Okay.

Hello, everyone.

Good evening.

Gonna have you quiet down, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm calling to order a special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.

Today is Thursday, May 7th, 2026.

It is 5:09 p.m.

Clerk, can you please take the roll?

Okay, uh Councilmember Kessarwani.

Taplin present.

Um Bartlett is currently absent.

Trego present.

O'Keefe here.

Here.

Lunapara.

Here.

Umvert present.

And Mayor Ishii.

Here.

Okay, quorum is present.

Okay.

So folks, tonight we have two items on our action calendar.

One is the public safety technology, surveillance technology ordinance and police equipment, ordinance approvals, policy updates, and contract authority.

And one B is the social justice implications of contracts with immigration data broker Flock Safety, which came from the Peace and Justice Commission.

This is a continuation from a meeting that we had on March 24th, 2026.

A few things I want to say before we get started.

One, I know there are a lot of folks here, and there's a lot of energy in the room, but I really want to ask you all to continue to be respectful as people are speaking and allow them to speak.

Of course, you're welcome to cheer and clap and stuff when someone speaks and says something you want.

It's both disrespectful and against our rules of procedures.

So the other thing is that as we are going this evening, if you have public comment and you're coming with a group, we encourage you, you don't have to, but we encourage you if you're speaking in a group that you speak maybe have one person and then the other folks come up if you agree already with what they're saying, because that will allow for more people to speak this evening.

Okay.

So last meeting, one of the things that we did was we heard from our Berkeley Police Department, we heard from the from our PAB, our police accountability board, and then we heard all of the different supplementals that were presented from the last meeting.

So we don't have any presentations tonight.

What we're gonna be focused on are first the questions, first the questions from the council, and then we'll take public comment, and then we will have council comments and any motions that happen.

So just so folks have a sense of what's gonna happen this evening.

Um that's our little roadmap.

And so what I do want to do is just go ahead and start if anyone from the council has any questions, come on, I know folks have questions.

Okay, so I I will start with a question, and um one question that I had from last time was that um oh sorry, my question list got adjusted.

Um if you could uh if BPD, if you could speak to the difference between our current, our current uh community registry program and the proposed um CVS.

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh so CVS, community video streams, it's our proposal to uh it's really an expansion uh in a deepening of our current camera registry program.

So currently what we do is if a uh business has a set of cameras that they want us to be aware of in the case that we're investigating a crime that occurs nearby, uh then we know that that camera is there and we can more quickly obtain the evidence that we need to to do the investigation.

So the uh community video streams proposal uh would build on that and would give uh businesses the uh opportunity to opt in uh to a system where we could directly access that video footage um if they if they allow us to.

And so our proposal for that program would be that we um go through an inspection process of the cameras uh before we would connect to them uh to make sure that they're not pointing anywhere that um we shouldn't be able to have access to.

Uh we would publish on our website the location of all those cameras, and we would uh require appropriate signage near those cameras so that the public is aware that they are connected to to our system.

Can I just want to add one one more thing?

One of the challenges we have with our current camera system, the way it works is that uh a lot of times we'll be investigating a crime, we'll be in the moment of investigating the crime, and the manager is the only person that has access to the room that has the camera, or there's a reader that's associated with being able to download the file and then view it once it's once it's taken.

Um so this would allow us to both have that access um regardless of whether or not there was a manager on site, uh, but also not run into the challenges we have with evidence collection.

Uh, right now we're forced sometimes to use a phone and videotape the screen as it's playing.

Obviously, there's a degradation of the evidence when we do it that way.

Thanks, Chief.

And uh follow-up question on that.

Can you speak to the community video surveillance uh process?

What has been done so far to help the community understand what uh this system would look like?

Yeah, we've got we've gone through uh the surveillance technology ordinance process um as required by um uh 2.99.

Um, and we've submitted uh use policies, our acquisition report, um, and that's what uh council is considering today.

Yeah, and if you remember we talked about it at both two community meetings, uh additionally, we covered it um in a presentation talking to Pab about what that technology looks like.

Uh we've had a number of neighborhood watch meetings where we've gone and talked about the different technologies, uh, really, and and we uh showed that in the uh March 24th meeting with council when we talked about that technology.

Thank you.

Um and I'm gonna go ahead and jump to my council member colleagues since they've now uh joined the queue and I might have some more questions later.

Um let's go to Councilmember Trakeb.

Thank you.

Um I want to uh delve into the uh unmanned unmanned aerial system uh policy 1303.

Um could you speak to uh your perspective around um if there were um limitations in the policy that were um uh restrictive around uh the ability of uh such um UAS systems, I guess that's as DRFTs, um, to surveil um uh alias of mass gatherings like protests, um, other than subject to exigent circumstances, which would be something like a medical emergency or an active shooter situation.

I'm sure I'm not sure I'm completely tracking your question.

Is your question that um we would we use this technology to oversee a uh lawful gathering or a protest action absent there being an exigent circumstance?

Uh the question is uh I I actually trust you that you wouldn't.

However, um in my reading of the policy.

However, in my reading of the policy, uh it does not, in my reading of it, it does not specifically preclude um a future uh PD from doing that.

Um could you speak to uh policy and where?

Sure.

So uh 1303.3 prohibited uses.

Uh UAS shall not be used to conduct random or arbitrary surveillance activities.

This prohibition includes but is not limited to First Amendment Assemblies in accordance with policy 428, First Amendment assemblies.

So there's a specific uh prohibited use.

That would be a prohibited use.

Okay.

Uh elsewhere in the policy um 1303.

Uh there's mention of well, yeah, to so there's um examples to respond to active criminal activity at mass gatherings or special events.

Um, is there a place for active criminal activity, mass gathering and special events are defined?

So as you as you know, there's a lawful assemblies happen, and we're guided by number of people who are there, maybe the issues that they're discussing, and our officers respond to those and have a goal of keeping the peace.

And when uh a critical incident occurs, right?

Uh there's uh language defining what a critical incident is a an event that occurs that is beyond normal capacity or normal responses.

Uh and so those are our industry standard terms.

Some of those are embedded in different places in our use of force policy, um, and uh are embedded in our 428 First Amendment assembly policies as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I have one question uh for the city attorney.

Um in terms of the amount uh for violation uh that the counts uh if the council chooses to go that route, um, would it be a policy decision for us to say maybe not 75 and maybe not 150, but maybe looking at Richmond's 290 or Oakland's 200K for violation?

Yes, that's squarely um a policy decision that you get to make.

Okay.

Uh and my last question for now has to do with the um, and I think this might be for the city manager, but uh let me know.

Uh on the staff supplemental for procurement, uh, there is mention or there's language that says Flox full catalog is available for purchase on the region for ESC contract.

Um how uh, if at all, does this relate to Flox uh promised discount if the procurement was completed by July, which is something that I also read uh elsewhere in the document or in a different document?

Yeah, so the the that procurement had the price and terms that Flock proposed via the procurement, they are always free to negotiate discount however they wish uh with any potential vendor.

Okay, and that was my penultimate question.

This will be my last question.

Um can you speak to um what uh this piggyback contract was based at?

Based on um I I did hear um, or it was my understanding that it was based on a school district in Texas, and uh if so um how may that can you speak to the comparisons between a USD in Texas um with probably different operational needs than a medium-sized city like Berkeley.

Yes, thank you for the question.

Our finance director is also on the line, so he may want to chime in here, but essentially when you're piggybacking off a contract, you're looking at the product in this case that you're seeking to procure and the price.

Um, and so as long as it's the same product and they bid it out at a competitive price, um, then you're then and there's a process that they went through an RP process and put that forth, then um if our securing that product um complies with their is the same product that we're trying to secure that they um bid for, then that satisfies it.

So and this is a common practice in the city where uh we will procure things like a uh earth mover or a truck or something like that from a procurement that is either could be from a state, could be from a county, um somewhere in the country, excuse me, um for the purposes they do a procurement and they say here's all the price and terms that or here's the terms that we're looking for, and the the use in the product if uh if that entity applies to the to the solicitation and the product that we want to procure is what they proposed, then we have the ability to procure it.

So just because like for example uh uh an earth mover that a school a bit big school district procurement um was part of doesn't mean that like the fact that they're moving Earth on a school ground rather than a park doesn't make a difference.

The fact that they're procuring a camera to do security uh somewhere in their school district um doesn't mean that we couldn't procure the exact same camera to do a security in the city.

Thank you.

Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thank you.

Thanks for going first, Councilmember Tragoop.

I wasn't quite ready.

Um, couple questions for um Berkeley police representatives.

Um I just would like to ask you a couple questions to get on the record um hopefully a greater understanding of the nuances of the way the data is shared of the different kinds of data that are at stake.

Um so first of all, the ALPR data generates like a searchable spreadsheet of um license plates and locations and times essentially, is that correct?

Yeah, so the ALPR data allows us to search across exactly a database of those images that have been captured and identify whether that plate appears um you know within our retention period of 30 days.

Uh-huh, right, yeah, 30 days.

Um, thank you.

And can you uh briefly describe the process that um let's say another officer in a dis in a jurisdiction that we share our data with.

Um by the way, if you could also just say quickly like who we share with and what the um rules are about that, and then I'd also love if you could um walk us through what it would look like for an officer from one of those jurisdictions to search our data.

So, so first we only share uh with agencies within the nine Bayer counties in Sacramento County, um, an agency within those counties, and if they've signed a letter of agreement with us agreeing to comply with state law and um our sanctuary city uh uh ordinance.

Umce they have signed that letter, we will give them access to search across our network.

Um and if they have a a lawful reason to search, they will input a case number, um, they'll select a statute that the investigation is associated with, um, and they'll define the the networks that they want to search across.

And so if it includes ours, then um that search will occur and it'll appear on our audit logs so we'll be able to verify the information that they submitted.

Okay.

And what are their options?

Like, do they just type in whatever reason they want or what?

They'll give a case they they're required to give a case number, they're required to select a statute, and then they have the option to uh write in additional information.

Okay, and are there I I think I I just want to confirm this with you, there's no immigration related justification, right?

Because that's none of the statutes are no that that's not available on the drop-down reasons, it it's also against state law and against our local policies.

Right.

So, all of the given reasons that they would have to stay are all in compliance with our sanctuary laws.

Correct.

Thank you for clarifying that.

And then can you talk a little bit about how that differs from the data that would be recorded by the um the video cameras which you're proposing to acquire?

Because that's that's different.

Yeah, that's uh completely different.

We we would not be sharing that um with other agencies in the same way, uh, except for uh in the same way that we share other types of evidence.

Um, when there's an active investigation, they come to us, they ask us do we have this piece of evidence.

If we did have uh some footage that was relevant, then we would download that and um and process it in the same way that we would with any other piece of evidence that we'd share.

But just to be clear, it would be only um Berkeley police officers who would be actually doing the searching and be in complete control of the data sharing.

Correct.

There would be no case where another agency was um given access to search through um our footage that we have.

Yeah, and just like because it's like not really searchable, you can't really type in a face, right?

So it's it's not exactly the same, yeah.

So I think it's important to clarify the different kinds of um different kinds of data that are we're talking about and how they differ in terms of um exposure.

Um those are my, I think I might have some more questions later, but those are my questions for the police.

I did want to just pivot a little bit and say I I did actually have a supplemental that wasn't um presented last time, and if I could just it's not like a big one, so it would be okay, Madam Mayor, if I just talked about it for a minute.

Um I proposed it's it's published in the packet, it was published yesterday.

Um, some minor changes to the um the drone use policy.

Um I don't we don't have it up or anything, but I could I can read it into the main changes into the record.

Um the idea with my supplemental was I I don't I'm not personally comfortable with the drones being sent out for every call or just kind of for no reason.

Like I think that that was the vision that was presented, and I I think I understand it, but I think drones I'm not really interested in normalizing them as a police tool yet.

I think that would be a big change.

It's a kind of surveillance that we don't have now, and I'm open to exploring it, and it I can see that they have a value in um certain situations, but I I would like I'm proposing in my supplemental that way we restrict the um times when they can be sent out to I'll read this.

Um, times when the suspect is believed to be on the scene or in the immediate area of the scene and could reasonably cause harm to those present.

So this is sort of a a emergent safety situation, um, or a crime involving suspected physical violence, or there's an imminent risk of physical injury um due to a crime or a medical issue.

So basically the vision here is that we do send them out, but only when it it really could make the difference in a in a really um really critical safety situation and not as was previously previously described when um you know just to sort of check out a call to see if it's see what's going on, which I I I do understand the utility of that, but I'm not personally comfortable with that.

So that's one of the big changes my supplemental is proposing.

And then um just to mention it also says uh no microphone or audio sensing device shall be activated at any time.

And I I think that's already understood as part of the expectation, but I did want that written into the law because I don't think that drones should be able to listen to people.

That's another kind of surveillance we do not have right now, and I don't want to invite it into our city.

So that's my supplemental.

Um we can you know table that now, but I wanted to get a chance to present that.

And um yeah, I might have more questions, but I will I will yield to other people.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And I appreciate you mentioning that.

Apologies for leaving that out.

And we did resubmit our supplemental as well, but mostly just to reorganize it so it was more aligned um structurally with the staff, so it could make more sense when we were comparing them.

Um so I I'm curious actually, is Flock uh represented is there Flock representative on?

Uh he is on his way.

Oh, okay.

So, because I think there are some folks that have questions for them.

So, shh folks, please.

All right.

Um, so go ahead, Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, it's good to be back, good to be back.

Um question, this are my questions really at this point are around um the video cameras, the the fixed cameras, and particularly, I guess so tell walk me through the process of how they're used.

Just high level briefly.

Are you talking about the fixed PTZ cameras?

Right.

So uh, you know, if you recall originally they were placed in intersections, um that was pre-us deploying the AOPRs um into the community, and what we realized um after that first deployment at six in university was that uh they weren't uh able to capture from the distance they were capturing, really capture pedestrian activities and things like that.

We came back to council and explained uh one we had uh um power related issues around putting them with PG<unk>E around the the vigil on cameras, and two, we wanted to place them in pedestrian heavy areas in our business districts to provide that uh ability to deter crime and solve crimes that occurred in those areas.

So they would be deployed in the locations that council approved, um, with signage that says that the camera is there and that it's recording um and would be a tool that we would use uh access pursuant to the policy um for very specific uses um that would uh then provide us with another investigative tool and a deterrent tool.

Okay.

So I guess so it there's an incident robbery or what have you uh we know it's this this time this location so then when you go you rewind you go into the footage to that moment yeah that's correct if we believe that there's evidentiary value on that video that the detectives would go and and uh go through a process to um create an audit trail that they're looking at video at a certain certain camera certain time for a certain kind of crime so at that point and this is what I'm gonna get getting at here is the um the facial recognition uh software are are we deploying that at all no we're not okay thank you thank you I also wanted to make sure folks knew that our interim director of police accountability Kathy Lee is also sitting at the table so just so folks know who you are since you weren't here at the last time thank you for thanks for joining so if you have some some big Kathy fans okay so if you can um also if folks have if folks have any questions then you can ask her as well um okay so moving forward to oh council member luna para but really quickly I have apparently someone dropped a set of keys and a credit card outside um so if you have dropped your keys or a credit card um maybe give a a wave on this side of the barrier and um we'll try to get back to you okay all right so um council member lunar go ahead thank you um and thank you for being here um can you explain why the Nova software doesn't have a use policy or acquisition report yeah so uh that software uh just collates information that we already have access to so since it's not adding a new sensor or uh new collection of data um then that doesn't qualify for the the service surveillance technology ordinance thank you um as brought up by the PAB can you explain the scope of prohibition on First Amendment assemblies if for example a crowd doesn't disperse is that criminal activity that would warrant the use of drones um are there other instances of criminal activity at protest that would warrant the use of drones.

So no we would not deploy a drone because the crowd didn't disperse um the drone would be deployed if there's a risk of injury or there's ongoing injury uh felony violence occurring against someone in the crowd uh then we would absolutely an active shooter um people being assaulted we would absolutely want to have the drone up to be able to go and record um identify who the responsible are some of the things we've learned in past uh activities like this is that the safest way to resolve instances like that is to figure out who the problematic person is and then when there's a safe space to be able to take that person and arrest them without um uh negatively affecting the lawful assembly um then that's a goal and so having that uh recording of the criminal activity that's happening for a prosecutable case as well as um identifying in a uh and apprehending someone in a safer manner with that tool but that's the kind of situation where I would expect that you would see um drone flying in that and we would not be flying to um uh simply be at a First Amendment protest or a mass gathering just to collect who's there at the location.

I think it would be helpful to add to be more specific in the policy to um make sure that we know when they could be used and when they couldn't um can you elaborate on the six officer positions um that are associated with this um technology are those positions currently staffed yeah it's it's a it's a great question and it got a lot convoluted because if you recall we brought this first item when we were much earlier in the budget process.

And so if you look at just how much it would cost for this technology in comparison to salary and benefits of an individual officer, it's roughly two officers and however, in conversations with um the union um who we consult with when we're making decisions about staffing levels and and and um uh work status where uh we discuss like hey, we we want to come to the table, we know these technologies will bring us efficiencies.

Um we'd like to propose that it could it could do the work of six positions, and so that's how we landed in the six, the number six was in that kind of discussion.

So that's what we brought forward.

We've already moved past the space um in the budget process where the city manager has made a proposal that identifies a necessary cuts to our staffing.

So we instead are now looking to uh what would be affected by bringing on this technology, and what you would see is instead of officers having to go physically to a location to gather video or to do neighborhood canvases, or uh to um we'd have to have more uh officers on staff because you can't clear calls for service because um you have to go individually to calls.

Um we believe that we could recognize a saving in in overtime and reduce our overtime budget to the equivalent of and in addition to the cost that we would save by the implementation, so that the we're we're in a different space in the budget, and that's why we're talking about uh different different numbers of officers and and different cost savings.

So, to clarify, the cost savings would be in overtime, not in positions.

Well, the proposal that's up already sees a reduction of police officers' positions.

So those are happening separate from funding a technology process.

Um and so those positions are either going to be preserved or um eliminated uh pursuant to this council's desires around the budgeted positions for the department.

Uh, if we are looking for ways to pay for a new technology that's gonna cost money, the place that I will be looking at to pay for it is not from new funds, which our city doesn't have right now, um, but from a reduction in my existing overtime budget.

Okay.

Um last year the police department went over the overtime budget.

Um, how how does this how would this play into those numbers?

Would it would it cut the overall budget allocation or the actual spending?

Both.

Both, I think you would see both.

I I will share that uh our driver of that uh overage in our in our uh overtime was almost all directly related to our severe staffing shortage in the communication center.

And so right now the amount of money we're spending on overtime to ensure that we have the ability to answer calls um that are coming in from the public.

