BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KERO) — Flock cameras capture license plate and vehicle information 24 hours a day as cars pass through Bakersfield — and the Bakersfield Police Department's own transparency portal shows the scale: more than 850,000 plate reads in the last 30 days.
BPD describes the cameras as an investigative tool used to help locate stolen vehicles, missing people, and vehicles connected to crimes. Plate data is retained for 30 days unless otherwise necessary, according to the portal.
But at a community meeting on August 19, residents and organizers raised questions not just about what the cameras can find — but about who can access what they collect.
The meeting was organized during the National Week of Action against automated license plate readers. Ariel Dyer, co-founder of the Anti-Capitalist Computer Club, said the timing was intentional.
"My biggest concern is this data being out there for everyone to see," Dyer said. "It speaks to a larger issue of how we move in the contemporary space that is so digital now — what is actually ours, so how can we redefine privacy in a world where I have a phone and I'm being tracked everywhere I go."
Dyer said the 850,000 plate read figure from BPD's transparency portal was difficult to process.
"I can't even fathom it. It's clearly a useful tool is what it means to me. It's clearly something that they like and they want, but we are saying we don't want it," Dyer said. "I think that regular people and their opinions should matter and should be heard."
BPD's portal states that system access requires a valid reason, with records of that access kept indefinitely. The portal also lists other law enforcement agencies as having access to Bakersfield's network data.
Dyer questioned who is making the call when data is retained beyond the standard 30-day window.
"I hope it would come from the top, but the fact that you asked that question speaks to a lack of transparency," Dyer said. "We don't know what's going on with the technology, and that's a big concern. Although some make the argument for them putting safeguards in place, often those are just token, and technology like this, I think, is rife for abuse."
When asked about the line between useful law enforcement tools and privacy violations, Dyer drew a clear distinction.
"A law enforcement being able to query characteristics about myself or my vehicle that I travel in, find out my movements, know where I've been, know who I hang out with — that's not OK," Dyer said.
But access is not evidence of misuse. When I asked Dyer whether she had found any involving Bakersfield data, she was direct.
"I don't have any sort of smoking gun as far as Bakersfield data usage," Dyer said. "I will say that a lot of times the logged reason for the investigation is just 'investigation' or nothing. Even if they are inputting reasons for using the tech, it's really hard to know when it's being misused because if you're going to misuse the data, why would you disclose that on a record that's publicly available."
Still, Dyer said her group opposes the technology itself and wants more public oversight.
Community organizer Victor Gutierrez said the sheer number of cameras in Bakersfield caught him off guard.
"Honestly, the amount of Flock cameras that we have here in Bakersfield… I think it's crazy," Gutierrez said.
Community member Nadine Escalante urged those at the meeting to take their concerns beyond the room.
"Start paying attention. They are everywhere," Escalante said.
"Start going to the city council meetings… We need you guys to speak," Escalante said.
Stay in Touch with Us Anytime, Anywhere:
