Berkeley council votes to move forward on external camera/ALPR procurement with data protections, after heated public comment

Berkeley’s City Council voted March 18 to authorize staff to begin the surveillance-technology ordinance (STO) process and pursue procurement options for external fixed cameras compatible with the city’s automated license-plate-reader (ALPR) system, after extended public comment and debate focused on data security and privacy.

The item, introduced by the police department, asks council to authorize pursuit of grant funding, adjust previously approved fixed‑camera locations toward high pedestrian areas, and open a formal vendor-acquisition and use-policy process under the city’s surveillance-technology ordinance.

The police presentation explained the city previously approved ALPR and fixed-camera locations but experienced installation and infrastructure barriers; staff said ALPR coverage of ingress and egress routes made fixed cameras more useful when deployed in pedestrian-heavy locations.

Arlo, the department’s privacy and data lead, described vendor controls and data protections proposed for the program, including encryption and a limited retention schedule. “The data is stored on AWS gov cloud, which is a platform that meets the strictest government security standards,” Arlo said, adding that vendor terms would forbid sharing with federal immigration enforcement under state law and that the city would be notified of any legal orders.

Council members sought specifics about where data would be stored, whether live monitoring would be used, whether cameras record sound, and how long footage would be retained. Staff said ALPR records are retained 30 days under current policy and fixed-camera footage 180 days; they also confirmed the city’s surveillance policy currently prohibits facial-recognition analytics and live continuous monitoring without further council action.

The meeting included many public commenters. Opponents — including student groups and civil‑liberties advocates — asked the council to remove a proposed camera at the Telegraph and Durant intersection, citing a high student population, immigrant safety concerns, and distrust of federal authorities’ ability to access cloud data. “If you read the Guardian article from 03/11/2025, ICE accessed car tracker information in sanctuary cities that helps in ICE raids,” one commenter said during public comment, urging caution.

Supporters — business groups, merchants and a student‑safety nonprofit — urged the council to provide the police with investigative tools and said cameras and ALPR data had helped identify suspects in violent incidents. One business representative said fixed camera footage previously helped identify a shooter and enabled arrests.

Council debated two motions: a substitute motion to exclude the Telegraph & Durant location, and the main motion to authorize staff to proceed with the STO/vendor process and include additional locations if funding becomes available. The substitute motion failed on a roll call; the main motion passed.

Councilmembers secured additional direction: staff should negotiate strong contract terms and data‑control provisions (including language directing the vendor to refuse sharing with outside agencies absent a court order and to notify the city immediately if any such order is received), involve the Police Accountability Board for review of acquisition and use‑policy reports, and incorporate student outreach for sites near campus.

The council’s approval is a procedural authorization to begin the STO acquisition and policy process; actual purchases, final vendor selection and use policies will return to the council and PAB for review and approval. Several council members and the city attorney emphasized that contract terms, data storage options and deletion protocols will be finalized during acquisition and could include on‑premises or city‑managed storage if operationally feasible.