It's uh you know, you lose it's it's one and a half percent or one and a half times an office uh position, a dispatcher position that you're charging in overtime in order to fill those spots.

And so we saw almost an additional two million dollars this year.

We're we're anticipating in overtime as a result of that shortage.

Um and so uh we know there's gonna be that reduction.

Then once we bring technology on board and we have these greater efficiencies, we're able to reduce our minimum staffing number as we deploy in patrol uh with the technology.

We think we can drive that number down even farther.

Obviously, we can't control things like special events or emergency situations that happen that sometimes unexpectedly raise our overtime.

But um looking at the numbers and the way our shift extensions um have run in overtime, we believe we can drive that down with minimum staffing level changes that are only possible with technology that supports those that that reduction.

Okay, thank you.

Um I'm curious what the training requirements are for operating drone technology.

So there are certain requirements from the FAA um for drone pilots, uh, and then we'll have additional uh training available to uh anybody that's gonna be operating a drone, uh be it a drone as far first responder or a patrol uh trunk deployed drone um to meet the safely operate um in those situations.

Will that be required?

Yes, yes, yeah, okay, thank you.

Um what protocols are in place to prevent the misuse of drone technology, such as unauthorized surveillance beyond the specific deployed use case.

Um so I mean there are several layers here.

One is uh the the hardware limitations and um how they're uh set to uh for example to uh point at the horizon as they're flying to a scene and only to point down when they arrive at a scene.

Um another layer is um our policies, um, and uh and another layer is the the logging that occurs of each flight um and that gets published shortly after the flight, so it so the public will be able to see um where a drone went um shortly after it comes back.

Um so there's a number of layers of scrutiny available to each drone deployment, um, so that we can investigate any complaints, uh, but also monitor as uh as these drones are getting used.

Okay, thank you.

And my last question is do all of the law enforcement agencies within the nine Bay Area counties that share our data um have written sanctuary city policies or sanctuary policies.

I'm not aware of every single uh agency.

I know many of them do, but that was certainly um part of our intent uh by limiting the agencies that we share with to uh the local region uh to maximize the public safety value without exposing ourselves to other agencies whose uh policies we're we're not in control of.

And just to be clear, we are a sanctuary state.

Uh we have laws that protect us as a state, every single law enforcement agency in the state of California has policies in place that says you cannot violate state law.

Folks, please, thank you.

Yeah, I know um our local our local sanctuary is stronger than the states, so um, which is why I asked.

Thank you.

Those are my questions for um BPD, but I do have more for Flock.

I think just just to clarify real quick.

So in order for another agency to look across our data, they have to agree to follow our sanctuary city policy, not whatever their city sanctuary policy is.

So yeah, we hold them to that higher standard in order for us to share with them.

We would cut off access if they were doing something that did not uh comply with our city's sanctuary city policy.

Thanks, Chief.

Um, okay, so we're moving on to Councilmember Blackaby, but I know there's a lot of folks standing.

If you would like to sit, there are some seats throughout.

Don't don't feel bad about asking someone to move their belongings.

I just want to make sure everyone can sit if they want to.

Yeah, go ahead.

Great, thanks, madam mayor.

Can I ask is the flock rep here?

Oh, awesome.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, no worries.

I'll start with questions.

Okay, folks, please, that's not appropriate.

Shh.

Yeah.

Uh Mayor.

Mayor, we need to take a five-minute audio visual break.

To check on some things.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

All right, we will be taking a five-minute break for audiovisual reasons.

Thank you.

So I said, you know what?

Test test sound check.

Testing, testing sound check.

Oh, okay.

Test, test, audio, test, test, test, test.

Test, test, test, test.

Yeah, Rose muted it after that.

So Ned, is there a is it are you getting audio?

Test, test, test.

Will you go?

We go in there and talk to you.

Will you go in there?

Where Ned is and ask him if it's working.

Test, test, test, audio, test, test, test, test.

But can you hear me, David?

Okay.

Rose is saying that Ned has thumbs.

Okay.

All right.

So I think we're okay to resume.

All right.

Stay close.

I think we're going to have to do that.

Hello, testing.

Okay, folks.

If you can hear me clap once.

If you can hear me clap twice, if you can hear me clap three times.

Woo!

Very good.

All right.

Thank you everyone for your patience.

I'm so sorry.

It seems that we are back up and running again.

So I will call this meeting back to order.

All right.

And where we left off was that Councilmember Blackaby was just about to ask his questions.

Five minutes back.

All right.

Go ahead, Councilmember.

And we've just also introduced a new person to our table too.

So perhaps uh you want to introduce yourself.

Yes, uh Mayor and Council, my name is Trevor Chandler.

I'm the senior director of public affairs at Flock.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, folks, please.

Respect.

Go ahead.

Great.

Um, Chief uh Chief Lewis Deputy Chief Tate, uh, Mr.

Maulberg, I just wanted to appreciate your being here bringing the path forward.

Um, I wanted to say from the outset that I fully support uh your effort to provide our officers with the tools they need to keep us safe, but I do have questions about who we choose to contract with and how we build the public trust around the process.

So um, so I want to start with a couple of questions for the department, and then I have some questions for Mr.

Chandler.

Um I wanted to focus on the community video streams piece of it, because I think that's the part we've talked about.

I think not as much as some of the others.

Uh and just from my understanding, um, what are the circumstances under which you will activate those cameras?

Are there protocols around when you use them, when you don't?

Are they always on?

Are they not always on?

How does that part work?

Yeah.

And realize they're all, yeah, yeah.

Only in response to a specific incident or active investigation.

So we won't just be monitoring them.

It'll only be uh in response to something specific.

Okay.

So in the RTIC, so the idea is not here's all the community video stream cameras and running all the it's basically, hey, there's an event happening at the Apple store.

We need to activate the cameras to monitor what's going on.

Correct.

Okay, so it's some particular event that activates it.

Okay.

Um, how does this kind of uh video access, you know, how does it compare with how we're monitoring the other fixed cameras?

Is it a similar, how do you think about that?

Is it a similar approach in terms of when they're activated?

I'm just trying to kind of square the the cameras that the city would be operating versus the ones that we'd be asking partners about.

Yeah, they're very similar uh use policies that we proposed.

Okay.

Okay.

And the retention time, is it the same retention period for both?

So uh with the community video streams, we wouldn't be retaining any footage.

Uh this would just be whatever that since these cameras already exist, right?

The organization's already paying for them and so whatever their retention policy is, is how long they would retain that video footage for, and then they would decide whether to give us access to only uh the live footage or to any period of the routine video.

So um if there was some evidentiary value from something, you might take that and hold on to that for the purpose of doing an investigation.

Sorry, but but otherwise, go ahead.

Yeah, think about this way.

So um if uh we learned there's a robbery at uh a business and they had video, we would um capture that video, we would log in capture that video, it would get uploaded into our evidence collection system and held pursuant to the retention period for that kind of crime.

Correct.

Um if for some reason we learned that a crime happened at that particular business a month ago, two months ago, six months ago, we would contact them and say, you know, does your do you have do you have video going back that far?

And if the answer is yes, then we would be able to collect it and get that information.

Okay.

Um so there's some kind of real-time monitoring in the moment for an event, but it's just turned on for a particular event and then turned off when you don't need it.

And after the fact, you might ask for footage and then use it for evidentiary.

But again, so you're you're you're only retaining the footage of stuff that has evidentiary value.

Is that right?

Okay.

And are there any circumstances under which you'd be sharing any of that video with other jurisdictions or not?

Same situation with the uh um fix our fixed cameras that we own.

We would never allow access to another agency to get in and do some searching, but if we got contacted and said, hey, we're working this series of robberies, we believe somebody was in that store that fits the description of such and such, right?

Then we could ask we would access and understand whether that evidence was there and would only turn that evidence over to them if it fit within the parameters of uh you know related to an investigation.

Right.

And similarly, it's like so you have rules in terms of who you do or don't share with, and you and again, never shared with for um immigration enforcement purposes and all that.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um if if uh if another jurisdiction needed access to information at like, oh again, maybe they have a suspect uh from their jurisdiction who is involved in something at the Apple Store in Berkeley.

Do they come through us?

So how do how do they get that footage?

Again, does it come through you guys making that request and then you decide whether or not to share it, or do they go directly to that um business?

I mean, I mean I would say either.

I mean, there's nothing that precludes them from going to the Apple store and saying, hey, we're investigating this case, can we have it?

And a private business would would share in whatever manner they wanted to.

But if if we were approached and asked for evidence um from someone in our city, it has to go through a review process.

Um, the captain of the investigations would approve um the collection of that and the release of that to another another jurisdiction.

Great.

Thank you.

Um couple questions for Mr.

Chandler, and again, thank you for being here in the hot seat.

Um, from the outset, I just want to say, because I think this is something I've uh you know, I've felt a while, and I think a lot of us feel this, um, that you know, I've just been really, you know, disappointed and frustrated to watch how Flock has sort of handled this sort of drip drip drip of complaints and reports about problems with unauthorized data sharing with sort of the mistakenly checked check boxes with pilot programs with CBP and sort of other agencies that give them access to these broad lookup features without the permission of the local agencies.

And I'll just say, you know, as someone who before I had this job, uh I've spent a lot of years in public affairs and politics.

It's you know it's really been a cut a case study in like crisis communications done poorly, just to be perfectly frank with you.

Um anyway, so again, my frustration is that rather than getting out ahead of it and taking responsibility, it's been kind of put on the local jurisdictions to sort of defend what's happened, which I don't think is really been fair to a lot of these local jurisdictions.

And in a lot of cases, I thought the first response seemed to be, you know, blaming these agencies for faulty configuration without acknowledging that you know, one error is a user error, but multiple errors is a product flaw.

You know, that's a that's a flock, that's a flock issue.

So again, I'm not doing I'm just doing this because I you know if I feel like we need to get this on on the table because you know, that's that's a frustration.

I think we all are feeling as policymakers who are being asked to make this sort of decision.

Um, so my question, I know we've talked about this in the past, but are you willing and can you acknowledge today that you know Flock has made you know these mistakes, these have been mistakes, these aren't just jurisdictions kind of making a mistake.

This is this has been a flock piece too, and I just I wanted you to kind of talk about that and help us understand how you view that.

Absolutely.

Uh and I genuinely appreciate those remarks, counselor.

So thank you for bringing it up.

Uh we have made uh and our our CEO has made public that we could have and should have done many things better.

Uh when we uh started uh addressing these uh issues a little over a year ago.

Up to that point, we had been providing compliant the tools to be compliant uh rather than simply mandating compliance like we could have uh and making make it just easier for all of our customers, especially here in California in other states that have uh laws that would have just been easier for us to do that.

Um we have since shifted in our entire business model uh to start to mandate compliance.

Now it is not possible for a single California agency to share outside the state, uh in addition to make sure that is not allowed, uh we've also put in place immigration search filters, we've put in place reproductive health search filters, um, and we've removed all and any sharing with any federal, whether it's at any federal, whether it's a national park, uh whether it's the post office.

And so these are things that we acknowledged one, we could have communicated the compliance features better, and that's on us.

We take full responsibility for that, and we could have done compliance as default rather than simply providing the tools and letting agencies go on a case-by-case basis.

So uh we're extremely proud of what we've done last year.

Now we have probably uh I will say definitely of all the LPR providers, we are the only LPR major LPR provider without a contract with ICE.

I think that's very important to note.

There's no relationship there that distinguishes us from Axon, Motorola, everyone else.

There is no contract with ICE.

We're the only one without a contract with ICE.

And we have put in place groundbreaking and industry-leading transparency and accountability uh features, including additional audit transparency that proactively provides uh potential uh misuse, potential irregularities, so people don't have to wait until they run their audit next.

I'm happy to go through more of that.

Yeah, yeah, that's good.

But yes.

Um, appreciate your comments.

Yeah, yeah.

There is much we could have done better, and we are working to earn that trust by by doing even more than that.

I appreciate that.

In um one of the things we talked about, I know in the past was I think in March, uh March 2026, there's a blog post that outlined a lot of those new safeguards.

Uh so this is the California agencies can't share out of state or with the feds um that the federal government is not part of the California State Lookup Network, that you require the the offense type and sort of the drop-down to do a search, um, and that the cities again, this is this is this uh a confirmation this is the city's data and not you know Flox data.

Um did those safeguards actually go into effect, like when did those come online?

Uh I believe those most of that they they came online in various uh iterations.

I believe most of them came online in August.

And I can get the specific dates for you.

So it's like August of 25, plus, plus or minus, and then sort of there was some communication about that, I know, in March that kind of just laid.

Okay.

Um, since those safeguards, uh a lot of my questions are around like the timeline of this process.

Because if you look at sort of news reports about Flock and what's going on, a lot of what happens is we're also talking about things that may have happened a year ago, right?

Because it's an audit that cuts.

So my question sort of is since those safeguards went into effect, you know, have you have any customers reported issues that those safe you know, so safeguards went into effect, you locked down this sort of piece.

What's happened since the safeguards and what can you look at in terms of the trade safe the track record since that time?

We've been notified of no uh instances where the previous examples have happened again.

So uh I know that's the case.

I was just on a call um with uh uh the other the other day with another California city with a hundred percent uh clean audit, there are no issues, and uh I've not been made aware of any additional issues since these fixes have been put in place.

Um let me pivot a little bit to some of these kind of operational questions.

Um part of these are you know in the draft contract, part of it is in uh, and I'm I'll try and be judicious with my time.

Um question about you know, if if the FBI comes to you with a judicial warrant asking you for access to some of Berkeley's data, what's what's Flock's operating procedure now?

Council member, you can have some of my time.

Okay, I'll be just I think a minute or two more.

Okay, sorry.

We are contractually obligated to notify the city of Berkeley of that request.

And internally, our process is to let that subpoena in authority know that we do not own the data because contractually we do not own the data, uh, and direct them to the city of Berkeley.

Okay, and then back to the chief.

So if that comes to you, then what's kind of the city's response?

So if you know the if flock comes to us and said we've got this subpoena, just again to kind of confirm how the process would work from there.

Right.

So the minute that we got that subpoena, we'd be in consultation with the um city manager and the city attorney's office about um the proper ways for us to fight that subpoena.

Okay, and then similarly, um, if instead of the FBI with a judicial warrant, if it was ICE with an administrative warrant that came to ICE and asked for access to Berkeley's data, what would how would that play out?

Is that any different?

How does it play out if it's a ICE administrative warrant versus like an FBI judicial warrant?

For us, there's no difference.

We would still direct them to you and we would alert you to that request.

Okay.

And then it would be a similar process for us.

Correct.

Okay.

Great.

Okay.

Good.

Well, thank you.

I look, I I appreciate your being here and willing to sort of answer the answer those questions.

I and I appreciate this discussion.

I think you know, as we move forward, and I'm interested in hearing colleagues, interested in hearing from the public.

You know, I I do want to make sure that um, you know, we're really thinking about who and you know what we're contracting with whom for what as we move forward.

Um, and so that'll be something I think I want to come back to later, um, just to make sure that we're making the best choice, because again, you know, I I have full confidence in what the department's doing.

I think we need to make sure that our tools uh you know meet those expectations as well.

So anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um, so I there are follow-up questions, I think, from council members Tragueb and O'Keefe for you for the Flock representative.

So um Council Member Trakeup, do you want to go first?

Thank you so much.

Um, well, first, I actually I did want to um uh director Lee, thank you for being here.

Um, my first question is for you.

I know it's been some time since March.

Could you recapitulate uh the four principal concerns uh from the PAB?

And has anything changed on that front since the last time uh this was discussed?

Thank you.

So from March?

The concerns broadly um were about the MSA with the concerns broadly were about the MSA with Flock, uh the policies governing drones, the community uh the policies concerning drones, video community video streams and fixed cameras, and the drone acquisition report, oh sorry, and the integrated platform um of surveillance services uh in one vendor.

Those those were the four concerns from March.

Um since then uh there's been additional research done about the procurement process, and that's what uh the Pab's letter to you of um May 4th, which is in the supplemental two packet outlines.

So I don't know if you want me to go into that right now or yeah, um maybe a little later, um, but I I do want to make sure I have time to ask uh Trevor some questions and thank you for being here.

Um, uh so my first question is, um, and this might also be for staff.

Um, there's been a lot of discussion about uh this um lookup tool, and are you willing at this point to make a commitment that uh it could if Berkeley was to enter into a contract with Flock, it would be disabled entirely.

Are you talking about um national lookup or yes?

Yes, absolutely, it's already done.

It is impossible for any agency in California to enter into the national search feature.

And we are willing if you would like to put that in the contract, absolutely 100%, we would be comfortable with that.

As of what date did um that change on your end?

Um approximately around August.

Um so I can double check on this specific date, but that change has already been made.

Okay.

Uh what is the highest for violation term if there is a breach of contract that you're willing to accept?

Uh Richmond's is 290K.

Oakland's is 200K.

Um I we have on file um the response from Flock that you're willing to accept 150K.

I'm wondering if uh just your thoughts around um the uh there's actually no monetary value that can be placed on a human life being impacted on this.

So I just wanted to ask, uh was that a question?

What is the highest for violation term that you're willing to accept?

Um I can't speak to the highest.

I like as you said, we have uh the examples of Oakland and Richmond, and I imagine we could uh be amenable to a similar uh per violation standard here.

Thank you.

Um, folks.

It'll be I believe it's important to note uh since implementing those, we have never been subject uh to any of those fines for any potential uh uh misharing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I think this do you currently um I I appreciate what you said about um not working with ICE.

Um that counts for a lot in my book.

Do you currently have any contracts, able use or other agreements with other federal agencies such as CBP?

Uh we have federal contracts, but not with CBP.

Can you elucidate on other federal contracts that you do have?

Absolutely.

Uh, we have national park contracts, United States Postal Inspection Service, um, those sorts, yes.

But we we do not have a contract with ICE and we uh do not currently have any contracts with entities under the Department of under the Department of Homeland Security.

Okay.

What was the date at which any of those contracts were discontinued?

Uh the c we we never had a contract with CBP.

Uh we had a pilot agreement.

Uh that lasted for approximately four months um and was focused on human infental uh narco trafficking, and that was uh suspended around uh September of 2025.

Um I can get the specific date on that.

That's an estimation.

Okay, thank you.

Um this might be a question for actually both the chief and uh Mr.

Chandler.

Um there has been discussion around uh well.

We put it that my council member.

How many I'm just curious how many more questions you have since I think you've actually this is your second time your second period of question.

This will be my last question.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh I understand that Flock is currently testing out uh the utilization of machine learning as part of its system.

Uh can you speak to um how that would be prescribed?

Are there um, would you be agreeable to uh terms in a contract or MOU that might uh preclude the use of machine learning specific to Berkeley?

Yeah.

