by Marvin Ramírez
When El Reportero began putting the controversy over Flock surveillance cameras on our front page and spreading the issue through social media, the subject was receiving nowhere near the attention it commands today.
Now the debate is spreading rapidly across America.
Cities and counties are terminating Flock contracts at an accelerating pace. According to data compiled by Oakland-based Secure Justice, 214 jurisdictions had abandoned Flock since 2021, with more than 90 ending their relationship with the company in August alone.
The controversy has crossed political lines. Progressives concerned about civil liberties and immigration enforcement are questioning the cameras. Conservatives worried about government intrusion are questioning them too.
That should tell us something important: privacy is not left or right. It is an American freedom.
And where is San Francisco?
This is a city that proudly presents itself as a defender of civil liberties, immigrant communities, equality and social justice. Yet while communities around the country are reconsidering automated license plate readers, San Francisco continues operating hundreds of them.
The cameras photograph license plates and create searchable information about vehicles moving through our streets. Police argue that the technology helps recover stolen cars, locate suspects and investigate serious crimes.
Those are legitimate objectives.
But legitimate objectives do not automatically justify mass surveillance.
San Francisco itself has already experienced the danger. Police disclosed this year that an audit uncovered 299 improper searches of the city’s Flock data conducted on behalf of federal and out-of-state agencies. SFPD responded by cutting off the regional intelligence center’s access.
That was appropriate.
But the cameras remained.
And that leaves a larger question unanswered: Why should hundreds of devices continue recording the movements of ordinary citizens who are suspected of absolutely nothing?
Flock cameras remain visible along César Chávez Street in the Mission District. Residents drive beneath them every day.
Why are they there?
The justification is always public safety: recover a stolen automobile, find a criminal or prevent a crime that might occur in the future.
But if the possibility of a future crime justifies permanent surveillance, cameras can be placed on every street and intersection in America.
That is precisely the danger.
San Franciscans already live with extraordinary regulation of public space. Parking disappears. Curbs become restricted zones, sometimes where their practical necessity is difficult for residents to understand. Streets are redesigned, restrictions multiply and surveillance technology expands.
Government increasingly watches, regulates and records everyday life.
There must be limits.
The Board of Supervisors has questioned misuse of license-plate data, and that scrutiny is welcome. But San Francisco should now confront the larger issue: Should this surveillance network exist at its present scale at all?
And Mayor Daniel Lurie should publicly tell San Franciscans where he stands.
Does his administration support keeping these cameras? How much information should they collect? Who should be permitted to search it? How long should it exist? And why does San Francisco need hundreds of cameras tracking vehicles across a city that champions civil liberties?
These questions deserve answers.
Other communities are no longer merely asking questions. They are taking action.
San Francisco should not be among the last cities to recognize what is happening.
Technology can help fight crime without turning an entire population into subjects of continuous observation.
San Francisco should join the growing national movement, reconsider this system and remove Flock cameras from our streets.
The cameras should come down.
