongoing in other cities across the U.S.
Immediately after setting up the system -- before all of the devices were even fully online -- our local PD began sharing access with departments in non-sanctuary states. When we asked questions about it, they hid that section from their transparency page. We are cooking them publicly for that.
Flock is VC-funded commercialized mass surveillance.
The type of crime common here is nearly impossible to address without technological assistance. People steal cars, drive into neighborhoods, then break into other cars and houses. They're gone sometimes before a 911 call can even be made, and far before the police arrive. The criminals know this and are just incredibly brazen about it. They'll finish the job with people watching and recording because they know there's no way for them to be caught. People get followed home and held up in their driveway. The criminals are often armed, and people have been shot and killed for even the mildest of resistance. One guy was killed a block from where I was standing for knocking on the window of a getaway car of some guys stealing another car in broad daylight.
Leaving aside broader and more fundamental fixes for crime, which are much longer term projects, the only near-term thing that actually reduces this kind of crime is arrest and conviction rates. In SF, drones have helped reduced car break-ins, because they've actually caught some crews. Oakland doesn't have drones that I know of, but Flock cameras have enabled enough tracking for police to sometimes actually find these people quickly, even several miles away, and make an arrest.
Those are just the plain facts of the situation. It's understandable that people want some kind of solution here. Without at least starting from that understanding, it'll be very difficult to convince people that a solution that is having a positive impact already is not worth the other costs and risks.
And to me, this is the core conflict at a really high level: the economic and societal fixes for crime are usually opposed by the same people who abuse these kind of surveillance systems for authoritarian purposes. To me it's no coincidence that their preferred solution to crime just happens to help them keep an eye on the whole population.
Just so everyone remembers: automated collection is an unlawful search by the constitution. Stop advocating for a police state and expecting something different. (Mandatory registration of objects, mandatory medical procedures, mandatory facial accessories, mandatory automatic government payments to fund all of this)
> The OPD didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times — providing reasons such as “FBI investigation” for the searches
Does this mean it wasn't exactly to Oakland Police that violated state law, but rather other CA based law enforcement entities?
"The OPD (Oakland PD) didn’t share information directly with the federal agencies. Rather, other California police departments searched Oakland’s system on behalf of federal counterparts more than 200 times —
As part of a Flock search, police have to provide a “reason” they are performing the lookup. In the “reason” field for searches of Danville’s cameras, officers from across the U.S. wrote “immigration,” “ICE,” “ICE+ERO,”
Isn't there a whole trope about how the government is stupid and inefficient because agencies don't help each other out? Seems like in general sharing data is a good thing.
Questions are, should the police have the data and are our immigration policies correct. This issues need to be fix at the legal level. If we really want to change this we need to decide what we want immigration to be and not half ass it by looking the other way.
ALPR (automated license plate readers) are used across state lines to pull out drug mules and other stuff. Many local law enforcement employees are federal task forces involving drugs/guns/cartels/violence. Obviously, Feds have hands on these databases.
If you don’t think this system should be used, it should never have been built in the first place. Relying on a state law to prevent sharing data sounds rather naive.
Second, the page barely mentions ice, title is begging for clicks.
The supremacy clause of the constitution asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws. There are thousands of state laws on the books that are basically rendered null, because a federal law overrides it. One clear example is segregation laws like interracial marriage which was on the books in some states decades after the civil rights movement.
Example: Alabama was the last state to remove its ban on interracial marriage from its statutes in 2000, though this was largely symbolic as interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
There is probably a specific federal law enforcement authority that may or may not be in conflict with the state law. It's unclear if this is a 10th amendment violation for the state or if federal law enforcement is granted this authority
Datasets are created to be used. Once created they will eventually likely be used for purposes other than the original intention. Depending on the power dynamics in play this may be more or less likely.
There are many many such cases and they are obviously not limited to the current regime. Governments will collect all the data they are permitted to collect without a harsh public response, and they will always have a 'good' reason -- just ask them! After all it's for your own good!
Datasets with personal data create a target for crime and for abuses. The problem is these datasets exist at all, thereby reducing humans to numbers. People are not resources and not material not matter what HR says. Reducing people to numbers is to reduce them to something less than they are -- no dataset (model trained on it) captures everything.
We need real privacy laws not the ridiculous current situation. There should be clear consent required without coercion for any data collection -- a necessarily very high bar.
Unauthorized collection of personal data (i.e. without explicit consent not tied to any benefit bait) should be a federal crime and the organizational leadership should always be held to account. That and that alone will curtail future abuses. Otherwise we are just always complaining after the fact and it will keep happening.
That said, good luck getting any government in this world to go along without a revolution.
you don't even need license plate data. Every car emits 4 radio frequencies which make you uniquely identifiable even without a camera or plate. We can easily track (and they do) this information. But at least we know our tires arent flat!
It’s illegal because California made it illegal for municipal police to cooperate with federal agents. Trump and future Republicans will use this to accuse Democratic sanctuary cities of being lawless.