Yes, thank you, counselor.

So we do use machine learning to increase accuracy.

So as new vehicles come onto the market, a new camry, any number of things.

Uh we take accuracy very seriously uh because we don't want uh we want to minimize misidentifications of vehicles and license plates as much as possible as new license plates come on the market.

Uh we use machine learning to improve that accuracy.

Uh we have uh such as in Oakland, uh some cities have decided they want to opt out of participating in that out of it, an extra abundance of caution, and we would absolutely be amenable if Berkeley would want to opt out of the machine learning process.

Um obviously we want uh we want to continue to hopefully improve, uh, but if that's something that Berkeley doesn't want to be a part of, then we would absolutely opt the city out of it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilmember O'Keefe.

Thanks for giving me another bite of the apple here.

First of all, I want to say, Miss Lee, I'm just so happy you're here, and I'm just thank you so much.

It's really important.

You're an important voice, and just welcome to this.

Welcome to this world, back to this world.

Um and I guess there's not going to be a presentation from the PEB.

Is that is that right?

Are you prepared to know?

No, I'm not I'm not aware that we will have any other presentations.

Okay, I guess I I don't have a specific questions, but I am curious to hear more about your perspective on the issues that were raised by the PAB letter.

So I think Council Member Trigger also asked about that, but you were gonna ask more later.

You're asking about the recent PAP letter.

Yeah.

So yes.

Director, if you could speak to that recent PAP letter.

Yeah, I would love to hear your your current thoughts.

My take on it.

Uh I would agree with it pretty much substantively.

Um there was a lot of research done, a very deep dive into the series of contracts that the department had entered into, and how it seems that we ended up sort of piecemealing uh the various components.

And um a concern that is noted is having an integrated architecture without a real sense of um really analyzing uh whether that's needed, um, whether it needs to be uh provided by one vendor, um and uh the research uh that the PAB members did was revealed that there are other jurisdictions that do use um different uh surveillance technologies from different vendors and use uh some other type of um platform to integrate it all.

And I think um the can there is a concern to me about having any everything rely on one vendor and this is really and I I want to emphasize that this is really separate and apart from Flock as a vendor, um all the procurement issues, and having a single vendor provide all of your systems, uh as the memo outlines, could be a great danger if something fails.

That means everything could be failing without any sort of backup.

And so that is a major concern.

Sorry, just to clarify, you're talking about the technology itself failing, like not working anymore.

Right, or a breach of security.

What do you what do you mean by failing?

Actually, it could be either.

Okay, right.

Yeah, okay.

Well, thank you so much.

Um, and yeah, we might have I hope you're involved in the continuing discussion, but I really appreciate you being here once again.

Um two more questions.

Um actually this one is for um I actually want to thank Council Member Blackaby for asking the great questions of our flock representative.

I think that was really helpful.

And I think after hearing about that, I would like to hear a little more from our police about our auditing process.

Um, how often is it done?

What do you check for?

If you could just help us understand how that looks a little bit more.

Yeah, so uh our policy requires that we audit um our LPR system uh twice a year.

And uh so that entails going into those logs of when other network, other agencies have searched across our network and evaluating the the reasons and the information that they provided, as well as looking at the searches that we've done internally in making sure that they comply with all of our policies.

Yeah, I just want to share that's that's our formal auditing process.

But um, we have three administrators that have access to change any features in in the flock system, the ALPR system.

Um those users are in the system on a regular basis, whether it's every day or every other day, certainly um during the business week.

Um that's how we caught that one issue that we had that we located where we had conf a term that we weren't sure about, and then we were able to chase down.

So it's not like we're waiting till the end of a six-month period and then looking back.

Uh we're in that system regularly, doing that informal auditing, looking for irregularities, looking for connectivity issues and things like that.

Thanks so much for clarifying that.

And the last question, I I'm sorry, I think somebody may have already asked about this, but I wanted to get it, Claire, and actually maybe our flock representative can um comment on this as well.

It has to do with the facial recognition for the video cameras, which is I understand there's machine learning for recognizing the images of cars, but I think there's a lot of concern about facial recognition.

So, um, can you clarify if we use facial recognition if we're what it says in the contract, and then I'd also be interested in sort of the technical ways of managing whether that's on or off.

Sure.

By policy, we do not allow facial recognition technologies.

Okay.

And then Flock, can you explain how that's achieved technically?

Flock does not have facial recognition.

Don't have it or so it's can't even be turned on or off.

Great.

It does have individual recognition because uh some of these cameras.

What does that mean?

So if a it if a goose were to fly in front of a camera, we wouldn't want your law enforcement to constantly be getting alerts about you know a goose flying in front of a camera.

So some of our pan tilt zoom cameras, they do can identify that there is a person there, so or they can look for you know, you can look for a yellow shirt, uh, but there is no facial recognition.

Okay.

That's that's helpful.

Can you can you say a little more when you say yellow shirt?

Like that does sound like it's describing some aspects of the person.

Can you say a little more about where is that line cut off?

Yeah, so there I mean, put it frankly, there is no facial recognition.

There is none.

Uh there is individu there is the ability to recognize that there is a person in front of a camera.

So if you are looking for a suspect with a yellow shirt, these these searches do not base on gender or race.

Uh they are on characteristics such as is there uh someone wearing a hat?

Uh is there someone wearing a yellow shirt?

Uh so that is what is able to be detected, but there is no facial recognition.

Okay, so it's it's folks, just to make it I'm trying to make sure I understand you.

So would it be fair to say you can ask for descriptions of color and items of clothing?

Yes, but nothing more specific than that.

Correct.

You cannot ask for gender or race or protected characteristics.

Okay.

That's different than what I said.

What I said is is the limit of the search terms, is it limited to things like color and clothing items?

Yes.

That's it.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, and that's just to confirm that's we that we our version of the system has that capability or will.

I guess we don't have this yet, but is that right?

Or do we have this turned off also?

Yeah, we we don't have that feature on on the current cameras that we run, nor would we turn that feature on.

So the question comes up about uh let's say a new camera exists next next week, right, or next year, and it has that capability, but um we don't turn those features on, right?

So that's how we we are guided by our use policy, and so if technology moves past um what we uh originally acquired, and um a capability exists on a technology now, we don't we will either turn that function off, right?

Or if there was no way to turn it off and it was gonna become part of what would be our routine thing we would see, then we would come back to council and say, hey, this thing that we have now it has this extra feature.

Do you want us to stay using this technology and expand it, or do we need to look for a new vendor?

Okay, but so we're talking, we're you're talking about the use policy for the Pentelt Zoom cameras we have now, and of course, right now we're discussing whether we're gonna be acquiring these Flock cameras.

So I guess my question is if we were to get these flock cameras that have this ability for to search for you know basic um descriptions of people, would would that that would not be allowed under the use policy if we acquired these cameras?

Is that what I'm understanding?

No, we would we would be able to use a feature that allowed us to say in this footage right here, can you find us a suspect that was wearing a yellow shirt?

Okay, we would not, they don't have and we would not use um even if it was available any kind of facial recognition or yeah, got it.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

And I appreciate that clarity.

Um those are my questions.

Thanks again for that.

Thank you.

Moving back to Council Member Lunapara.

Thank you.

Um I have a some more questions.

I have some questions for for Flock representative.

Um can you speak to Flock Safety's obligation to their investors?

I'm specifically interested in Flock's biggest investor and the firms and founders.

Let me finish.

Hold on.

She she can let her get her question out.

And it's founders anti-immigrant anti-DEI and pro-Trump views in support of surveillance deregulation, how that may influence Flock's practices and obligations.

Uh is there a specific investor that you'm more curious about how Flock Safety engages with its investors and to what extent the views of the investors is going to affect how the company operates.

The company operates within the law.

And that's that's the most important aspect.

Just as here in California where we have SB 34, we have we have fully shut off any sharing or any or disabled any sharing outside of the state or with federal agencies.

You oh no, I was just gonna say, I don't think that she was asking whether or not Flock operates within the law.

She's asking you about how you interact with your investors.

So could you speak to that, please?

Yeah, I mean we interact with our investors similarly to any company.

We have board meetings uh where we provide earnings reports.

Um so that is that is how we engage with our investors, same as any other company.

Okay, um there are um federal and and state and local laws that don't necessarily align um and that have conflicting perspectives on the law.

So how how does Flock take that into consideration?

Exactly.

Thank you so much for asking that question because I think California is the precise example of that.

Uh where California has a very explicit law with SB 34 that this state it prohibits the sharing of license plate reader data outside of the state.

So we have prevented that from happening.

We are additionally providing uh groundbreaking industry leading.

Again, I want to say industry leading because no other license plate reader provider has implemented the additional changes above and beyond what we have, which allows cities and states to be able to choose who they share with and how they share with, uh including again if there is a sanctuary state law, if there are limits on data sharing regarding uh reproductive health information.

We have put in uh groundbreaking, in many cases, not even required by law uh guardrails to make sure that community values do not have to come at the expense of community safety.

And what's happened here in California is exactly that.

We have completely shut it off so that no state, no city in California is able to share with the federal authorities or with any state or entity outside the state of California.

Okay.

Well, I'm that I'm honestly not satisfied by that given that Flock already has violated or allowed cities to violate state law.

Um my next question is uh similar to Councilmember Tragub's question around uh violations and fines for violations.

How sure are you that the city of Berkeley data privacy will not be violated and how much money do you think the city should be awarded if it is violated?

Uh similar to Councilmember Tregubb's uh question, I think that we have a couple of numbers that are out there.

Um, as was uh mentioned, we have an agreement with uh the city of Oakland that's 200,000.

Um so again, I would just uh provide to you all uh you are the legislators, you are you are of the city council to have that conversation about what is what you view as um necessary.

How would you define um an individual violation?

So those that are outlined in the contract um as well as under state law.

So that would be a violation of sharing that Flock is responsible for that uh goes against the Yeah, I guess I'm asking if um if there is a uh violation of the contract um that that ends up with multiple people being affected.

Um is each individual person's being affected, is that each individual instance of violation?

Uh, or are they all one violation?

Uh I will yield to your city attorney uh on that specifically when it comes to the the legal interpretation of the contract.

I understand.

I'm I'm curious what Flock's interpretation is.

Um I again I would yield to your city attorney because I know our attorneys have been talking with your attorneys, and I feel uh that that would be uh question that's better answered by uh the attorney's sh folks.

So you're not willing to answer.

Uh I would prefer that your city your city attorney answer that question.

Okay, thank you.

Those are my questions.

Okay, Councilmember Barley.

Did you have follow-up questions?

Oh yeah, thank you.

Yeah, yes, thank you, Madam Mayor.

And thank you.

Uh Mr.

Flo what's Mr.

Flock, sorry.

Sorry, what's uh Tim Apple?

Tim.

Mr.

Apple, thank you, Mr.

Apple.

Meet the flockers.

I think it's a movement.

Uh so I think now that you're here, I was gonna ask you quickly.

Um as I go, so this comes up a lot in conversation.

The the Foreign Intelligence Service Um Surveillance Act.

Yes, warrants or other other sort of secret federal directives.

Uh what's that process like for in our situation?

Uh so the FISA warrants are the same for any company everywhere.

These are typically um confidential warrants, um that if I I personally do not have any knowledge of.

Um what I can say in what many experts in the field have said is if someone, if there was something of importance of a FISA warrant is an exceptional warrant.

Um, it goes significant process.

Uh if someone is going through, or if someone in the government is going through the process to acquire a FISA warrant for something, a point in time image of a vehicle that is potentially 30 days old is not likely the most effective use of uh situation like that.

Obviously, I can't speak to every situation, but it's more likely that it would be used on a phone, on a laptop, on something that someone carries with them all the time, not a 30-day old picture of a point in time of a particular vehicle.

Okay, um, all right, and then uh so regarding the third party platforms involved in the the Flock ecosystem.

Um, you know, what are the steps you can you can describe for to take uh take care of our data?

So there's no data leakage from one of your partners.

Uh what do you say partners?

Um well, the Amazon web servers and the servers, the camera companies, the transport companies, the, you know, that there's a whole host of um application providers that uh make uh you know any product flow, including yours.

So I'm curious just uh you know, how do you maintain operational security with these players?

Absolutely.

So we make all our own cameras.

Uh these are not we don't uh you know buy from a Nokia factory or uh or um uh uh uh camera factory.

We make all of our cameras in-house um in addition to our software, all of it is in house.

We do use Amazon web servers.

Uh we have a robust data security mechanism, including our new chief of information security officers.

We have a new uh partnership that does penetrative testing on our servers.

We have SOC2 type two ISO 2700-1.

Uh we go above and beyond to make sure that the data that we are and uh we are uh protecting uh stays uh stays protected.

Uh and that includes regular audits, uh independent audits, which we make available on our trust website for all of our customers to download, um, and to which we update regularly.

Uh most of them are annual, some of them are are more than annual, but it's something we take extremely seriously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So at this time, if there are no many more questions, I'd like to move us on to public comment.

Um there is there are a significant number of people in this room, and there are some folks online as well, but we were limiting will be we will be limiting public comment to three hours.

That will be two hours in person and one hour online.

So I would ask that if you have public comment on this item, if you could please come forward.

And and a reminder to folks, if you didn't hear me say earlier, if there's someone that's speaking on behalf of your group, you're welcome to have that person speak and stand behind them.

And as usual, um you can also give your minute of time to folks.

Could you please be quiet while I'm giving the overview so that folks can hear?

Thank you.

So as usual, you can give a minute of your time to another individual, um, only one time, and one person can speak for up to four minutes.

So that means three people would be giving them a minute of their time.

Um I ask that you please try and organize that ahead of time so that we're not trying to figure out who's giving you the minute in the in the time because it it eats away from the comment period.

So um, yes.

Did you sorry?

Yes.

So I I would like to make a motion to expend the rules and limit the comment period to three hours and a second from Council Member Tracker.

Okay.

Is there a mechanism?

Do you want to is it all in person first and then online?

So it will be, yeah.

I was saying so two hours in person, one hour online.

Is there any interest in doing any alternating?

That's the only other thing.

Is anyone interested in alternating?

If not, I don't know.

Okay, I'm willing to do your discretion within.

Yeah, I'll accept.

Yeah, sorry.

Okay, go ahead.

Can we take the role, please?

Okay.

Short.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Trago.

Aye.

Councilmember O'Keefe is currently absent.

Uh Blackview.

Yes.

Luna Para.

Yes.

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Thank you.

Please come on up.

Okay, so 640.

Good evening to everyone.

My name is Brenda Grisham.

And I just had um to make one statement.

This is my second time here.

And I have never heard anybody ask how many lives have flocks saved?

How many girls have they stopped from being trafficked?

How many businesses they have recovered their property?

Haven't heard any of that.

We all care about the immigrants, but there are residents here that want safety.

And we want you guys to take that account.

My daughter and my grandchildren live here.

And I want to be sure that their lives and the things that go on with them is important.

My son was murdered in Oakland, his case is unsolved, and I guarantee you I'm fighting for flock cameras in any city I can.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Come on up.

My name is Veterinika Foxon.

I want to thank all of you for the questions you've asked.

I think all of you mean well.

You care about all of us in this community.

You're committed to this community.

I think, however, it's naive to be listening to what has been said to you and think that cities have canceled because there's no other there's no there's no good reason.

Cities have canceled El Cerrito last night.

Last thing I want to say, the very last thing I want to say is that Flock needs Berkeley more than Berkeley needs Flock.

Flock, Flock needs Berkeley, a sanctuary city as a poster boy for a community that people care in which people care about their population to do business with this company.

Flock is not the only company.

Please be thinking about this.

We don't want to be in that purpose.

Thank you.

Come on, Linda, come on up.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Linda O'Livenbaum, and I'm reading a statement from Friends of Adeline, which would everyone from Friends of Adeline please stand or wave.

Thank you.

Friends of Adeline strongly opposes the Berkeley Police Department's proposed expansion of its flock surveillance camera network.

This proposal represents the largest expansion of surveillance infrastructure in the city's history and directly undermines Berkeley's long-standing commitment to being a sanctuary city.

Approving this contract moves Berkeley toward a more militarized model of policing with serious and disproportionate consequences for the people of our black, brown, and immigrant communities.

Expanding surveillance does not make a community safer.

Flock's track record raises significant concerns despite what we've heard tonight.

It is well documented that this company shares data with federal law enforcement agents.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Linda.

Hello, my name is Sally Nelson.

You are right to be concerned about providing safety for all of Berkeley.

The recent announcement by the ACLU reveals that Flock now claims that all data gathered by its surveillance belongs to Flock and not to the city of Berkeley.

Flock may then share that data with any agency or person of its choosing, including ICE and the CBP.

This makes all of us less safe.

Whether we are people of color or undocumented immigrants, naturalized citizens, or citizens by birth whose beliefs may be too progressive for Floch's opinions, we are all at risk for being detained, imprisoned, or subjected to violence.

We all want Berkeley to be more safe in the contract with Flock.

The safety of your constituents depends upon your voting no on having any contract with Flock.

Thank you.

Thanks for coming.

Thank you.

Hello.

I'm James Scanleberry from the If you could speak into the mic, please.

Jane Scanleberry from the Commission on Labor.

And in a in a meeting recently, we unanimously unanimously voted to urge the city to suspend its contract with Flock and to halt any further expansion of the program.

Because due to the company's well-documented use of overseas sweatshop labor.

These are some examples from the letter.

In 2009, first of all, just about the sweatshop procurement ordinance.

In 2009, the Berkeley City Council passed the sweatshop free procurement ordinance.

While the ordinance is specific to the procurement of apparel, the wording is an expression of Berkeley's fundamental values as a municipality.

This person is giving their minute too.

Thank you.

As documented in both international media and academic studies, Flock outsources much of its work to low-paid gig workers in the Philippines.

These contractors do data annotations often refer to as crowd work, in which workers view thousands of hours of video annotating the data to help train the AI algorithms.

This is low-wage monotonous yet high pressure work, and the workers doing this analysis are exposed to substandard labor conditions, including extremely low rates of pay and lack of labor rights and protections.

To outsource much of its data analysis to low-paid workers in the global south, companies like Flock can maximize their own profits by evading U.S.

minimum wage and working condition protections.

Thank you.

But that most of you will probably vote for it.

Whatever it is.

And I want to say to you that if you are going to vote for this contract extension, it what you need to do is resign.

Thanks so much.

Thanks for your ally Rhonda is actually gonna be giving me a minute.

Um, oh, there you are.

Okay, go ahead.

All right, cool.

So hello, my name is Manny.

I've actually been a part of taking down Flock in six jurisdictions, and I hope that you can be the seventh.

All right, so I'm gonna start off addressing the lie that he said.

Uh their patent, their own patent that they filed to the U.S.

