Local
San Francisco weighs Flock camera contract as privacy concerns grow
San Francisco has limited how long police can access Flock license-plate data, but protests continue as the city approaches a February 2027 contract decision. The debate pits officials’ claims that the cameras help solve crime against concerns about surveillance and past data misuse.
San Francisco’s debate over automated license-plate cameras is intensifying ahead of a February 2027 decision on whether to renew the city’s contract with Flock Safety, even as city leaders defend the system and privacy advocates call for its removal.
The city announced in 2024 that it would install about 400 cameras on streetlights. Mayor Daniel Lurie and other supporters say the technology helps police investigate crimes, including vehicle burglaries. Critics argue that it tracks people’s movements without their consent and creates risks when sensitive data is mishandled.
Those concerns sharpened in June, when the San Francisco Police Department disclosed that federal and out-of-state agencies had improperly searched its Flock data hundreds of times. The city’s Human Rights Commission concluded the searches did not violate San Francisco’s sanctuary policy, while urging new protections against future misuse.
In response to public pressure, Lurie announced in September that police access to license-plate records would be cut from one year to 30 days after collection. The change has not satisfied opponents. “These policies are a step in the right direction, but they’re not a solution to the problem,” said Zachary Schwartz, a Lowell High School student who founded the local DeFlock SF chapter.
The dispute is playing out as other Bay Area communities reconsider their ties to Flock. Richmond, Santa Cruz, El Cerrito and Los Altos Hills have withdrawn or scaled back their arrangements, while Mountain View ended its use of license-plate reader technology altogether. San José, which operates nearly 500 Flock cameras, has faced scrutiny after a police officer used the system to locate a woman who had accused the officer’s cousin of domestic violence.
San Francisco officials point to the cameras as a tool for public safety. Lurie has said the system helps protect workers, businesses and families, while District Attorney Brooke Jenkins argues that concerns about misuse should not prevent law enforcement from using the technology. A GrowSF poll found that 64% of respondents supported allowing police to monitor live camera footage in areas including the Tenderloin and Mission districts. A September Reuters poll, by contrast, found that 47% of American adults opposed Flock cameras in their communities and 38% supported them.
Civil liberties advocates say license-plate readers pose a distinct privacy concern because people cannot readily avoid being recorded while traveling on public streets. Kimberly Woo, a community organizer with the Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network, said the technology gives government access to people’s location data without their consent. Protests continued after the city’s new access limit, including a demonstration outside San Francisco’s TechCrunch conference in October.
The city’s Flock contract is set to come up for reconsideration in February 2027. Schwartz and other opponents say they want San Francisco to end its use of the technology, not simply impose tighter limits on the data it collects.