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution says that federal laws are supreme over state laws. Therefore, it is illegal not to comply with federal laws.
Perhaps an inquiry will show otherwise, but there are plenty of reasons ICE via CHP might be looking for a vehicle that aren't related to immigration law enforcement (perhaps they're looking for a truck full of smuggled contraband, for example).
Oakland cops gave ICE license plate data; SFPD also illegally shared with feds
(sfstandard.com)582 points by danso 14 July 2025 | 525 comments
Comments
If you're gonna be angry at someone be angry at the people among us were in favor of the creation of this data set because they foolishly thought it would be used to combat mundane property crime or because perhaps they thought that subjecting motorists to an increased dragnet would be a good thing for alternative transportation, or some other cause, think that they have done no wrong despite warnings of the potential for something like this being raised way back when the cameras and the ALPRs were being put up.
These things will keep happening until it is no longer socially acceptable to advocate for the creation of data collection programs that are a necessary precondition.
My local police department just recently got a grant for these and is in the process of setting them up, and I'm working with a number of local technologists and activists to shut it down. We are showing up at every police commission meeting and every city council meeting and keeping actively engaged with local press. I spent almost three hours yesterday having coffee with a police commissioner and I have meeting requests from a number of other local officials. There are similar efforts ongoing in other cities across the U.S.
An interesting one to keep an eye on is Cedar Rapids, which includes a neat teardown of one of the devices: https://eyesoffcr.org/blog/blog-8.html
Immediately after setting up the system -- before all of the devices were even fully online -- our local PD began sharing access with departments in non-sanctuary states. When we asked questions about it, they hid that section from their transparency page. We are cooking them publicly for that.
Flock is VC-funded commercialized mass surveillance.
The type of crime common here is nearly impossible to address without technological assistance. People steal cars, drive into neighborhoods, then break into other cars and houses. They're gone sometimes before a 911 call can even be made, and far before the police arrive. The criminals know this and are just incredibly brazen about it. They'll finish the job with people watching and recording because they know there's no way for them to be caught. People get followed home and held up in their driveway. The criminals are often armed, and people have been shot and killed for even the mildest of resistance. One guy was killed a block from where I was standing for knocking on the window of a getaway car of some guys stealing another car in broad daylight.
Leaving aside broader and more fundamental fixes for crime, which are much longer term projects, the only near-term thing that actually reduces this kind of crime is arrest and conviction rates. In SF, drones have helped reduced car break-ins, because they've actually caught some crews. Oakland doesn't have drones that I know of, but Flock cameras have enabled enough tracking for police to sometimes actually find these people quickly, even several miles away, and make an arrest.
Those are just the plain facts of the situation. It's understandable that people want some kind of solution here. Without at least starting from that understanding, it'll be very difficult to convince people that a solution that is having a positive impact already is not worth the other costs and risks.
And to me, this is the core conflict at a really high level: the economic and societal fixes for crime are usually opposed by the same people who abuse these kind of surveillance systems for authoritarian purposes. To me it's no coincidence that their preferred solution to crime just happens to help them keep an eye on the whole population.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/flock-safety
Does this mean it wasn't exactly to Oakland Police that violated state law, but rather other CA based law enforcement entities?
Sure.
Questions are, should the police have the data and are our immigration policies correct. This issues need to be fix at the legal level. If we really want to change this we need to decide what we want immigration to be and not half ass it by looking the other way.
If you wanna do something about it then help turn the surveillance spotlight back at them: https://app.copdb.org/
Second, the page barely mentions ice, title is begging for clicks.
> “We take privacy seriously…
Example: Alabama was the last state to remove its ban on interracial marriage from its statutes in 2000, though this was largely symbolic as interracial marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
There is probably a specific federal law enforcement authority that may or may not be in conflict with the state law. It's unclear if this is a 10th amendment violation for the state or if federal law enforcement is granted this authority
There are many many such cases and they are obviously not limited to the current regime. Governments will collect all the data they are permitted to collect without a harsh public response, and they will always have a 'good' reason -- just ask them! After all it's for your own good!
Datasets with personal data create a target for crime and for abuses. The problem is these datasets exist at all, thereby reducing humans to numbers. People are not resources and not material not matter what HR says. Reducing people to numbers is to reduce them to something less than they are -- no dataset (model trained on it) captures everything.
We need real privacy laws not the ridiculous current situation. There should be clear consent required without coercion for any data collection -- a necessarily very high bar.
Unauthorized collection of personal data (i.e. without explicit consent not tied to any benefit bait) should be a federal crime and the organizational leadership should always be held to account. That and that alone will curtail future abuses. Otherwise we are just always complaining after the fact and it will keep happening.
That said, good luck getting any government in this world to go along without a revolution.
The local executive is breaking legislature's law.
The governor should be ordering state police and lawyers to prosecute these local officials, or else the legislature should impeach the governor.
Perhaps an inquiry will show otherwise, but there are plenty of reasons ICE via CHP might be looking for a vehicle that aren't related to immigration law enforcement (perhaps they're looking for a truck full of smuggled contraband, for example).