Patent Office clearly states that their technology is capable of categorizing people based on height and weight, race and gender, clothes and accessories worn, and animals and bicycles and cars, which is how they might uh advertise themselves.

Furthermore, their 2021 DHS policy actually requires that all ALPR vendors, including Flock, not leave a trail of ICE in any audit logs except in audit logs made available only to ICE.

So when you go and do an audit and you don't find ICE in there, that's a false negative.

Furthermore, in your in section four of your contract, there is a worldwide rights clause.

And like my ally alluded to earlier, the reason why it's there is because they share they send the data overseas so that Filipino gig workers can analyze it for the training of the AI system.

Also, another lie that he said was that no more California agencies are sharing data nationally.

That is not true.

El Cajon is very much still sharing data nationally, and they're actually countersuing the state of California because they want to keep sharing nationally.

And if you guys want an anecdote on how border patrol has used this technology, a preschool, an elementary school teacher named Marimar Martinez was tracked and hunted down using flock cameras for over two weeks.

They shot her five times and then bragged about it with each other over text messages, saying that they shot her five times and she had seven bullet holes.

Put that in your book, boys.

Why do we have to wait for someone in our community to be harmed by this technology to get rid of it?

We should just get rid of it.

Please vote no on flock.

Is the city of Berkeley really gonna pass a mega plan to create a surveillance city?

That's what we're really asking here today.

I wanna read a quote from Edward Snow.

No system of mass surveillance has existed in a society that we know of to this point that has not been abused, and so we can expect that kind of thing.

And when the police say this is gonna save us money, how many police officers are gonna get laid off so that we can pay for this project?

You know, none are getting let out, so it's not saving us any money.

And those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

That's Ben Franklin.

So we should think about that.

This is Big Brother here in the latest expansion of the surveillance state.

This is an investor-driven plan, much like the expansion of the prison state in the 90s.

So let's be clear.

Flock is the hardware that shuts down free speech.

So when you guys vote for this, you're shutting down free speech because this is gonna be a surveillance system on all of us.

Thank you.

Hello.

Uh my name is Johnny Coacher, and I'm a member of Bay Area Juice for Justice, and I'm here today to reject the proposal uh to urge you to reject the proposal to use flock surveillance technology.

In April 2025, the California Highway Patrol conducted a search on behalf of ICE that simultaneously reached 845 separate California agency databases through Flock's sharing network.

Because of how Flock's architecture works, it connected to all um connected agencies and functioned as a dragnet, touching the camera data of nearly every California law enforcement flock customer, including communities throughout Contra Costa County.

This is a centralized Orwellian dragnet surveillance technology that makes our immigrants less safe.

This is a and it's against our sanctuary city policy.

I urge you to vote no on this contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Karuna Jagger.

I'm a resident of longtime resident of District 2, a nearly 30 year resident of Berkeley.

It's heated, and we live in a really polarized world right now.

And it's really easy for folks to back into their corners and entrench and kind of plug your ears and start saying you know, entrenching in your position, right?

And I want to, we're not all on the same side.

We have a real substantive difference of opinion, but we are all here because we care about this community.

We care about each other, and we want Berkeley residents to be safe.

And the question is, how can we best do that?

It is an absolutely false dichotomy to set up this, you know, safety versus civil liberties.

We deserve and we can have both.

And so when council member O'Keefe here is saying that she doesn't feel personally comfortable with certain elements of the drone uh usage.

There's a whole lot of people that aren't comfortable with many parts of this.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Hi, I'm Rebecca Kenny, the suspect in the yellow shirt.

I live in El Cerrito, but I grew up in Berkeley.

My parents still live here, my partner works here, and I maintain deep connections to the city.

On Tuesday, the El Cerrito City Council voted to end its contract with Flock.

And here, here are some concerns our council members cited.

First, our city was initially presented with a new contract, which we were told was better.

But then our police chief recommended we retain the old contract instead with no reason given.

Clearly, Flock did not negotiate in good faith.

Second, we live under an authoritarian federal government.

The Supreme Court could change the law at the drop of a hat through the shadow docket to compel Flock to share data.

California law won't protect us either.

The state is currently being compelled to share information about undocumented immigrants with driver's licenses.

If the state can't protect itself, how can it protect us?

In this political, is this political environment a safe time to using experimental mass surveillance?

Third, flock only fixes issues after other groups call out their failures.

They do not make proactive fixes.

Fourth, flock claims its product is the cameras, but it's actually the mass aggregation of data.

Jane El Cerrito, cancel the contract.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Aaron.

I am a resident of District 3.

I am angry.

I'm embarrassed that we even have to be here because our council might prioritize the interests of Flock's corporate tech and police brutality over the constituents who voted for you.

If BPD won't even be honest about basic facts about FLOC, we have no reason to trust how and why they'll use it.

Two PAB members resigned citing BPD actively makes their job impossible by obstructing records of BPD misconduct.

Frankly, I don't trust Flock to be accountable if BPD refuses to be held accountable.

BBD has made it clear that they do not represent Berkeley lives and safety.

Council members, know that a vote for Block betrays the people of Berkeley in favor of your own comfort of safety that doesn't even exist.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm just gonna be really honest here.

I don't think anyone wants to be here tonight.

Um we've been doing this for months and months and months.

Uh so please just do your job and listen to your constituent to constituents.

You we have been telling you for months to not vote for this.

So if you don't do your job, we can always not re-elect you.

If you're not up for reelection, we can recall you.

So please just do your job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Negin Wassad, and I'm a small business owner in Berkeley and a longtime resident.

The reality is that militarized policing and surveillance technologies only assist to our slide into fascism.

As we know by the plight of the Palestinian people, as in Gaza, the quick murder of educators, organizers, and key figures in Gaza in cold blood within the matter of a few months was only possible through surveillance technology.

The Israeli fascist government operates by exterminating those.

And what separates us from Gazans?

We are people just like they are.

And with the slide to fascism that is quickly descending upon us, I don't trust any of these surveillance technologies, and I don't trust the future of a militarized police state.

I hope you vote no against this.

Sorry, thank you.

How many people in this room are for flock?

Who's for flock?

Who's not for flock?

All right.

So we know we have a council member that went to the 47th inauguration.

And it seems like y'all are trying to be fascists right here in Berkeley.

And we're not accepting that.

Are we accepting fascism and surveillance?

So, no to flock.

We know you can't trust what anybody up here said except for this one person on the end here.

For the PAB.

Otherwise, I don't know if Mr.

Flock is lying or what, but he's been called out.

So don't believe the hype.

No to flock.

Say it with me.

No to flock!

No, to flock!

Would anyone like to give them a minute?

Yeah, one, two, I think that's all I need.

Thank you.

Oh.

Who raised their hand real quick?

There's one, two.

Wait, sorry.

Are you taking how many minutes?

Are you taking three?

I'm just taking three.

Okay, so sorry.

One, two, I missed the third person.

Three total.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor, and Council members.

Thank you, former council member Cheryl Davala for your testimony.

Thank you, council members Bartlett, Trey Goob, uh O'Keefe, who isn't here, and Blackaby and Luna Para for your testimony.

I appreciate it.

This is really about whether Berkeley normalizes a future where ordinary public life becomes permanently searchable.

We're told that these systems are narrow, temporary, and only for serious crime, but history shows us the same pattern again and again.

Today's exception becomes tomorrow's standard.

And meanwhile, the underlying conditions people are actually struggling with remain unresolved.

Surveillance doesn't lower rent, it does not house people, it does not fix inequality, it does not rebuild trust in public institutions.

Thank you.

Technology is not a substitute for good governance.

What it does do is expand systems of monitoring over ordinary civic life.

And when cameras are placed on telegraph, Bancroft and Durant and District 7, this is no longer some narrowly targeted security measure.

These are major public corridors, bus stops, economic streets, and some of the most accessible civic spaces in Berkeley.

Students, workers, immigrants, unhoused residents, organizers, shoppers, and neighbors move through these spaces every single day.

Privacy is part of public safety.

A democratic city should not normalize mass data collection without strict limits, independent oversight, public transparency, and proof that these systems actually improve public safety instead of simply expanding surveillance infrastructure.

And if I'm being honest, they really shouldn't be used at all.

The burden is not on the public to accept being watched.

The burden is on government to justify why it should.

Thank you for your time and your testimony.

I do want to say really quickly that I do believe that surveillance technology should be limited.

I do believe the city of Berkeley should be the ones that own this technology and encrypt it end to end.

I do believe that the facial recognition should be scattered, the data should be poisoned, the AI should be off the table.

You all have a chance and a right to make the right call this day.

Vote no.

This city is not ready for the artificial intelligence that's going to come in the next round of flock data.

The city is not ready to hold guard blocks in place if that data is hacked by malicious actors.

And so I think this city is ready to take it seriously.

That no, we do not want flock, no, we do not want surveillance.

We are a sanctuary city, and that means we protect everyone, regardless of whether they're a criminal or not, because they have due process and need to be seen in the court of law.

So I thank you for your time and your energy.

I thank you all for your energy and your time.

And if anyone wants to hear more, again, my name is Aidan Hill.

I'm running for Berkeley City Council District 7.

So I really look forward to working with all of you on this.

And again, our city deserves sanctuary.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was given an extra minute.

All right, hi everyone.

Uh so I agree that it's a false dichotomy that we can only have civil liberty protections or safety.

I do think we can have both.

But when it comes to police doing their jobs, I do think they deserve a lot of support.

However, history has shown again and again that the federal government has very little regard for our constitutional rights.

So the assurances made today about contractual obligations and processes are not persuasive to me.

And we can think about COINTELPRO, when the FBI surveilled, infiltrated, and sabotaged Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr., the Black Panthers and the anti-war movement, the church committee's revelations about the CIA and NSA spying on American citizens, the NSA's mass warrantless wiretapping after 9-11, exposed by Edward Snowden, the NYPD's documented surveillance of entire Muslim American communities, FBI infiltration of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, and the Standing Rock Water Protectors tracked by private contractors working hand in hand with police.

There's just a very long history of inevitably this data getting into the Fed's hands.

So I know the police need assistance and they deserve assistance.

I know that all of you council members are here just trying to do your jobs, and I really appreciate your time.

This resistance, I'm sure is inconvenient to many, but I think we need to recognize the broader context that we're in.

And I think that this may be a monkey's paw.

I think many people here ultimately have no confidence that a company like this actually has the technological capability to actually keep the federal government out.

We heard tonight that they have new security professionals, but I don't think many respectable information security officers would take a job with a company like this.

So I ask that we find another way.

Thank you.

Sorry, who's one minute?

So I have two minutes altogether.

Oh, two minutes, two extra minutes.

The city attorney told you Flock's seeming willingness to agree to major overhauls the city proposes, coupled with widespread media reports of other Jewish jurisdictions canceling their flock contracts, which likely has put financial pressure on the company.

Suggests that Flock may be willing to agree to major changes to secure a deal, even though its technical team will not in practice be able to implement those changes, said this your city attorney.

And from Flock Safety's own website, here's how it rewards its top salespeople.

A one-week group vacation that they call Eagles Club, and this is what they say.

Eagles Club isn't a participation trophy.

You have to outperform, outwork, and out-execute in a room full of elite sellers.

Eagles Club is not something that appears at the end of the year as a surprise.

It becomes a steady motivator throughout.

For James, that motivation extends beyond the individual.

He said, it's always in the back of my mind.

My wife's asking, where is it this year?

We're both invested in getting there.

This job brings the whole household into it.

The winds, the stress, everything.

It's a culture thing.

Everyone's thinking about it.

It's competitive, but in a motivating way.

That shared energy pushes people to raise their level over time.

That's their salespeople.

These are the people that are telling you how much flock cares about keeping our data secure.

They're top salespeople, salivating for a contract with Progressive Berkeley.

I once worked for a company like that where the salespeople sold systems promising they could do things that they actually couldn't do.

That company did go out of business, but it took a long time.

Thanks, Kit.

Good evening.

I'm John Canor, the CEO of the Downtown Berkeley Association and a 36-year resident of Berkeley.

We went through a strategic planning process last year.

And by far, by far, safety was issue number one with all of our stakeholders and our community survey.

Copies for all of you.

You're in receipt of our emails from University Avenue merchants, visit Berkeley.

The importance of safety is paramount for employees, customers, residents, and visitors.

Today I had a conversation with a merchant who's been 45 years in the downtown, said their employees don't feel safe, their people are being assaulted.

They're asking for help from our ambassadors and PD.

We are implementing next year in January at a cost of 250 60,000 a year, a safety ambassador program because our stakeholders don't feel safe in our downtown.

These systems have proven track record.

Look at Berkeley Berkeley Scanner, please do the right thing.

Provide BPD the tools.

Thanks, John.

Community for all of us.

Thank you.

Hey, folks, come on.

Go ahead.

I get four minutes.

Good evening.

My name's Abigail Lesperance.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Berkeley Immigration Collaborative, or BIC, where five Berkeley-based organizations with decades of experience serving immigrants and asylum seekers in the Bay Area.

I am also a District 5 resident.

I was also born and raised in Berkeley.

My kids go to Berkeley schools and I work in Berkeley.

This city council has heard from the BIC extensively about the dangers of contracting with Flock.

At this time, we want to make one thing clear.

If you vote yes on this contract, you're breaking your commitment to sanctuary.

That commitment you made last year in September.

And you are also doing it in the exact moment in this country's history when sanctuary matters most.

You all voted on that.

This technology is harmful to immigrants, yes, but it's also harmful to unhoused neighbors who already live under surveillance and constant displacement.

It's harmful to black and brown residents because this technology is documented to be racially biased.

And the people it misidentifies are the people who are already overpoliced.

It's harmful to the residents in this room who leverage their privilege to show up as observers and as protesters.

It is harmful to every person in Berkeley who might one day stand up to an authoritarian federal government.

This is not a symbolic battle.

It is a battle to protect sanctuary and democratic control of our city, our technology, and our privacy and our private data.

79 jurisdictions to date have already canceled their flock contracts.

They did it for a reason.

In some the police chiefs themselves led the effort.

Just this week, El Cerrito chose sanctuary over flock.

You can too.

You say that the contract terms will protect us, but our own city attorney is telling you that no contract terms will completely protect Berkeley's data and it will expose Berkeley to between 30 and 60 million dollars in legal liability.

I was surprised to hear nobody ask the city attorney any questions about that.

If you approve this contract tonight, you are doing so against the advice of your own council.

This is an attorney.

Um that is not good governance.

Yesterday, Sarah Hamid of the Electronic Frontier Foundation told El Cerrito City Council how Flock's network architecture is broad, searchable, multi-jurisdiction network where local data is repurposed, relabeled, and reached through side doors that will make it impossible for cities to monitor.

What this means is that we do not and will not know the extent to which Berkeley's data is being used by Flock's AI modeling or federal agencies.

The police accountability board found that no other jurisdiction uses one vendor for all of its surveillance technology and warned you against fully integrating all of Berkeley's data with Flock in this way without first analyzing the bull the vulnerabilities.

To conclude, I want to leave you with the story of Marimar Martinez that another gentleman um referenced.

She's a U.S.

citizen who's a teaching assistant who ice tracked using Flock.

And they shot her five times.

Luckily they didn't kill her.

Um Martinez said she would see bullet scars for her life, but she said in her congressional hearing, and I quote, but perhaps even worse, the mental scars will always be there as a reminder of the time my own government tried to execute me.

Thank you.

Madam Madam City Attorney.

Madam is Madam City Attorney, did you want to share your statement about uh yes, thank you, madam mayor.

Our office is aware that a privileged memo from our office was leaked to the press under established California law.

Uh, the attorney client privilege rests with the city council, the governing body of this city, and unless you choose to waive it, uh it it's preserved because you haven't waived it.

Uh, we will not discuss this leaked memo and urge the council members and commissioners and staff to similarly refrain from discussing the contents.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

Shh.

Hi, I'm uh Andrew, I'm a district two voter who's voted for some of you up here tonight, and I'm really hoping I didn't make a foolish decision.

Um, I mean needed to make sure I come here tonight and remind you that uh many people fought and died for my first, fourth, and eighth amendment rights, and I'm not here gonna be negotiating with some tech company over them.

Uh many people behind me with ethics can and will make great points regarding how mass surveillance violates their first and fourth amendments rights, and I'll make a case for the eighth.

If your history teacher was as good as mine, the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Every animal uh except maybe the honey badger uh will have a natural stress response to uh being followed, stalked, or um, if it feels a prey animal is there.

Uh, humans have the same response.

If you set up cameras everywhere, you're creating a giant psychological torture device.

This violates the Eighth Amendment.

I'll repeat again.

I am not going to negotiate over my first, fourth, and eighth amendment rights.

Cancel the contract.

Good evening, Mayor Ishii and Council members.

My name is Musa with Kerr, the Council on American Islamic Relations, and we want to express our opposition to the proposed Flock expansion and any ALPR alternatives.

To start Flock as patently unsafe.

Flock's hackable nature makes Berkeley liable for SB 34 violations.

Flock has been proven to be hacked within 30 seconds due to 51 security vulnerabilities.

In one instance, a user was able to access a 24-7 live stream of a children's playground in the Bay Area.

That is terrifying and that is unconscionable.

Flock and ALPRs are a threat to Berkeley residents at large.

Berkeley residents need to know that when they drive to seek legal assistance when they go to their place of worship or when they attend a protest opposing Israel's genocide and gazza, that they need to know that they won't be surveilled, kidnapped, or killed by ice.

Berkeley residents should feel safe enough to move through their city without a large shadow looming over them.

Please meet the moment.

Say no to MAGA mass surveillance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please stand up for public safety and for fact-driven data.

What's true is over 6,000 cities and communities chose Flock because they are effective, because they help stop crime, because they work.

Less than one percent did not back out of Flock, but so you represent those cons those constituents that rep that elected you, and they are moderates.

They're not the extremists you see here that were rejected across the country and came to Berkeley because the beacon of radical extremism.

Order.

Stand up for your constituents who could not stay here to two in the morning because that's how long your meetings last time.

And they have to go to work.

So vote with the 99%, stand up for public safety.

There was a child, trafficker, rapist that tortured a girl and lit her on fire and fuck put them away.

That person was in Berkeley.

Thank you.

Hold on.

You need to be respectful and let folks speak.

This is that impacts the time that everyone has to speak, so please let them finish.

It's also disrespectful.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

So my name is Grant Thompson.

I'm a district six resident.

I raise my kids here.

I'm a lawyer here.

I am not an ideologue.

I'm not an extremist, I'm your constituents.

Uh I wanted to comment I saw an editorial that the pro-Flock council members had written, and I wanted to address a couple points that they made in that tour of ask that they think about it.

So it said as a defense to Flock, Flock does not directly give data to ICE or other federal agencies.

