I’ve read Brave New World and 1984. I know all about the Gestapo and how they became the leading spy agency in the world. I’ve heard all the doomsday scenarios about government surveillance. And yet I’m not at all bothered by Flock cameras, and I think that people who are against them are crying Henny Penny. Let me explain why the sky is not falling.
First of all, every law enforcement agency I know is in favor of Flock cameras, and that means a lot to me since I trust police. Cops know a lot more about public safety than these anti-Flock activists. The Oakland Police Department strongly backs Flock cameras. As an OPD lieutenant, Gabriel Urquiza, testified to the City Council, “We implemented Flock in 2024, and you see a significant drop-off [in crime] immediately.” And that’s even with OPD being nearly 200 officers short of the minimum number needed to enforce the law.
And yet the anti-Flock crowd is noisier than ever. The amusingly-named Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission—yes, an official city agency—was created by the City Council in 2014; its members were anti-police from the start, and went on to serve in powerful anti-police cabals such as the Police Commission, Community Policing Advisory Board, and the Coalition for Police Accountability. Most members were people of color and active in “social justice” and “equity” movements in Oakland, which suggests their biases. Their agenda was clear, including this one: “Directing OPD to support non-law enforcement solutions to community-identified neighborhood issues.”
In this sentence you find the seed-germ of most of Oakland’s problems. “Community-identified” means pre-determining the members you want, who will “recommend” specific actions you can then use to impose new restrictions on cops and claim that “the community” demanded them. And “non-law enforcement solutions,” of course, leads directly to Pamela Price and her fantasy of abolishing the prisons and letting all the felons go free. This anti-public safety gene has been infecting Oakland’s bloodstream for a long, long time, ever since the Black Panthers advocated “offing” police officers.
The anti-police squadron deliberately muddies the waters around public safety, in an attempt to influence public opinion. They’ve had enough sympathetic backing from the local media (S.F. Chronicle, KQED radio, Oaklandside) to convince large chunks of the public that police are inherently corrupt. They promote the lie that cops, and the alleged White supremacy-capitalist system they protect, are constantly spying on us, and up to no good in their determination to crush people of color, in order to keep Jim Crow and racism alive.
Today, some City Council members still buy into this propaganda. Zac Unger, for one, who said the Council has “to add as many amendments as we can” when the Council deliberated whether to renew the city’s Flock contract. By “new amendments,” he meant measures to water down Flock’s effectiveness, while still enabling him to vote for it so as not to run afoul of his constituents. His colleague, Janani Ramachandran, went even further. “If there’s the slightest indication this [Flock] company is in violation [of Oakland privacy laws],” she declared, “we’ll cancel the contract.” Well, you can always find “slightest indications” for anything you want. (I’ve seen slight indications an asteroid will strike Oakland next year.) In fact, during those hearings, the only Council member who stood up and strongly defended Flock cameras was Ken Houston.
Things are as dismal, maybe more so, on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Just the other day, when they were debating whether to pay Flock for its automated license plate reader services, none other than our very own Nikki Bas—remember her?—declared, “I do not trust Flock Safety.” Yes, Nikki “Defundo” Bas, who for years tried to bankrupt the Oakland Police Department, and who as much as anyone was responsible for the unprecedented crime surge of 2018-2024.
Fortunately, public opinion is in favor of Flock cameras, even in liberal Oakland. Three significant polls, taken in late 2025 and early 2026, showed, respectively, 66%, 64%, and 67% local support. Separately, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce reported “that nearly two-thirds of residents want more cameras to protect commercial corridors.” The Oakland branch of the NAACP strongly supports Flock cameras.
And yet the anti-public safety crowd keeps yammering away, screaming that we’ll all end up in gulags if this surveillance continues. Well, it’s a steaming pile of garbage. Surveillance technology reduces crime, and that’s what it’s all about. People who are against Flock cameras are, simply put, pro-crime, and are hiding their true agenda behind pretending to care about your privacy.
Tomorrow: More on whether I’ll retire this blog.
Steve Heimoff