A pledge for Contra Costa County city councils
I will not vote to approve, renew, expand, or otherwise allow any mass surveillance system in my city — including but not limited to: license plate readers, facial recognition, drone surveillance, predictive policing, and networked camera systems. And, I will work to end any mass surveillance systems already in place.
For purposes of this pledge, mass surveillance system means any technology that collects and/or aggregates information about residents who are not suspected of a crime. It includes free trials, pilot programs, donated equipment, systems paid for by grants or private foundations, and access to networks run by other agencies. The definition applies regardless of vendor.
We're asking every council member and council candidate in the county to commit, in writing, to keeping mass surveillance out of our cities. Their answers go on this page.
The record
Who we asked. What they said.
Every council member and declared candidate in Contra Costa County gets the same question and the same deadline. We publish the answer in full. Silence is an answer too, and we publish that as well.
El Cerrito
Read Wally Nowinski's full response
Hi Brian,
Thank you for reaching out. I oppose the city working with Flock Safety. That said, a big part of our campaign is the idea that the city should listen to residents and respond to community feedback. Signing a pledge of any kind goes against the spirit of staying open to feedback and discussion.
As I mentioned during my ECDC interview, if a new proposal for automatic license plate readers came forward, I would take the privacy and data security concerns raised by your group and others seriously, and I would insist on a city process that incorporates those concerns as part of any RFP.
Thank you,
Wally
Read Kimberly White's full response
Hi Brian,
Thanks for following up on this.
I don't think a blanket pledge is the right tool for this decision. I'd rather commit to a process than to a fixed outcome in advance, especially before there's an actual proposal on the table to evaluate. Signing on to language I didn't write also isn't how I want to make commitments to voters; I'd rather state my own position clearly.
That position stands: I oppose Flock cameras. If an ALPR proposal ever came before the city, I'd take the privacy and data security concerns your group has raised seriously and push to build them into any RFP from the start.
To answer directly: no, I won't be signing the pledge.
I know that's not the answer you were hoping for, but I wanted to be straight with you about where I land and why.
Best,
Kimberly
Read Forrest Lanning's full response
I am against Flock cameras. However the pledge as written could be used to include red light and speed cameras which is very needed in some intersections here in El Cerrito. I almost got hit by a person running a red light on San Pablo Ave and Portero. I can't rule out red light cameras. I'm sure most people would agree. If the pledge was more specific, I could sign.
Thanks
Forrest
Richmond
Berkeley
Albany
Walnut Creek
Concord
Learn more
The case against ALPRs.
The ACLU and EFF have been documenting and fighting automated license plate readers for over a decade. Their research is more thorough than anything we could write here.
- ACLU — Get the Flock Out: how Flock Safety's ALPR network works, plus model legislation and a model resolution for cities that want out of their contracts.
- EFF — Automated License Plate Readers: how ALPRs work, who's using them, and the privacy risks of aggregating everyone's location data.
Next
Ask your council member. Then tell us what they said.
We publish every answer we get, in full and unedited, alongside the date we asked. If someone doesn't respond, we publish that too.