I'd like for you to sit with that a second and think about how you're gonna feel about defending that to a woman who has seen a loved one taken away and ducted by ICE because it was indirectly shared.

That's an admission that these paper restrictions that you're talking about aren't going to work.

We all know this data is gonna get out.

So you can cancel it now, or you can wait until you get sued.

Thank you, and people start getting into it.

Thanks so much.

That's gonna see me one minute.

Sorry, from the Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

My name is Lewis.

I live in Berkeley, and I had a lot of points I wanted to make today, but I just want to respond to some of the points that Mr.

Flock made uh in response to Councilmember Blackaby.

Um he said that if Flock receives subpoenas from the federal government, that they inform the federal government that they do not own the data, and they you know and they also immediately inform the local agency that the data is being requested for.

That ignores the fact that there are many well-established pathways for federal subpoenas that include a gag order, and that also directly ignores the fact that federal subpoenas are not for the owner of the data, they're for anybody who has access to the data.

And there's a reason that Flock maintains this massive database of all of this data.

A single subpoena from the federal government to Flock can track the license plate of someone across the entire United States, including all of California, and there can be no way of a local uh agency or jurisdiction being made aware of that.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, there were hundreds of thousands of national security letters, which are these kind of subpoenas sent by the FBI over the last decade.

97% of them included this kind of gag order, which would mean that the person being subpoenaed cannot notify anyone else.

And it's patently ridiculous to think that they are gonna be able to just say, Oh, well, Berkeley technically owns the data, even though I have access to all the data right here.

That's not what's happening.

Flock is not the company for us to be trusting with this kind of thing.

There's a reason that they're they have this massive drag net of data, and also there's a reason that Flock said they have immigration and reproductive filters.

They don't block immigration requests, they have filters because they specifically market their services to jurisdictions that are using this to crack down on abortion seekers and crack down on immigrants.

And when Berkeley gets invaded, like Minnesota did, there's gonna be nothing we can do to stop this because it's already happening now.

Hi, I'm Jocelyn DeSena, SEIU 1021 CSU worker.

We're facing a budget deficit and potential layoffs, risking multimillion dollar lawsuits resulting from flux's well-established practice of data misuse would be an irresponsible financial decision when the jobs of essential city workers are in your hands.

Exorbitant police overtime is already eating up millions of dollars, while critical safety net services are under threat.

You cannot in good conscience allow, for example, health housing and community services programs that prevent crises, create real public safety, and instill dignity to be placed on the chopping block while increasing militarized policing and racial profiling to target the already most over policed community members.

We need to balance our budget, not gamble on a bad decision that's extremely unpopular in Berkeley.

The 1021 CSU board, COP delegates and concerned members oppose the flock contract, prioritize Berkeleyans over billionaires, services over surveillance, constituents over corporate contact contracts, and workers over waste, no flock.

Thanks, Jocelyn.

I have a couple people seating time.

I have one, I have two, and I have one back there.

Okay, yeah, just so I see this person here, and then the person with the pink, and then Tosh.

Okay, got it.

Three.

All right.

I'm not quite sure who you counted, but um okay.

Uh my name is Andrea Pritch and I'm with Berkeley Cop Watch.

And I just want, and I'm also about district two resident, and I just want to assure you all that you do not care about our safety more than we do.

So we're not here saying we don't care about safety, we're here because we care desperately about our safety, and we perceive the threat differently than you do.

What I want to say also is that um let's be clear that uh the crime rate in Berkeley is going down.

It was going down before uh you employed all the ALPRs and the I'm sorry, the flock, the new flock cameras.

So that's a trend that's already happening.

And I do, I would defy anybody to come up with an independent research that says that flock cameras are associated with crime declines.

What we have is flock representatives and cops telling you that.

Where is the the reliable research?

Where's the reliable data that's independent?

We are fully aware that um we're being asked to trust Flock.

I want to, I want a comment about national lookup.

According to CBS, um the Venturas County Sheriff's Office said it had disabled Flock's national lookup feature in June 2023 to comply with California's law barrowing barring local agencies from sharing automatic license play reader data with out of state and federal law enforcement agencies.

However, earlier this month, deputies learned that several California law enforcement agencies reported that the national lookup feature had somehow been reactivated without any explanation.

My question whether it's deception, deviousness, or incompetence.

How, if this was a job interview, would you hire them?

Would you hire them?

I'm asking you also to consider that the people of Minneapolis who protested, they were told that the authorities will be investigating everybody who participated in the protests, that that, and they've got 300 flock cameras.

The CEO of Flock recently referred to organizers with a group called D Flock as domestic terrorists simply because they're doing what we're doing right now.

If our current government, we have we have this, we've given this council a clear mandate about how we want public safety to look.

We did it five years ago, and we have not lost track of that vision.

We want public safety, we want to reimagine it.

And we believe that if there's a crisis with cops and there's not enough cops, we already told you.

We need a non-police response to calls that don't require somebody with a gun on their hip.

That is a clear way forward that relieve the pressure on these guys and make us all feel a lot better.

And you go back and read the city auditor's report.

This is not new to you.

Also, the issue of liability is real.

As you well know, leaks happen.

And if Flock had leaked data, that would be a liability.

That could cost this city millions of dollars.

So you see how easy it is.

I also want to make you aware of a bill called the Surveillance Accountability Act that is currently before Congress.

And what they propose to do is to restrict warrantless government surveillance by requiring judicial warrants based on probable cause for accessing personal data, including information from data brokers.

If that legislation goes forward, then the fundamental premise of this whole totalitarian flock infrastructure gets the floor taken out from under it.

Instead of a cop casually like, where's my girlfriend?

And going in there and checking flock database, they would have to get a judicial warrant.

And that fundamentally alters what is being proposed here today.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course in the back.

Good evening, mayor, members of the city council, our beautiful community, and Mr.

Flock.

I am Sally Albert, chair of the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, speaking in my own capacity.

I'm speaking tonight in opposition to any relationship between the city of Berkeley and flock surveillance.

I think that we shouldn't do this because it's a reckless, irresponsible thing to do during Trump's reign.

When ICE has shown it is willing to use every tool in its disposal, legal or otherwise, in order to assault our immigrant community.

But even if that weren't the case, this no bid contract is a massive boondoggle for a city facing a multi-million dollar deficit.

The draft budget proposes to lay off city workers, cut services, and reduce funding for affordable housing, which, unlike flock surveillance, is actually the number one priority of Berkeley voters and every poll that we've ever done.

This is a multi-million dollar no bid contract.

And even apart from that, the minute the city approves it, you're gonna be sued.

And that's a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

And even apart from that, the minute those cameras go up, they're gonna be targeted systematically for uh, you know, for um for decoration, yeah.

And that's not a threat for me, that's not I'm not urging that, that's just a reality.

We've seen that already throughout the country and in our neighbor uh neighbor in Oakland, right?

So, how is this council gonna spend public money?

There are going to be multiple measures on the ballot this November, including potentially one from the city council proposing a unfortunately regressive sales tax where the people will be asked to tax themselves to fund city services.

Is this council really going to throw the public's money into surveillance that we do not want, then get sued for multiple millions of dollars more of the public's money, and then have those cameras all destroyed, and then tell the public will you give us some more money and raise your sales taxes?

I think that's a really stupid idea.

Thank you.

Hi, I believe I have two minutes from a friend over here and over here.

So she's three minutes total.

Hi, my name is Leah Martins.

I'm a Berkeley resident of district three, I'm a local pastor, I'm also an organizer with East Space Singing Resistance, and I'm here to call you in through song again.

Um last time we had comment on this, you may remember I sang to you an invitation to change your mind if you were supporting the flock comment contract.

Today I'm gonna sing for you a new song and invite any others here who want to sing to join me.

Um this is an invitation to affirm that how we spend our money matters, and budgets have moral implications, and we as a community are calling you to spend our money in ways that honor our community's values, which are being named here very clearly tonight.

So you've gotta put your money where your heart is.

Fund the world you long to see.

It's time we put our money where our heart is toward every human, toward every human, living healthy, living free.

Let's try that together.

You gotta put your money where your heart fund the world you want to see, fund the world you long to see.

It's time we put it's time we put our money where our heart is, toward every human, living healthy, living.

Let's do that versus one more time.

Gotta put your money where your heart is.

Fund the world, fund the world we want to see.

It's time we put our money where our heart is, toward every human, living healthy, living free.

Amazing.

So we're gonna do it a little bit more.

But now we're gonna say it isn't flock that keeps us safe.

It's you and me, right?

Yeah, so that goes like this.

So you can put your money where your heart.

It isn't flock, it isn't flock that keeps us safe.

It's you and me.

It's time we put our money where our heart toward all our neighbors, all our neighbors living healthy, living free.

Well, it's time to put your money where our heart.

It is a flock, it isn't flock that keeps us safe as you.

It's time we put our money where our heart is.

All our neighbors, all our neighbors living healthy, live and free.

All of Berkeley, all of Berkeley, living healthy, every human, every human living healthy, all our families, all our families live and healthy, live and free.

All our neighbors, all our neighbors living healthy, live and free.

One more time, every human, every human, living healthy, living free.

Thank you, friends.

Okay, George, call it up.

Wait and see.

Um, I got a minute from crochet.

Okay.

Um, thank you.

Catherine.

Okay.

So, George Lippmann, I'm a member of the George talking to the mic.

Member of the Peace and Justice Commission, and I'm speaking with the uh um at the request of the uh chair, Pastor Dwayne Phillips, who sends his regrets.

Uh, in this complex issue, um, there are some things that are very clear.

We now know that the city's own attorney raised strong concerns about the liability of 30 to 60 million dollars if we go forward with this proposal, council.

You're responsible for the fiscal health of the city.

To go forward with this contract expansion would be a gross failure of your fiduciary duty.

We love Berkeley, and we want to help keep it safe, physically as well as financially.

Please take seriously your responsibility as well.

Then send this troubling contract back to the drawing board.

In a larger frame, this is a time when the hard one reimagining public safety initiative, essentially finding positive solutions to social problems, is on really hard times.

The specialized care unit is no more burk dot never got off the ground.

I want to share uh at this moment a few of the findings and functions that are contained in the peace and justice commission's mandate, the findings.

Here lettered our best protection lies in initiating, devising, and promulgating peaceful and just policy alternatives, finding J.

It is the responsibility of one and all to labor hard for peace and justice within forums of appropriate scale, and two of the functions.

Function C help develop proposals for the city council and the school board for actions in furtherance of the goals of peace and justice and help publicize such actions in the community.

Function F.

Develop ways to resolve conflict which do not involve violence and which may be applied on a local level as well as a national level.

This is now the 40th anniversary of the Peace and Justice Commission.

Please reach out to the peace and Peace and justice commission for help, creating positive solutions.

Strengthen the police accountability board and stop undermining it.

Reach out to the Human welfare and community action commission.

We are here to help.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I have three minutes.

Um, one, two, sorry, three.

Oh, just three total.

Got it.

Three total.

Thank you.

Um, good evening, city council.

My name is Moni Gongo Bathai.

I'm a resident in District One.

I'm also a uh candidate for a city council in the same district.

Before me are the representatives of one of the most knowledgeable educated cities, not just in the country in the state or the country, but the world.

So it is surprising to me that a contract with Flock would be considered, um, proposed rather, and then be considered for a vote, given all that we know about Flock.

The data is before us, right?

All the data that we need.

We've heard it from people who came before before me and at the other meeting.

I also want to address two things that I didn't hear addressed.

Um, we know from the city attorney that Flock reactivated the national lookup feature after Ventura County, right here in California deactivated it to comply with state law.

Flock did this without notice or explanation.

So I wonder how we can trust Flock around this feature when asked about it earlier today.

Um the other thing we know is that cities and towns who've asked to deactivate Flock cameras, were those cameras were not deactivated, and they had to cover those cameras up.

I didn't hear, forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't hear anything anything to address that.

So I'm just wondering how we could go forward with an actor like Flock with all these breaches of contracts with all these civil rights violations and human uh constitutional rights violations that we're seeing across the country, I'm also seeing a lot of people working extremely hard to represent themselves before you, and that's very painful to see because we elected you to represent us.

And I'm not seeing that right now.

I better move because I only have 30 seconds.

Umce I could not find a single reason, a single good reason to contract with Flock, I came up with another list of reasons to contract with Flock.

I'd like to share them with you.

Can I have another minute from someone?

I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

Um I'd like to share my list with you.

If we want to fall behind cities, big and small, we should contract with Flock.

If we want to bring the shame of choosing corporate rhetoric over community safety to our city, into our city, we should contract with Flock.

If we want to be on the wrong side of history in 2026, at a time we are living under a fascist national regime, we should contract with Flock.

If we want to support the goals of that fascist national regime and its unraveling of our civil rights, we should contract with Flock.

If we want to dishonor and undermine the struggle for free speech and the struggle to establish Berkeley as a sanctuary city, we should contract with Flock.

If you, City Council want to turn your backs on the proud immigrants, people of color, queer, elders, youth, and disabled residents and residents at large, you should contract with Flock.

Thanks.

Thanks for your time.

You have the hour to save us all of our shiny leaders be on the right side of the screen.

Your time is up, thank you.

Okay, so we're gonna take.

Are you gonna get extra time?

Okay, can I think we need to take a break?

So I don't want to interrupt your time.

So let's just take, yeah, we're gonna take uh we are just about at almost one hour of two minutes shy.

So we're gonna take a 10-minute break that does not count for the public speaking time.

Thank you.

Okay, it's gonna surprise me.

Oh wait, sorry, folks.

Sorry, one more thing.

If you're standing in line and you're trying to keep your line, um I we've got cards, and we're gonna give you numbers so that you can remember which order you're in.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, are we starting back up?

We are starting back up, folks.

Please, please come back.

Uh we lost Nathan.

I think Nathan is was first in line.

Yeah, it looked like it was Nathan Myzel, then um Moni Law.

Cape Crusader.

Oh, yeah.

We are young people who are on the elderly call.

It's a little bit more.

Okay, Nathan.

Come on up.

Shhh.

Okay, everyone be quiet.

It's Nathan's turn to speak.

Nathan, how many minutes do you have?

Uh I think I got three.

One there.

No, he already yielded.

One here.

Two.

Wait, wait.

Sorry, wait, uh the third one.

Here.

Oh, Ida.

Okay, thank you.

Who's the third?

Um, sorry.

He raised his hand for somebody else.

No, I got Ida, I got no, no, you you didn't raise your hand for someone else.

I haven't seen you yet.

So yeah, you're good.

Sitting over there before.

And Miss Betty.

He was sitting over there before.

I know, but I'm I'm writing down who someone else switched.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So that's four minutes total.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Alrighty.

Um, Madam Mayor and City Council.

Uh, my name is Nathan Meisell.

Um, I am a REM port commissioner speaking as an individual.

I am the former vice chair of the police accountability boards.

I was the chair of the remastering public safety task force, and I served on the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group.

Um the facts are not much different, folks, than they were when I spoke to you about two months ago.

Um all of y'all know the facts.

They've been told to you by the many public speakers here.

They've been told to you in the many memos you've written, they've been told to you in the news reports, they've been told to you by your own city attorney.

Well, I want to mention here I was quite critical last meeting of the city attorney's office.

My bad.

You you're you've nailed the analysis on this one completely.

Some of these paragraphs, I would have written myself.

Everyone with the qualities to understand the information.

Whether they're professionals, attorneys, activists, regular people in the public, folks who don't usually come to these meetings, we're here because this is important to them.

Everyone understands there is no pace, no place for flock in our city.

And I know at least four of you up there understand that too.

I'm hoping for five.

And you know, I saw the op-ed, four of y'all put out.

That's y'all's opinions.

I don't think it's very well written, you know.

You know, I'm sorry, I gotta be honest.

Um, but I'm I'm hoping that for the one council member who we don't quite know yet what they might do, that there's some room for convincing.

Because nothing's gonna change these facts, folks.

Um, I've heard so much conversation, of course, around the numbers and this prevents crime, and the chief tells you prevents crime, and the guy paid by a flock to tell you prevents crime is here as well.

If you take the numbers from the op-ed, I think it was 52 confirmed reports, and again, every crime in the city, source obviously serious crimes is serious, right?

I've worked on these issues, I've been in courtrooms with folks who've been victims of crime.

I take that seriously as well.

If you take all of that at face value, no analysis of the data, it accounts for 0.52% of reported crime last year.

That is the difference we are talking about with Flock.

This is not some miracle technology, it's not making the 20% reduction in crime, 10% reduction, not even a 5% reduction.

It's making zero reduction, is it's not what it does.

The technology finds things after the facts.52% improvement in clearance rate.52%.

A decimal percent improvement is what we're willing to sell out our values for in this city.

I am not resigned to a future where fascist surveillance is the norm.

I am not resigned to a future where our trans and immigrant neighbors are surveilled by a technologies company and their investors who support the orange man upstairs, or maybe downstairs.

I am not resigned to a future where a city that once dedicated itself to reimagining public safety.

I was there, trust me.

Now decides that the only public safety we can be afforded is a mass surveillance network in the hands of a police chief who constantly violates city law.

Seriously, I am not resigned to a future where the voices of your constituents are profoundly ignored and are taken for granted, and our safety is devalued for a technology company that doesn't give a damn about this city beyond signing a check.

Thank you.

Moni.

Y'all can make the shape.

You can make the right decision.

Moni, it's your turn.

Come on with it, Molly.

Thank you, Mama Ayanna.

Mayor, council, staff, and community.

I speak in my personal capacity as a resident of Berkeley, a proud graduate of UC Berkeley, go bears, proud mom of Matthew Law.

Oh, wait, I have stopped the clock.

I forgot to get my extra minutes.

Oh, I had some people offering.

Could you please raise your hands with all those who offered one?

Wait, wait, who's the second person?

Um, definitely that's one.

The police uh oh, I'm sorry, I can't see you, Grace.

I couldn't see you around the Grayson.

Stephanie, okay, I guess I just have two, and that's a total.

Oh, I have another.

What's your name, dear?

Sorry, could you stand if I can so I can see?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

I don't know your name.

Thank you.

So that's a total of four minutes, you're I was gonna say your honor.

I'm an attorney in practice, so 25 years, sometimes automatically.

You've used 20 seconds so far, so you've got three minutes, 40 seconds left.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I have a plea to each of you on the dais to follow the wise words of Maya Angelou.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

I also speak as a proud employee of the city of Berkeley, a member of SEIU 1021, who is one of many employees who received a letter a couple of weeks ago saying I'm on the chopping block after 15 years with the city, which I love working for.

So I may be retired um earlier than expected, but I have bumping rights, but I don't want to eliminate a newer employee and have them lose their job so I can keep mine.

