Alameda County ad hoc committee orders survey of data practices after presenters warn federal access could endanger immigrants and students

Alameda County’s ad hoc Together for All committee on March 4 heard repeated warnings from privacy advocates and community groups that county data collection and third‑party contracts could leave immigrants, Arab and Muslim residents, student activists and newly arrived Afghan families exposed to federal enforcement actions.

Chair Supervisor Fortinado Bass opened the meeting by saying the committee’s purpose is ‘‘to make sure we are informed, prepared, and have due process’’ and noted the Board had approved a $1,300,000 allocation to expand the Public Defender’s immigration unit plus three county contracts for rapid response, community organizing and legal services.

The committee’s agenda focused on a countywide survey of data collection and retention practices. Brian Hofer, executive director of Secure Justice, told the panel he had reviewed municipal ID and debit‑card programs in several Bay Area cities and found ‘‘red flags, data trails that are ripe for ICE and others to use.’’ He said municipal and county webpages and contracts often lack clear privacy notices and that third‑party operators or banking retention rules can create long data retention windows. Hofer urged the county to adopt automated deletion schedules where technology permits and to review contracts and memoranda of understanding ‘‘through a privacy lens.’’

Sadai Hussein, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, described how regional fusion centers, Joint Terrorism Task Forces and new Homeland Security task‑force proposals can create pathways for local information to reach federal partners. Hussein noted the Northern California Regional Information Center (NCRIC) as an example of a multi‑agency hub and said prior public‑records work exposed wide sharing of automated license‑plate reader data and other surveillance datasets.

‘‘There is a lot of information sharing going on,’’ Hussein said, warning that when local officers participate in federal task forces they may follow federal protocols that can override local protections. She urged clearer agreements, auditing and monitoring of what data local agencies send to multi‑agency centers and databases.

Laura Kiswani, executive director of the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, said Arab and Muslim communities already face undercounting and surveillance harms. She urged the county to avoid contract language that mandates collection of client names and exact addresses and suggested using unique identifiers or cross‑street locations instead. Kiswani recommended stronger data‑privacy protections, community oversight, and measures to protect student activists from politically motivated surveillance.

Rona Popal, cofounder and executive director of the Afghan Coalition, described budget cuts and policy shifts that threaten workforce supports, housing and legal services for Afghan newcomers and urged continued investment in resettlement supports.

Public comments reflected sharp divisions. A caller identified as Jackie warned the committee not to ‘‘shield illegal criminals’’ and said any policy that conflicts with federal law could prompt Department of Justice action; Mindy Petchenk, a candidate for Oakland mayor, urged the committee to focus on public‑safety concerns such as drugs and homelessness. Other public speakers, including Jean Moses of Faith and Action East Bay and John Guerrero of Fremont, thanked the committee for protecting immigrants and refugees.

Chair Bass closed by listing immediate follow‑ups: instructing staff to survey county data‑collection and retention practices; auditing county participation in federal task forces and associated data‑sharing agreements; and reviewing the county’s privacy legislation and policies. She also pointed attendees to the Alameda Immigrant Legal Education Partnership and the committee’s webpage for resources. The meeting adjourned at 11:27 a.m.

Next steps: county staff were directed to report back with the survey results and a summary of federal task‑force participation and data‑sharing practices; the committee flagged potential contract revisions and privacy audits as likely follow‑up actions.