Mass surveillance fears push Silicon Valley city to scrap automated license plate readers

More than four decades ago, mass surveillance shadowed daily life in the Philippines, where Mountain View Mayor Emily Ann Ramos’ parents came of age under Ferdinand Marcos’ iron-fisted rule.

Now in her third year on the council of a major Silicon Valley city, and on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the People Power Revolution — the peaceful uprising that toppled the Marcos regime — Ramos drew a chilling parallel on Tuesday between the repression her parents experienced under martial law and local residents’ warnings about automated license plate readers contributing to an expanding state surveillance in their own community.

Responding to public outcry over the possibility of unauthorized access to ALPR camera data, the council voted unanimously Tuesday night to scrap their contract with Flock Safety, remove the cameras and reject any replacement technology.

“There was a system where surveillance wasn’t abstract. It was a tool to use, monitor, intimidate, and silence. And I grew up with those stories on why my parents fled the Philippines to come to the U.S.,” Ramos said before she cast her vote in favor of cancelling the contract. “And so for many immigrants and communities of color, surveillance technology carries that same historical weight. It’s not neutral.”

Councilmembers also supported the public’s request to recoup the $154,650 already spent on the license-plate readers, but opted to pursue that issue separately to keep the final resolution focused strictly on contract termination.

The move highlights growing public anxiety over privacy, data access and the rapid expansion of surveillance technology by government agencies. Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems use high-speed cameras and software to instantly scan, digitize and cross-reference vehicle license plates against databases to identify vehicles of interest for law enforcement or administrative purposes.

In an email to this news organization, Flock stated it respects Mountain View’s decision and stands by its data privacy standards.

“Every community has the right to choose how to engage in public safety,” Flock Safety spokesperson Paris Lewbel said. “We are proud of the success we’ve had in Mountain View helping solve crime and we hope to continue to do so, in alignment with California law and local community values.”

Earlier this month, Mountain View police revealed that an audit uncovered unauthorized access to one city camera by federal agencies between August and November 2024, stemming from a “nationwide” search setting enabled by Flock Safety. The city’s first camera went live Aug. 14, 2024, with the 30th and final unit installed just last month.

The company has faced scrutiny nationwide for its scale and the ease with which outside agencies and individuals can access sensitive, private data.

The fears are not unfounded, according to staff attorney Lisa Femia of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Femia cited examples of law enforcement using cameras to track a woman who had an abortion and police officers who used the system to track an ex-romantic partner, among other unauthorized uses.

“There are also instances where officers misinterpret the data, pull up the wrong car,” she told this news organization. “People have been stopped and pulled out of their car at gunpoint before because of an ALPR misidentification.”

In the Bay Area, cities and counties have begun re-evaluating their relationships with the supplier. Although they stopped short of canceling any contracts, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to prevent the sheriff’s office from using or operating Flock Safety cameras in cities such as Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Altos Hills.

But Oakland’s City Council in December approved a two-year, $2.25 million contract with Flock despite strong opposition from privacy advocates.

In San Jose, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Northern California are suing the city, police chief and mayor over alleged warrantless searches via the Flock system.

Mountain View police acknowledged that while the cameras provided utility in crime-fighting, the vendor relationship had become untenable.

“While the Flock Safety pilot program demonstrated clear value in enhancing our ability to protect our community and solve crimes, I personally no longer have confidence in this particular vendor,” Mountain View Police Chief Michael Canfield said, shortly before announcing the department would deactivate the cameras.

Residents at Tuesday’s meeting argued that the technology itself — and the inherent potential for abuse — remains the fundamental problem. Flock has become one of the nation’s largest suppliers, with tens of thousands of cameras across more than 5,000 cities and counties. According to a University of Washington report from October 2025, the company manages 80,000 AI-powered cameras in 49 states, capturing billions of license plate images per month.

Mountain View resident Tim MacKenzie was among the dozens who encouraged the council not only to cancel the contract but to physically remove the cameras from local intersections.

“We cannot trust Flock to act in good faith, especially when they conveniently omitted their statewide and nationwide lookup tool from our police department,” MacKenzie said. Referring to reports of cameras blinking despite being “deactivated,” he added, “Flock’s lie by omission thoroughly disrespects the extensive work that the police department and city council did to convince the public in Flock’s safety and ensure compliance with our privacy standards.”

Flock Safety said the flashing lights seen by residents were part of “decommissioning,” indicating the cameras were in the process of being turned off.

While Ramos highlighted the history of state surveillance abroad, Councilmember Ellen Kamei drew a line to the dangers of government overreach closer to home.

“President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced removal and incarceration of over 120,000 American citizens of Japanese ancestry,” Kamei said. “No Japanese Americans were ever charged or convicted of espionage or sabotage, yet they were targeted and imprisoned simply for having a face that didn’t look like everyone else’s.”

She argued that the city’s decision was a necessary check on power in the digital age.

“This history reminds us of what can happen when civil liberties are overridden and when safeguards fail,” Kamei said. “It’s incumbent on all of us as city council members to be vigilant in protecting both our public safety and our civil rights. I believe by taking this action, we can do both.”