I ask you, is this worth it to pay for this and to lose good city employees to lose the wellness?

Uh, the heating warming center that's on the chopping block?

Other things are on the chopping block that are essential cares and needs of the city.

I ask you, and I ask you to think of this.

Finances, flock's cost is too much in litigation.

Prior trial lawyer of 25 years continue to go practice at Washington State.

Other cities, 50 other cities have contracted and ended their contracts for reasons of irregularity and illegality and exposure to federal offices of police that should not have had our information, but they did.

Why would we subject ourselves with financial losses under litigation as well, as well as not being safe?

What's the safety?

I helped start the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition with a number of community members here.

The definition of safety is that we feel no harm.

We feel no loss, we feel community connection, we feel no danger, we feel no injury.

There are many people who have been harmed by flock, and we should not be among them.

Finally, we have Berkeley values that I plead to you to sustain.

In Berkeley, I was proud to be part of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and Nelson Mandela thanked the people of Berkeley for our work.

He would not be happy with you going with Flock.

Also, our city, Mayor Gus Napport, bless him, had a loss, a lack of tear gas police dogs and helicopters.

They did not bring us safety, but community did because he hired people that were black community members, community members for other groups that were all part of the force of safety.

Again, not for harm or danger, injury or loss, but for safety.

Finally, there are words I'd like to share my last minute.

I lost my sister six weeks ago to cancer, and um, she was a lawyer as well, and my parents taught me to stand up for justice.

They taught me the words of Micah and the Bible 6-8.

To walk humbly, to act justly, and to love mercy.

That's the city of Berkeley that I am proud of and hope that you will sustain by your proper vote tonight.

No on flock, please, dear God, please.

Thanks, Moni.

I'm getting another minute.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

I have 34 seconds.

Oh, I don't.

Oh, error on the clock.

She saw 34 seconds.

I think you can give your own.

You were finished, right, Moni?

I guess I'm finished.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Okay, next person, please.

Thank you.

My name is Sochi Sanchez, and I'm a statewide organizing manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center here in solidarity with the people of Berkeley.

I come from Los Angeles County, where for more than 11 months, the federal government has unconstitutionally and illegally raided work sites, school graduations, day labor centers, churches, and community gatherings to target street vendors from LA, Long Beach, Ontario, and the twin cities of Minnesota.

ICE not only separates families, they shoot to kill, and have executed U.S.

citizens with impunity.

Do not use flock to expand surveillance.

As we have seen with the sharing of IRS information to target item holders, and now the data sharing by the California DMV, the federal government will abuse this information and use it to terrorize you.

You directly, your neighbors, observers, protesters, people of color, and the working poor.

Okay.

Shh.

Folks, I know there's a lot of talking going on, please.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Micah.

I live in District 6, and I am a public school therapist and social worker.

And when I go to work and I meet with kids and families, it's obvious who I serve.

When flock exploits Filipino workers and meets with billionaire and MAGA stakeholders, it's obvious who they serve.

Y'all are elected public servants, so it should be obvious who y'all serve.

But it's not.

So once again, you have a room full of constituents, beautiful constituents, pleading for y'all to listen to our flock disapproval.

I can't believe I have to bite my nails wondering if our sanctuary city of Berkeley is going to listen to us or to listen to MAGA fascist funders.

Who consider us extremists and terrorists, too?

Right now, the deal does not make sense financially, morally.

Thanks so much.

Please let us rest.

Thank you.

Michael Lyon.

We're talking about somebody's lives, somebody's kids being being sent out of the country.

And for Mr.

Flock here, this is just a cost of doing business.

Every time every person who is who's kidnapped is uh maybe $200, $200,000 out of their profits.

It's nothing.

It's a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, really, boo.

So, you know, someday we're gonna be able to overthrow capital.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I have uh one person giving their time.

Can I get one more person to give me their time?

If anybody hasn't.

Someone in the back is giving you time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Three minutes.

Council members.

My name is Derek Rodriguez.

I'm a Berkeley rent board candidate, and I'm here speaking separately on behalf of the Cal Berkeley Democrats.

I would first like to recognize the community gathered here today.

And remotely, a community upon which the discussions made today will either strengthen or fracture the ever precarious public trust in our institutions.

By that, I mean the rapid expansion of a surveillance state, being weaponized in ways that threaten the very civil rights generations have fought to protect.

When Benjamin Franklin spoke of liberty over security, could he have imagined that our law-abiding residents would be the primary targets of the Patriot Act?

An act that has been in place longer than many of us in this room, we're alive for.

An organization willing to see our people removed from a society we have poured our blood, sweat, and tears into, all in the name of security and profit.

Where now do the winds blow, council members?

By advocating for flock, you have shown your distrust for the residents and the faces you see here today.

You are forcing our immigrant community into hiding, but the greatest humiliation of all is the fact that you have forsaken morality for security.

In the eyes of everyone present here today, I call on you to rescind your support of flock.

If not for the people standing here today, then do it for the future generations that may never get to enjoy the freedom many of us take for granted here today.

The question before you is not what keeps us safe today, but what kind of society we leave behind tomorrow.

Because I didn't serve my country as an emancipated 17-year-old for surveillance, I did it for them.

The residents of Berkeley here today stand for our immigrants.

We stand for our vulnerable, and we stand proud because we stand strongest together.

We will be remembered here today for refusing to yield to fear, for refusing to divide our community, and refusing to sacrifice our freedom.

The question is whether you will have the backbone to do the same.

My name's Clara.

I'm a student and a resident of District 7, and I urge you all to terminate Berkeley's contract with Flock.

We've heard a lot tonight about how Flock doesn't have any direct contracts with ICE or CBP, as if that's supposed to reassure us.

As if the fact that you're leading the industry is supposed to impress us.

Even without direct contracts to ICE or CBP, these agencies still have been able to obtain Flock camera footage through backdoor methods.

Even if we are to believe the promises that the Flock representative has made tonight, which I do not, and I don't think any of us here do.

How can Flock ensure that their data is not accessed by federal agencies without their knowledge or their permission?

We've heard a lot about how Flock does not utilize facial recognition technology, as if that is supposed to reassure us.

Even if we believe that this technology can only track people based on their clothing, which I do not, and I don't think any of us do.

How are we to be certain that facial recognition technology will not be implemented in the future?

That we won't all be back here in a few months or a few years fighting extensions to the contract.

The only option is to terminate the contract completely.

Thanks so much.

Hi there, I think I have one more minute from the crowd.

Thank you.

Uh I've also technically I've heard some technical difficulties are happening on Zoom.

Uh so I don't know if someone can take a look at that.

People are getting kicked out and having trouble rejoining.

So I guess I'll go ahead and start.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Uh good evening, council.

My name is Jason Martins.

Uh, and at 3 30 today, I had to take my daughter to the ER, but uh thankfully they're fine, but I'm here anyway, because that's how important this issue is.

Um I've been canvassing for months now in Berkeley.

I think I've easily talked to 400 Berkeley citizens about this issue.

Uh, and what is clear for my experience, and I think corroborated in this room is that this issue is massively unpopular.

Uh many people I talk to first express surprise that we are doing this in Berkeley.

Uh, then they are express shock that a majority of the council is supporting it.

To my fellow residents, I hope we are all learning that our city is not the liberal bastion that I think maybe we all dreamed it was.

Uh, to the council, I would like to know why you are supporting a proposal with overwhelming opposition.

What's in it for you?

Um, I would like to I'll also like to know what motivates you to go against what is clearly the desire of your constituents.

So I'm here for a third time uh to ask you to vote no.

And if you vote yes, I want you to know that we will be hounding you until the contract is canceled.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello.

I have two extra minutes.

Sorry, I saw one here.

Where was the.

Oh.

I can't.

Okay.

Oh, thank you.

Okay, great.

My name is Joseph Allman.

I live here in Berkeley, and I'm an animal cruelty investigator with the animal rights network, nonviolent called Direct Action Everywhere.

I'm here tonight because I'm one of the people Flock has already been used against.

Twice by law enforcement.

And this is in direct connection with my activism.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, released records documented two separate instances of law enforcement querying the Flock Network to surveil me, both tied to my work exposing animal cruelty, not for a violent crime.

Not for a public safety threat for activism.

I currently face two years.

I'm correction, two felony charges and six and a half years in prison for rescuing sick, emaciated baby goats from a mine burg supplier, a supplier to Whole Foods, and they use the quote certified humane label.

The goats that I'm charged with felonies for rescuing were dying.

Necropsy's confirmed coccydiosis, severe respiratory infection, and starvation at this facility here in California.

Other goats from that same facility were being dumped by the dozens in a mass grave.

This is what investigators like me try to expose, and that is the kind of work that Flock is being used to track.

The EFF's investigation this past year documented that my own organization, direct action everywhere, has been targeted across Flock Network, including nine queries by the Delaware State Police in a single month last year.

I was charged in Delaware in connection with that last year, and I was expunged from those charges in Delaware last year.

The same investigation by the EFF found agencies running flock searches tied to No King's protests to abortion seekers and using racial slurs against Romani people.

This is the system Berkeley is being asked to renew.

This op-ed, the op-ed from four council members says Flock is just another piece of an existing surveillance landscape.

So refusing it changes little.

With respect, that is the same exact argument that's been used for the past 20 years for surveillance systems.

You're being asked tonight to renew a contract that has already been used to surveil a Berkeley resident for exposing corporate cruelty.

I am that resident.

I'm asking you directly, reject Flock.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Come on up, Mama Ayanna.

Anyone have a minute they can give me.

Are you taking both?

Yeah.

Okay, one hand up if I don't use it.

And then this person in the back.

Okay, thank you.

Greetings, council.

My name is Ayana Davis.

I am currently the vice president of the newly formed nonprofit Equity for Black Berkeley, former Deputy Executive Director for Healthy Black Families, while at Healthy Black Families with the Mayor Edigane's Chief of Staff, Jack McCormick, and Chris Shield, we formed and created the Black Equity for Black Berkeley Initiative.

And as part of that initiative over two years, we did 12 people's assemblies all over the city.

We had 16 weeks of advocacy training.

We did three community stakeholders convening.

We had three focus groups.

And over the 10 years, I worked with healthy black families.

I came in contact with thousands of Berkeley residents.

I am a mother who lost their son to violence.

They knew who killed my son.

Even when they closed his cold case, they told me they knew.

Alex Goodwin, my co-worker, Kamika Patterson Smith, her son was killed.

The whole community knew who killed her son.

None of the murders of our sons have been prosecuted.

All right, y'all, you know, but my point being, in the course of my experience, and in the course of our people's assembly and the data that we have that we shared with the city, at no point was mass surveillance a priority for the people.

At no point do we believe mass surveillance has lowered crime in Berkeley.

It is our work that has lowered crime.

It is our coming together with our neighbors and our community that has lowered crime.

It is education, it is outreach, it is shared love and understanding that does it.

It is the work of the people that creates community and a place where our children can live and grow and thrive.

Now I've lived in the same house on the same street for the past 45 years.

My family has been here since the late 1880s, built historical homes that are still standing.

And it is poverty.

It is the redlining.

It is the displacement.

It is the unhoused community.

If we're spending money on anything, it should be for affordable, not just affordable housing.

People can live afford to live in.

Pay attention to the people.

We don't have much time for our voice.

Listen, please, respectfully.

So I say this to you.

We're coming together and creating a workforce development coalition and a collaborative as we build the Adline Corridor.

We know you plan on turning turning San Pablo Avenue into what is it?

What did I hear?

Little Manhattan.

Who's gonna do that work?

We have to get people trained and ready.

You need to be a council with vision and create a community that has that has employment for the people, good jobs.

Invest in that, invest in workforce development.

Invest into the black arts and cultural district into a hub for our youth so they can sell their thanks, Mama.

I love y'all.

Thank you.

Raise your hands against flop.

Mama, thank you.

Oh, wait, sorry.

Uh, okay, you have a minute for him.

Okay, so two minutes.

Three minutes.

Oh, wait, hold on.

I can't see that person who's sitting there.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, go.

I think that's four, right?

Yeah, you have four total.

I would expect better from the city that has these flags behind them.

I would expect better from a city that is this diverse, that is this, noted for their civil rights work.

Flock is a known collaborator with the Trump administration.

They are a known collaborator with DHS.

In fact, DHS has a law in place that bars flock from actually having them show up in any sort of audit.

People have mentioned it before.

And uh, can you remind me what was that county or what was that city that actively violates that rule?

A couple.

I can't even figure out which because it's that notable.

None of these counties, none of these cities are paying attention.

They're gonna go fly flagrantly in the face of federal law, and the same thing is gonna happen with that guy's boss, that man's boss does not care about you.

That man's boss does not care that two people were murdered in Minneapolis, that a teacher was stalked and shot five times seven holes, like the cops said.

We do not need this needless violence brought into the Bay Area.

I'm from San Jose.

We failed to stop our flaw contract because Mayor Matt at Mahan is bought and paid for by them.

Don't make the same mistake as that man.

You have the chance right now to make a better world for your community to be an example to the rest of the world.

Berkeley has always been an example from a civil rights perspective, in my opinion.

Hey, put down your phone, buddy.

I'm not done talking.

This is the moment where you decide whether or not you are complicit in the hunt of vulnerable people.

This is the moment where you decide whether or not you wish to allow trans folks to be hunted, whether you allow day laborers to be stalked, whether you allow mothers to be killed.

I hoped and pray to God that you make the right decision here today, because your decision has an impact on the rest of the Bay Area.

Your decision is not in a bubble here.

All of these individuals have been pleading you and begging you to make the right decision.

The clear decision, which is don't even bother with a contract with Flock.

Send that man packing with nothing.

Because he deserves nothing from you.

He deserves nothing from Berkeley.

Because they will take and take and take until nothing is left.

You will not see a dime of that money if something goes wrong, because they will fight it in litigation.

You will not see a dime of sympathy from the federal government when it happens.

And it will happen.

Do not be a coward and a traitor to your people who are looking to you to be their voice.

You have the chance to make the right choice here.

And in case it wasn't clear, you keep that.

It's the right fucking choice.

Hi again.

I'm David Allen, a Berkeley resident.

This massive surveillance expansion is far past the point where quantitative becomes qualitative.

The hardware may already be used in Berkeley, but it builds a network that has the ability to track a person from their work to their appointments to their family and their home.

That's facilitated by their patent pending individual recognition, their attempt to digitally fingerprint each of us without using the words facial recognition.

There are many factors that the individual recognition machine learning uses that Chandler left out.

It uses race, it uses body characteristics, it uses walking gate.

I have that patent in my hand.

It is software, not hardware.

And tonight, the Berkeley PD said that they would use that capability if it was available.

Flock pushes every boundary.

It took 404 media doing an expose for Flock to back off.

Thank you.

I can't see her.

I had uh an additional minute from Skip, is supposed to be in the room.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Flock saying that they will not data share with ICE or Border Patrol as a red herring, because under this current federal administration, everything is upside down.

No federal agency at this point can be trusted to not engage in an abuse of power.

Office of civil rights, created to protect civil rights of persons, are now entrusted with actually investigating transgender treatment and immigration.

That's what they're doing at the Office of Civil Rights.

Employees are being placed on leave if they have advancing claims that they already had open, including for women that are in the country under the Violence Against Women's Act because they're immigrants.

It may sound overwhelming to us in the room, but it's nothing to a billionaire investor.

It's a drop in the bucket.

Follow the investors, you follow the general interests.

So you heard recently a report from the city auditor on non-competing uh competitive contracts.

And there seemed to be a commitment that going forward, all contracts were going to be competitive.

So what's the difference here?

Why is there no non-competitive content?

Why is there not competition here?

Why is everything directed towards Flock at their word?

And it's the same as declaring that we're a sanctuary city and then engaging with Flock, who has violated the rights.

And we can't be both.

It's inconsistent.

Thank you.

Thanks, Carol.

Hi, I just had something I wanted to point out, which is that earlier this meeting I heard Jen Lewis refer to a term we weren't sure about when referencing the flock database.

And I assume that Jen Lewis is referring to the time when Berkeley's flock data was searched with the terms ICE and CBP because that did happen.

If this is what she's talking about, I think that that's an appalling way to downplay the severity of those search terms.

VPD can say that they prevented this kind of search from happening again by turning off the statewide lookup feature on the database so that other agencies can't access the data.

But last meeting, Jen Lewis said herself that SFPD and OPD and other counties and police departments would also have access to this data.

Any police officer from any of those counties could access and share Berkeley data.

You can say that you own the data, but who have not addressed that the other police departments have access to it and you don't control them.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

No on Block rejects the contract.

Um I want to speak to a spineless and absurd op-ed that we saw come out this week that was full of disingenuous arguments and outright lies.

There are some lines you should still be afraid to cross, and this is one.

Being a foot soldier of fascism is one.

And if you don't care about us, which we are seeing from this op-ed is your case, you should care about the litigation that is coming your way because it is coming and it is going to be brutal.

When legislators fail us, it is up to litigation to represent us.

And that fact is so sad, and it is absurd and appalling that you could even think of bringing us to that case.

Reject the contract, no one flock.

Listen to everybody here tonight, listen to them.

Listen to them.

Thank you.

Come on up.

My name is Sophia.

I'm a resident of District 3.

The job of any place that calls itself a sanctuary city is to gum up the gears of fascism and authoritarianism however we can.

Why in the world would you choose instead to serve up weapons on a silver platter that will be used and have already been used against not only the most vulnerable and over policed among us, but also against anyone who dares speak out against the government?

The only way Berkeley can prevent sharing data with ICE or with the feds is to not generate and not hold that data in the first place.

And certainly not to store it with Flock.

Stand with your people, reject Flock, and don't do the fascists' job for them.

Thank you.

Two minutes.

Oh, sorry, hold on.

I need two people to raise their hand.

Okay, one.

And then uh this person in the back corner, can you stand so I can just oh, thank you.

Great.

Go.

It looks as if the headlines tomorrow may sadly read Berkeley City Council threw away two million dollars in spite of a $30 million budget deficit.

Crime is down.

The police chief understandably wants the latest bells and whistles, but the Berkeley City Council is supposed to be the adult in the room.

Other methods of fighting crime are better proven, less expensive.

Keep the money in our community and help locals.

The police again don't need every new bell and whistle.

These cameras put the city at risk of liability, up to 60 million dollars, according to the city attorney.

Federal legislation could force us to take the cameras down because of the deficit, we might lose a fire station.

Crisis mental health services might be on the block.

Your constituents want fire stations, not cameras.

We don't need to throw away two million dollars and risk multimillion dollar lawsuits for new bells and whistles when crime is down.

Don't waste our money.

As the former chair of the Berkeley Police Accountability Board stated, um, council members O'Keefe, Humbert, Kazerwani, and Taplin in their published op-ed piece seem to have knowingly misrepresented some things.

