Flock Cameras

District 2 neighbors have been reaching out to ask me about flock cameras. One wrote to me after counting more than a dozen cameras between the library by Douglas and Highway 76 and Mission Marketplace at 76 and College — many of them watching residential neighborhoods. These questions are the ones I keep hearing:

• Why are cameras concentrated at residential intersections while some retail intersections only have one? It doesn't look like a "safety first" plan.
• Who can access the footage and the plate data, and what stops it from being used to stalk or target people?
• Can federal immigration authorities get to this data, directly or indirectly, in a state that is supposed to be a sanctuary state?
• What happens when systems get hacked or when policies on paper are not followed in practice?
• Should any search of a city camera log require a judicial warrant?
• Is this the safety investment residents actually asked for, compared with fire evacuation routes and protected crosswalks for kids walking to school?

"Surveillance first" public safety generally doesn't help residents feel safe.

I want to be honest: I had read about the controversy, but I had not yet done a deep dive on how Flock is set up here until neighbors questions and concerns motivated me to. Here is what I found about the current setup in Oceanside:

• Oceanside PD maintains local control and fully owns the license plate reader data rather than outsourcing it.
• California laws are built into the system to automatically block data sharing or searches tied to immigration enforcement or reproductive healthcare.
• Broad federal access is restricted by state compliance guardrails — federal immigration authorities can't simply log in and access the network.
• Data is retained for 12 months according to policy, not the short deletion window some neighbors assumed.
• System integrations like Connect Oceanside only allow private or public camera sharing during active, critical emergencies.
• The platform uses automated audit tracking tools designed to flag unauthorized or anomalous searches by law enforcement operators.

• Where exactly are all of these cameras, who is being monitored, and why those locations?
• What records does the Police and Fire Commission have on this program, and what did public members reviewing it discover?
• What are the criteria to search the camera log?
• What would truly independent oversight look like here — who sits on the task force, how often do audits happen, and what gets published?
• How do we make sure camera spending never substitutes for prevention: mental health support, youth programs, fire evacuation readiness, and safe crossings?
• What do District 2 neighbors want before any camera is added, moved, or renewed?

Guardrails on paper are not the same as guardrails in practice. That is why I am pushing a plan to establish an accountability and transparency task force that includes our local social justice partners, so the community has a real, independent voice in how this technology is used — with ongoing audits and clear public reporting, or the program must be stopped.

I don't love the idea of surveillance systems and we have cameras up around the perimeter of of our own home. Real life is complex and there are rarely simple answers to these issues. The truth is, one little thought creeps in when I consider these systems: what if one of these cameras could save a kid from being trafficked? As a mom and a tía, that makes me wonder if there isn't some use for them. The only way it works is with REAL safeguards and oversight. I don't know if that exists here in Oceanside yet. I am eager to learn more.

If you have researched this, been affected by it, or simply have questions — I want to hear from you. Email me at emily@d2oside.org.