They didn't mention that the police accountability board strongly advised against this contract.

They didn't mention that the liability risk that they're aware of.

Um they do acknowledge that Flock has altered data sharing without permission, but imply that there's something we can do to manage that risk, which isn't the case.

They make false comparisons with our tracking devices on our phones, which we can control.

They imply that crimes were solved, which um would not have been solved without Flock, even though there's no way to prove that and it conflicts with University of California law center analysis.

They don't mention that crime is markedly down already, they don't mention the budget deficit that this purchase would exacerbate.

Brent Blackaby in his recent email to constituents make similar misrepresentations and omissions.

Public officials who mislead their constituents should consider whether this position of trust is really the right place.

That should be enough to vote no.

The police accountability board advises in general against a flock contract, that should be enough to vote no.

The city attorney tells us that the contract puts us at risk of a $60 million lawsuit liability.

That should be enough to vote no.

The city council members who plan to vote yes admit this company has already shared data without permission.

That should be enough to vote no.

The majority of citizens who have given feedback do not want this contract.

That should be enough to vote no.

There is a budget deficit, and other things are more important.

That should be enough to vote.

Thank you so much.

These are not licensed plate readers.

One of them, sure.

That's a licensed plate reader.

A network of them that surrounds us and tracks our every movement, puts it in a database, can be queried.

That's a pattern of life logger detector.

It's just wrong.

And then, okay.

If it's just the city of Berkeley doing this just for, you know, solving 50 more crimes in a year, okay.

I'm still pissed off about it, but it's way worse than that.

I want you to ask Mr.

Flock over there again, pointedly.

If the federal government asks for Berkeley citizens' data with a gag order, will you give it to them?

Will we know?

Because the answer is yes, they will give it to them.

No, we will never know.

That means we are just serving ourselves up on a silver platter to fascism.

Don't do this.

History will not look kindly on this moment.

Anyone who votes yes will be shamed.

Please do not vote yes.

Thank you.

Hello, uh, my name is Jacob.

I'm on the disaster and fire safety commission, but I'm just here as an individual today.

Um, in a decision, in addition to what everyone else said, which I a hundred percent agree with.

One of the things that I wanted to talk about is the risk of data leaking to a third party.

Um, I think all of us have credit card numbers or phone numbers that are kind of out there on the internet, and we can never take them back.

Um, but imagine if that's where you're most likely to be at 5 30 on any given day, or where your kids go to school.

Once this information is made, it can't be unmade.

And there's no amount of monetary uh compensation that can take that back.

Um, and so this is something that we, once we take this step, it's crossing a Rubicon.

Uh, we can't take it back.

Uh, and we will always be at risk, no matter what safeguards we uh impart, no matter what we do, we will always be at risk of this type of incredibly sensitive data.

My data where I physically am at any given point being open to the highest bidder.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm a South Berkeley uh district three resident and community organizer.

Um, the only thing that makes me feel safe in the city is my neighbors, um, other organizers who are working for affordable housing, who are working for better education, who are working for safer uh transit for everybody, food security, these people in this room who I've seen show up over and over to implore you guys to not contract with Flock for all of the many, many, many reasons listed.

Um, I've also been a victim of a violent crime in the East Bay, and I have never once felt like surveillance technology would keep me safe.

What's kept me safe are the other people in my community on the streets looking out for each other.

Police don't keep us safe, and surveillance certainly doesn't keep us safe.

So thank you to everyone else speaking out because we keep each other safe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, can I I can't quite see who that person is?

Oh, thank you.

Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Alison.

I live in District 4.

And I wanted to highlight one of the ways that flock data and technology has already been misused, is currently being misused, and that's in the um the use of police, some of which are in our San Francisco police department, um, using license plates, flock license plate readers to stalk and surveil romantic partners, their romantic partners.

And if you know anything, if anyone knows anything about power and control, surveillance on an interpersonal level, on a systemic level, surveillance is a classic tactic of power and control, and power control is what constitutes abuse, and so on both an interpersonal and structural level, expanding state and police department overreach to surveil us, is enabling abuse on a systemic level.

I have worked in the domestic violence field.

I have lived in, I've I've experienced domestic violence, my family's experienced domestic violence.

Surveillance by way of cameras and tracking has always been a factor of controlling people and not causing safety.

I do not feel safe at the thought of police departments documented 48% of officers are documented to have domestic violence crimes, and that's what's documented so that's a definite underrepresentation.

I don't feel safe putting more tools in their hands.

That's not my vision of safety.

Meanwhile, domestic violence and IPV services in the Bay Area specifically are so drastically underfunded, are currently at risk of being stripped away further.

And so please, I urge you to stop doing the work of the abuser.

The state as the abuser, and actually invest in services that keep people safe and don't traumatize survivors further.

The idea of being surveilled is traumatic for survivors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm in D3.

Mr.

Flock could tell you that.

His cameras are outside my house.

Um there's a false equivalence being asserted that surveillance is safety, which is being strategically deployed, tied the fact that the opposite is true.

Surveillance is not public safety.

There is no actual demonstrated need for any of this technology.

And even if there was, the Berkeley Criminal Law and Justice Center's independent policy review showed this technology doesn't actually help solve crimes or even work.

It does create steep data privacy risk for the city.

People will die in ICE custody as a result of getting flocked or getting shot in the street by fascist federal agents with the help of this technology.

And it doesn't matter what vendor you use for your mass surveillance dragnet.

Once that data is collected, no matter what encryption you use, no matter who owns the data, not you.

It exists and can be acquired with a warrant.

The only truly safe choice is not collecting it.

This is not a safety company.

It's a data broker who goes who answers to the highest bidder, and you're selling us out and making us pay for it.

Thank you.

Can I get a minute or two?

Anybody?

Okay.

I'm from El City.

You're gonna take those two.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll take a couple minutes.

So I'm here.

I was just speaking in El Cerido a couple nights ago where we were very successful vanquishing the situation from our city.

And I was one of the core organizers there.

I spent a lot of time, a lot of people spent quite a long time organizing that.

And now several of the members of that organizing group are considering running for city council because of, well, frankly, how they were treated by Mayor Gabe Quinto, who's up for re-election in quite a short time, I believe in August.

A running uncontested as well, I might add.

So, you know, I there's a lot of people in this room tonight who are very motivated, and there's a lot of people up here on the city council who might be coming up for election.

And so I would encourage everybody here, if you're serious about this, you can just get the votes next time it comes up, and everybody on this council maybe could consider that.

Um, furthermore, okay, I also want to cover a little bit of technical stuff.

Um, so I run a small consulting company specializing in cloud infrastructure, networking, um, and security.

I work for a lot of AI startups in San Francisco.

Um, one of my primary objectives with these companies is to help them comply with regulations around data and how it's managed.

Um, so network segmentation, concepts like data sovereignty.

This is basically the notion of where the data lives, who owns it, what region of the world it's stored in, who has access to it, under what legal frameworks can it be shared, etc.

Um, the situation with Flock is that the data is being stored in a central location.

It's not being co-located within your city, it's being stored.

I don't know, maybe you can explain what region it's being stored in, what cloud provider it's being stored in, AWS perhaps.

Um, concerns, I mean, I don't know if anybody knows the answer to this, but that really strongly affects the access control of the data.

Um, and you know, the thing is no matter what they tell you about the policies and how Flock manages the data, they're still subject to federal law.

Federal law supersedes any local law or any company policy or any contract stipulation.

Um, and there's a few laws on the books.

The Cloud Act of 2019, FISA, which is from 1978, and the FBI has the ability to send national security letters.

Now, if the FBI sends a national security letter, oftentimes it's attached with a gag order.

And this gag order would legally prevent Flock from informing any of their clients that the data was requisitioned by the government.

This means that even the lawyers at Flock would not be informed.

Um there are reported cases of this.

Um, and so if you have time to ask him a question, get them up here on the mic and tell you if the federal government asks for the data, will they be legally allowed to inform you that that occurred?

Can I get one more minute?

Anybody?

Can I get one more minute?

We're actually I want to make sure we have everyone speak, so I mean you're welcome to get another minute, but there are still folks who haven't spoken yet.

I but I have one more very important thing to say.

Can I all right?

Alright.

We got one more.

Um there's a little bit more in terms of uh audit logs.

So, one of the only tools available for a city or an independent set of researchers to use to determine uh you know what Flock is doing with the data is through an audit log.

And Flock provides audit logs on our website to every municipality, however, there has been recent reporting as recently as April from a website called Footnote 4A, where they're basically analyzing the logs that are publicly available and finding that between three and seven percent of the logs are changing.

Now we're talking about audit logs.

This should be an immutable piece of data.

And when this data is queried and then queried again a week later, they're finding unique IDs to have changed timestamps to have changed strong circumstantial evidence that the books are being cooked on the flock side.

Um I mean, the question is like if they're providing audit logs, can they cryptographically sign the logs?

And can the third party?

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody.

Um I have two minutes.

I have Ziggy and Paul Blake back there, so three minutes, please.

Um, so let's be clear.

Surveillance cameras are a supremacist tool of an authoritarian society.

Okay, I'm gonna say that again.

Surveillance cameras are a supremacist tool of an authoritarian society.

How do we know?

Some of you have lived under such regimes where they have been where you've been surveilled.

How do you think Israel was so successful at assassinating so many Iranian officials?

Because Iran is surveilled.

Every corner of Iran is surveilled.

Look around.

The fascist countries have surveillance.

This is not uh a tool that we want to use here in our community.

And who is safer?

We keep thinking, oh, this is a safety.

Who is safer?

We have been given, you have been provided data by the BPD, but have do you even collect the data of how many times you wrongfully pull over people because of bad data by by a flock?

Okay, these cameras.

Did they tell you all anything about this?

No.

Have you asked?

How many times have they harmed people?

Tremendous harm to people that they pull over, detain, they've impounded cars and caused innocent people harm.

We heard about a woman who was shot five times, seven holes, and a man from our community here who's an activist who has been harmed.

Okay, so there's a lot to this story.

It's I've taken a tally so far.

We've had 97 minutes.

That's me.

Three who have supported it.

Okay, in a democracy, that would be overwhelming that of course you represent us.

We all elected you, okay?

Or maybe you're with my former council member before I got redistricted, who doesn't happen to be on the dais at this moment, so they'll be go unnamed.

When I had a private conversation with them in 2020, and I asked, are you getting lots of calls for, you know, the this was about the police budget?

This was in 2020 with George Floyd.

About the the you know um the police budget should go up and and this person said no, but I was elected to make a decision, and I I was elected to make a decision about what I think is best, not what the community said, but what this person literally said that to me.

So you all are you gonna take that authoritarian like you were elected to make because you're the the parent and you're the big brother that you're supposed to make the the decision for your constituents in your community, or are we part of a democracy?

Are you representing us?

Okay, the audit, the audit was just brought up.

If you do vote for this, who's going to ensure compliance with this complex contract?

It can't be Flock, it can't be BPD.

Who's it gonna be?

Flip the Barkley City Council, flip BCC.

Go ahead and move the mic so we can hear you.

I'm I'm Xanjoy.

I'm a little horse.

Fifty fucking years ago, I came to California.

I came to the Bay Area.

Why did I come here?

I had a five-year-old child.

I was 24 years old.

I came here because Berkeley promised to be the kind of country.

I'm part of that generation, that 50s and 60s generation that believed what our teachers told us about social justice, about civil rights, about ending war.

And Berkeley stood for that when I came here.

I've been so proud.

I've been an activist and a business owner in Berkeley for almost 50 years.

And I've been so proud to be here.

But this is not making me proud.

This is making me so ashamed.

And I already lived in seven states before I came here.

So I didn't, I came here, I knew what I was coming to.

I uh I'm not gonna say anything new.

Thank you.

Can I have one more minute?

Thanks so much.

Uh okay.

I'm gonna take that minute from the person in the back.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm not saying anything new, but what I am gonna say, you all know, you all know all the information.

Those of you that are voting yes, I asked you to look inside yourself and figure out what lack of morality, what lack of humanity is letting you vote for this, letting you accept that we can be safe through surveillance.

When these women have said we know how we're gonna be safe.

Equity is the only thing that's gonna get us safe.

Providing ending poverty, providing caring for everyone in the city.

That's the only thing that will make us safe.

Not surveillance.

That's all.

Thank you.

Come on up.

Come on up.

Um, I just want to check.

Is there two people, right?

There's two people, or three?

Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

Hello, I'm Roberto.

I'm believe I'm in district four.

I'm not actually sure.

Um, I don't have anything novel to say.

I actually have notes here that just say I'm tired.

Um, so that's really good.

Um it's been a tough past 10 months for me.

Um, I wouldn't call myself an activist.

I'm definitely not an extremist.

I am employed.

Um, I'm just very tired.

Um, and I feel like if flock happens, it's kind of over for myself and my friends and my community.

Um I feel you can probably guess why and the activism that I don't want to be doing.

Um flock just dooms us.

It's it's over.

There's nothing else for us.

So yeah, that's it.

I'm tired.

Goodbye.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Sophia O'Brien.

Can I have a minute from someone there?

Okay.

Okay.

My name is Sophia O'Brien.

I was born and raised in District 4.

At a time when this city is discussing cuts to critical public resources and safety net programs, while hundreds fill your inboxes and this room to demand investment in our communities.

This council, well, many from this council plans to spend millions expanding surveillance infrastructure.

Two million dollars plus millions more in inevitable lawsuits that could go towards preventing crises, supporting vulnerable residents, and strengthening community services, which is public safety.

Instead, our tax dollars are being directed toward expanding systems tied to policing, federal abductions, racial profiling, and mass incarceration.

If you really cared about public safety, you would invest more money into our schools to make sure that our teachers can afford to live in our city.

You would invest more money into affordable housing and ensure the most basic social net for the most vulnerable in our community is met.

Not sell those same people out as data points.

So a billion-dollar company can make more off of my community.

Like many have said, you are a public servant, and therefore I hope you will act in the interest of your constituents, and if not, that will be a stain on this city for years to come, and something that you as an individual will never live down as long as you are an elected official in our city.

To move forward with this expansion, despite the legal warnings, the oversight concerns, the moral failures, and the erosion of public trust would be a profound mistake.

The first rule of fascism, and the most important rule is do not obey in advance.

Now please, for the first time in forever, stand on the right side of history and do not sell out your constituents, the public, in the interest of public safety, because the public is telling you exactly what will make us more unsafe.

So please vote no on this contract on the expansion of more flock in our city.

The public does not want this.

But you do have these commissions, and they do a lot of research.

But really, I think that you all knew anyway, because I knew without knowing a lot of information that this is creepy.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, the microphones are on.

Ooh.

Okay, hello everyone.

Um, we are going to take online public comment now for item number one A, which is the public safety technology, surveillance technology ordinance of police equipment, ordinance approvals, policy updates, and contract authority.

Um, so clerk, can you please go ahead and start it?

The first speaker uh has a phone number ending in 405.

Hi, Dirk, and I heard I live in the strike one.

I came to Berkeley in 1952.

I think it's in Berkeley.

And I look uh like uh another detailed person.

I think show me the money.

Uh what give us a billion dollars?

The answer should be no, we will not take, we will not be bought.

And if the idea that we are paying to be bought is uh uh outrages, I do think I'm on the board of directors of four local corporations, the the best of my knowledge, not one director, not one consequent of this corporation, would vote to endorse any candidates who endorses.

Thank you.

Very well, thank you.

Okay.

Uh next is uh Roddy.

Uh thank you for your service.

And there are two questions that I have for Mr.

Flock.

I really just have these two questions.

I'm really interested in hearing.

They're just yes and no questions if that's possible.

One question is Are there any scenarios in which Flock would have to share data with the federal government?

And then are there any scenarios in which Flock would have to share data with the federal government and not be able to tell the city of Berkeley or the local police?

Yes or no.

Sorry, we don't respond to questions during the comment period, but those were also asked and answered.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Uh next is uh Beth Rossner.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

This is Beth Rossner, CEO of the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber supports moving forward with thoughtfully managed public safety technology and the strong oversight framework in item 1A.

For Berkeley businesses, public safety and economic vitality are closely connected.

Employees, customers, and visitors need to feel safe in our commercial districts and public spaces and tools that improve emergency response and investigations can provide real public benefit.

We're concerned about creating a gap in public safety capabilities if existing systems are discontinued before replacement tools or policies are fully in place.

At the same time, we recognize the legitimate concerns around privacy, data security, and vendor accountability.

Strong safeguards, transparency, auditing, and local control over data must remain paramount.

We appreciate the work being done to strengthen oversight while protecting Berkeley's values and keeping the city safe and welcoming for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Della Della Luna.

Yes, thank you.

I was going to say that this item has taken up so much of our time, and it feels like with so much of the public being against it, it shouldn't even be on the table.

It's now to committee multiple times.

And then I think we're up till one o'clock in the morning talking about it.

And now again, and I feel like it just reflects that you all are not doing your jobs because we don't elect you.

I guess what I want to say is you all are professionals in your own rights, and each of you has a set of expertise, but no one as individuals or collectively has the expertise to sign a contract that's gonna murder death kill the constituents.

And we didn't elect you for you to then negotiate contracts.

So there's like a sleight of hand going on where we do elect you to be city council, but the intention is not for you then to turn around and murder death kill us.

So um, yes, you all represent the people, and the people do not want this, and the notion that flock can just sit there, the Mr.

Flock can be there, and you all just ask questions back and forth.

Thank you.

Somehow that's good enough.

Uh next is Laura Hill.

Oh, wait a second.

Sorry.

Laura Hill.

Good evening, my name is Laura, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Bay Area Council.

We are a business association and policy advocacy organization representing nearly 400 of the region's employers.

Three years ago, 125 East Bay employers asked us to form a coalition in response to concerns about safety in the future of the region.

This coalition strongly supports the continued use of ALPR and related technology in Berkeley.

Technology is a critical public safety tool, particularly for departments facing staffing challenges on the ground every day.

These tools help officers recover stolen property, prevent human trafficking, and identify suspects in violent crimes.

We've also seen across the East Bay and the broader region that this technology can be implemented with appropriate appropriate safeguards that balance the needs of community privacy with public safety.

Finally and importantly, since many nearby cities are already applying this technology, using compatible tools strengthens coordination and safety across jurisdictions.

Thank you for your consideration and your continued leadership in Berkeley.

Next is Tracy Rosenberg.

Yes, one second.

Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy.

Let's be clear.

While fully aware of dozens of local sanctuary ordinances, California, SB 34, and SB 54, Flock chose to let customs and border patrol into their database and told absolutely no one.

In my news today, Shaker hosts Shaker Heights, Ohio, a city with a sanctuary policy, announced that other agencies searched their Flock database for the purpose of immigration enforcement 27 273 times in the last three months this year.

It is happening and it is continuing to happen every single day.

You can't negotiate with companies that are lying to you.

No on the contract.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Wendy Alfson.

Thank you.

Speaking on behalf of the Berkeley Friends meeting in opposition to the approval of these eight items on your uh agenda.

Just like to point out that each of them merits a separate agenda item with the opportunity for consideration.

It's been very difficult throughout this process to have any attention on the policies that underlie all of this.

Like to point out that in addition to all of the other things that have been raised, particularly by the police accountability board, uh asking you to spay special attention to their recommendations.

Their most recent one of May 6th on the purchase whole purchase order contracting issue really requires.

Next is Audrey Kramer.

Um, good evening, City Council and Mayor.

My name is Audrey Kramer, and I am a sophomore at UC Berkeley and a district six resident.

I am currently looking at the city manager's proposed 27-28 budget and balancing plan.

Um, and so my question for you today is why are we sitting here?

Berkeley is in a ridiculous budget deficit.

Um, on page 52 of this report, the city manager outlines the eight policemen that Berkeley is firing this year.

Every department in the city is losing 10% of its budget, and Flock is clearly highly unpopular.

So I would suggest that you use this exorbitant amount of money to follow the police accountability board's recommendation for an RFP on this matter, or use this money for literally anything else.

Thank you so much for your time.

Have a good evening.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Eduardo.

I'm Latino.

And when extremist ideological experiments go wrong, people die.

Socialist extremist policies failed Cuba and Venezuela, millions suffered.

Here in California, DSA driven defunding of police helped create this out of control crime wave.

And now you want us to do what?

Keep trusting your failed social experiment.

Here in Berkeley, even common sense liberals are now called fascists and bullied into silence.

Look, the city's number one job is still to protect residents and businesses with proven tools, not gamble with public safety based on ideology and zero evidence.

What happens when cities turn off flock?

Richmond stopped cameras a few months, auto thefts, jump by a third.

That's not theory, that's documented facts.

So who's paying the highest price?

It's working class black and brown families.

Most are single core households, and when that one car is stolen, it's not a small inconvenience.

People lose jobs, kids miss school, families lose their homes, stolen cars become stolen lives.

Thank you.

Time is up, thank you.

Next is uh Devon.

Devin, you should you should be able to unmute.

All right.

Uh let's go to MR.

Hello, I'm a resident, a data engineer, and a former defense technologist.

I'm embarrassed to have Shoshana O'Keefe as my representative.

Block is not a public safety company.

They are a data broker.

As a data engineer, I'm telling you that the oversight narrative for this contract is technically infeasible.

The city and the Berkeley police department will absolutely not have the independent technical capacity to oversee, monitor, or manage Berkeley data generated by Flock.

As a survivor myself, I completely reject the use of survivor trauma as justification for warrantless mass surveillance.

Commercial surveillance companies and their products do not address the causes of violence or crime and survivors too deserve want and have rights to privacy.

Shame on you for invoking survivor trauma to enable mass surveillance.

Thank you.

And just a reminder to folks to not refer to specific council members.

You have to refer to us as a body.

Okay, one more try for uh Devin.

Devin, you should be able to unmute.

Okay.

No Devon.

Uh next is uh Mackay Freeman.

Can you give her extra time, please?

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

City Council.

I'm not representing any organization.

Tonight, that might go as right.

We recently saw the wrestle.

A voting rights in the Kelly.

We know it hasn't.

Doing coins.

We know we have all of the documents.

I thank our police.

Oh, seriously.

As well.

I am.

I can I am care about safety.

But you know, all you're on the diet.

No, there's going to be.

You are a public service.

When a public says no.

Listen.

Honor directly values.

Honor those.

We had a loose.

And children are here.

Without the parents.

Family members.

It is a false dichotomy.

That's you don't want to surveil.

Don't care about public.

And for art.

They have an un.

Thanks, Makai.

Um next is a phone number ending in four five-three.

I think that's Chair Cayetano.

He needs a minute.

Anyone here to have a minute?

He needs to ask for that minute.

Chair Cayetano, can you hear us?

Needs to unmute first.

You should be able to unmute Star 6 to unmute.

There you go.

There you go.

Hi everyone.

Josh Guy Josh Cayetana, chair of the police accountability board.

I believe I have um three extra minutes from people online if they could raise their hand.

So four minutes total.

Could you give us their names?

Because a lot of people are raising their hands.

Oh, I don't know what their names are listed as.

Chip, Audriana, and Layla.

This one of them is calling on by phone.

Oh, chip?

Did you say chip?

Yeah.

I don't see.

Okay, one more time.

Chip.

What were the other two?

Adriana and Leila.

Okay, I see Audriana.

And Layla.

I see Audriana and Layla on there.

Do you see them, Mark?

Thank you.

See Adriana.

Layla is the other one.

Layla.

Nas Rolahi.

Yes, that's right.

Yes, that's yes, I was right.

I'll see Chipmore on, though.

So we'll get you that, Josh.

Well, I'll see if I can get you that third minute in here, but just let's for now check on those other two.

I want to make sure we keep moving.

Yeah.

So we got three minutes.

If more gets on, then that would be a fourth.

Oh, your third minute.

I've got your third minute here.

Okay, so for total, right?

Okay, thank you.

Um my name is Josh Caetano.

I'm chair of the police accountability board, also a graduate of Berkeley law and a D3 resident.

First, I would just like to note that nobody has asked um BPD or finance about their supplemental and why they're no longer standing behind their first proposed resolution.

I can tell you why.

The PAB sent a letter this week, where we explained that BPD has failed residents of Berkeley by exclusively pursuing a contract with Flock without a competitive procurement process, even after the city council sent them back to the drawing board on Flock in fall 2025.

And the city did that again this spring.

And so they've had to pivot.

The city manager said during the comment section that we do this all the time, and that's exactly the issue.

It's one the city auditor recently faulted the city for.

Second, I'm speaking for myself now.

There's also been a lot of talk about safety from Flock supporters.

But Flock does not keep our community safe.

We do.

I recently spoke with leaders in Elmwood and DM3 who are monitoring the neighborhood around Sylvia Mendez, making sure children are safe and protected from ice.

That is safety.

And I spoke with members, some members of BPD and Live Free, who are building relationships in schools and on the streets with people in high risk areas.

That is safety.

Flock does not make us safe.

Third, there's also been a lot of talk from Flock supporters about accountability.

Go up to the supporters and ask them what their track record is on police accountability in Berkeley.

DPD buried their audit on the last pages of a report that they had identified Berkeley's own data with search for ice and DHS.

They didn't bring that to the council's attention.

We did.

BPD did not have the courage to say what that was and call it what it was.

A betrayal of our trust.

Instead, they explained it away.

And still what I hear them saying is that they don't know exactly what that was, but I think that sitting there today, if they're asking for you to contract with Flock, they should admit it.

Why should we trust what they say if they can't admit even with their own audit log they're showing?

In the last three years, our own our accountability institutions have been undermined, subverted, and defunded.

And tonight this accountability can start.

Make them make it happen.

Thank you all.

Thanks, Josh.

Okay.

Next is Kelsey Jackson.

Thank you.

Yes, my name is Dr.

Kelsey Jackson.

I'm in District One, and I'm concerned about the similarities in surveillance between Israel and the United States in this moment.

I'm an expert in the perceptions of intercultural empathy, peace, and the other between Palestinians and Israelis.

I spent time in the Middle East.

I spent time in Palestine and Israel.

I walked around the inside of the wall of Palestine at a military checkpoint where headstones littered the brush while I stared down.

Sorry, while I was stared down by four Israeli soldiers, each holding their AK-47s as they watch me.

While in Palestine 10 years ago, I saw firsthand the detriment of overt surveillance and saw firsthand the way it impeded the lives of Palestinians.

They weren't able to self-organize, they weren't able to gather, they weren't able to protest without threat of being imprisoned or killed.

Israel uses the same surveillance technology and their red wolf and blue wolf surveillance as Flock, and it's now being embedded into our cities, our communities, to our neighbors.

We are on a dangerous path to normalizing mass surveillance and infringing on our comment.

Uh next is uh Tim McKenzie.

Tim McKenzie.

Hi, my name is Tim McKenzie.

I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

I'm here to encourage you to get rid of ALPRs, cancel the Flock contract.

I actually believe Mr.

Flock saying that they are an industry leader, and honestly, that's embarrassing for the industry.

Uh flock only just introduced two-factor authentication.

That was just admit admitted at Sunnyvale City Council last month.

They haven't been they have had less data security than applying for a job.

It is really impossible to believe that they will be able to protect the data.

And it's been illegal in California for to share data outside of the state for a decade, and they have spent years doing that, having a nationwide lookup tool.

They have already broken trust.

They cannot be relied upon.

You need to cancel the contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Mary Lynn Morales.

Hi, thank you.

Um, I'm a longtime Berkeley resident, homeowner, and a small business owner in Berkeley.

And um members of the city council, I beseech you in the strongest possible terms, do not renew the flock contract as proposed.

I am more afraid of flock than I'm afraid of crime in Berkeley.

Save us from the constant fear of big brother, please.

Please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next is Jordan.

Hi, um, can you hear me?

Yes.

Cool.

My name is Jordan.

I lived in Berkeley for about 22, 23 years, recently moved, still very connected to this community.

I go to UC Berkeley Law.

Um, and I am joining the overwhelming chorus of people who are asking you to drop the Flock contract.

I'd like to also expand upon that and say I think that as we've built this grassroots power and this grassroots movement against flock, we've also seen people more broadly take a stand against mass surveillance in general, and that includes drones, and that includes shot spotSpotter, and that includes all these technologies that get woven together into this intricate web of mass surveillance that we are trying to prevent and cannot escape.

Um, and I had other things to say, but I think you're gonna vote how you're gonna vote.

I don't know if us saying this is gonna sway anyone, but I wanted to add my voice to the chorus, and I hope that you listen to your constituents.

Thank you.

It's another instance of Wendy Alfsen here.

Um is Wendy or somebody else.

Hi, my name is Marilyn Cleveland, and I'm a resident of Berkeley and a retired attorney who spent 30 years advising public entities concerning public contracts.

The Daily Cal recently published an article about a leaked city attorney memo describing the city's exposure to multi-million dollar lawsuits if the council proceeds to renew and expand the flock contracts.

The article states that the proposed contract follows FLOC's standard terms and conditions.

Public entities, including Berkeley, should start with their own contracting um procedures from the city's form of contract, not from a standard form that the private entity trying to contract with the city provides, even if that another public entity has accepted those terms.

Piggy backing on another public entity's contract is one way to comply with the California public contract code.

Piggybacking does not waive the city's responsibility to comply with applicable state and municipal requirements, including sanctuary laws and military equipment reporting requirements.

That's your time.

I think that uh cameras and AOPRs are a useful tool for uh solving crimes and gaining convictions, and we should stand against crime, but this is about something different.

This is aggregation.

There are other ways to get these tools that don't grant automatic third-party access.

And this is really a conversation about civil liberties.

I was lucky enough to be born and lived in a world before the Patriot Act.

Uh, year in year, uh, year after year, our rights are trimmed back.

And on average, we saw a drop of four deaths per year due to terrorism before and after the Patriot Act.

Um we could have asked everyone just to wear seatbelts, and it probably would have been more effective.

A contract will with Flock will not fix our criminal justice system, and it will not be in a step in the right direction.

Uh we need to aggregate, sorry, it will aggregate our data into their cloud so that it can be served up the very moment a whiskey-soaked FISA warrant shows up with NSPM7 written on it.

Uh next is Fabiola.

Uh, Fabiola D5, Madam Mayor and the city council members.

I urge you all to heed the warning from the city attorney regarding the potential liability Berkeley faces if it renews its contract with Flock.

Please don't waste our money.

Regarding that op-ed, my city council member co-wrote in the BS that claims Flock keeps us safe.

Well, that's BS.

The op ed talks about arrests made for crimes that were committed.

Where's the public safety there?

Crimes were committed, they were not prevented.

Fraud does not make us safe.

Again, this proposal represents the largest expansion of surveillance infrastructure in the city's history and directly undermines Berkeley's long-standing commitment to being a sanctuary city.

Supporting the surveillance system is totally MAGA.

Please vote no to renew the flock contract.

Thank you.

Next is Kian.

Keon Bliss.

Can you hear me?

Hear me, hear me, hear me, hear me, echoing.

Apologies, can you hear me now?

Yep, can hear you now?

Um yeah, just uh wanted to say that BPD and council members argue that up to uh two million dollars for private surveillance technology is needed to compensate for BPD staffing challenges.

The department's running well below, but uh because the department's running well below authorized strength.

Um, but it's actually a false choice.

Technology and staffing have never been interchangeable in reality.

Uh ALPR cameras generate leads but require officers to actually investigate them.

Uh and BPD's reduced staffing means fewer investigators available to follow up on ALPR hits.

Um peer-reviewed research already suggests ALPR's effectiveness depends on dedicated units.

Creating that capacity requires staffing, not cameras, but BPD itself calls this technology a resource multiplier, even as it's uh ready to fund that uh resource multiplier by eliminating up the six warrant officer positions.

So BBD's argument for Flock actually highlights the need uh to actually invest in people uh rather than surveillance technology.

Thanks so much.

Uh next is Ralph.

Ralph, you should be able to unmute.

Ralph.

Ralph Brown, can you hear us?

Can you please unmute?

No.

Okay, we'll come back to you.

Uh next is Katherine Lewis.

Hello.

I'm here tonight.

And can only think about how this body has failed its residents, its constituents, over and over again.

I can only think of the infants in Gaza, four days old, who were bombed in their apartment because of surveillance.

You've all heard of the Palestine Laboratory.

Well, the Berkeley City Council is complicit because they failed, failed to condemn genocide in Gaza and continue to fail.

Don't fail the children of Berkeley as well.

Say no to Flock.

We do not need this surveillance.

What a waste.

Look into your hearts and do the right thing.

Thank you.

Uh go back to Ralph Brown.

Ralph, are you there?

Go ahead and unmute.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, there you go.

Excellent.

Uh just wanting to note uh from the supporters, there's a lot of money that's actually invested in uh in uh uh Berkeley City Council members uh from some of the supporters like Bay Area Council, who is uh most notably uh prime backer of flock in the Bay Area, and uh that comes out to amount of about uh eighty-one thousand dollars.

Um and uh the uh also the with the Berkeley Police Officers Association uh for uh existing members of city council.

Um I mean it comes out to uh even more.

Uh, should actually uh be listening.

I hope you are actually listening to what concerned constituents are actually telling you to do as it comes to uh uh the surveillance.

It's not actually keeping you safe.

Uh what it is is just uh a feel good measure for a lot of these uh folks, and it doesn't actually guarantee safety for most people.

Thanks, your time's up.

Next is Elmira.

Hi there.

Um my name is Almira.

I'm a resident of District 5.

And I've known about Flock for a little bit, but it wasn't until I got an email from the Electronic Frontier Foundation telling me that the organization that I lead Direct Action Everywhere has shown up in searches that they've done um looking into Flock over 50 different times.

And over 50 times, people who have been doing um public property protests have been surveilled, and their license plates have been tracked.

And this is happening to residents of Berkeley.

I am your constituent.

This is happening to my friends who are your constituents.

So this is not a hypothetical.

This has already been used to suppress free speech and intimidate people trying to make the world a better place.

And I strongly encourage you to vote no on this contract to protect people in Berkeley and everywhere who are fighting for a better world.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is uh Mimi.

Mimi should be able to unmute.

There you go.

Hi there.

Um my name is Mimi.

I'm I lived for eight years on District 8.

And I thought and hoped when I moved to Berkeley that this would be a place that reflects my values.

The hundreds of people that have spoken tonight, and the hundreds of people that have spoken at the tear gas commission meeting, those people reflect my values.

The people I've been working with at our BUFC school and in my neighborhood to set up community watch and mutual aid networks.

Those people reflect my values.

I feel like I really shouldn't have to worry about the Berkeley City Council embracing and the city of Berkeley embracing the approaches and tools of fascism.

I'm appalled, I'm livid that we're all here again tonight.

This dynamic where your constituents beg you in droves to act in our best interest.

And then the council acts at the opposite.

It's it's awful, it's disgusting, it's growth.

And I'm begging you literally on my knees.

Please, please, please do not move forward with Flock.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Chelsea.

Hi.

Hi.

My name is Chelsea.

I grew up on military bases.

Just one second, I'm fixing the echo.

I grew up on military bases, specifically with in-depth knowledge about military warfare and psychological warfare.

What Flock is is it's an arm for Nazism, it's an arm for the military, and it's a tool for direct psychological warfare and control.

And people know this.

It's obvious.

Follow the money.

For example, the founders and the people that pay for Flock, Peter Thiel.

He's in head, he's in charge of Play Ontier and sells intelligence tools to ICE, DHS, and the Pentagon.

Another example, Meritech Capital gives Flock a lot of money, makes a lot of decisions.

That's owned by the US military, by the Air Force.

None of this is subtle.

These firms bankroll companies that surveil, detain, or kill in the name of national security.

We don't want this.

Furthermore, time is uh no, it's not.

Uh next is JL.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

I'm a longtime Berkeley community member.

I've seen videos where members of the public can hack into these feeds.

That means anyone with the tools could use these feeds to follow women home, or could access playground feed and watch kids, which has already been reported in other cities, or could follow home someone who just bought something expensive and find out where they live in order to rob them.

So from those perspectives, Fox Flock actually introduces the possibility for more crimes to happen.

I've also seen reports where police themselves have used surveillance tools to follow their ex-partners around.

Not because the partner was part of anything criminal, but rather because the officer was stuck in them for personal reasons.

As someone else has said, there's no special wording that could possibly be used in a contract that could ensure the data will be safe.

You can introduce fines, but this is a slap on the wrist to a company like Flock.

Many cities are realizing that these risks, these are risks they do not want to take.

The legal risk that it opens the city to and the actual data security risk.

Many have canceled their contracts, and this is what Berkeley should do.

As someone else has said, please heed the warning from the city attorney and do not waste their money.

Thanks so much for your comments.

Next is Wilhelmina.

Hi, uh, this is Wilhelmina Condon.

Um, I'm in District seven, and I've been watching these and coming to these city council meetings, and I'm completely gobsmacked at how the council has set themselves up as sort of a paternalistic no all, completely disregarding their constituents.

To me, this issue in the city of Berkeley is outrageous.

It's a no-brainer.

There's nothing that I've studied, nothing that I've heard that makes this a good decision.

Please start representing us, not against us.

We're not your enemy.

We voted for you.

We would never have voted for you if you if we imagined that you would do something like this.

No on flock.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Todd Andrew.

Oh, hi, council.