Berkeley Approves License Plate Reader Cameras Despite Privacy Concerns

Berkeley City Council voted 6–1 on Tuesday night to install 52 license plate scanners on street lights throughout the city to address rising auto theft, return stolen vehicles and deter other serious crimes.

The decision comes as California is simultaneously seeking to pilot speeding cameras in six cities across the state, including three in the Bay Area. But privacy advocates and some residents are wary of the surveillance technology, questioning its effectiveness and how the immense amount of data captured by the scanners could be used.

“There is insufficient evidence at this point to say that yes, this will solve our crime problems,” said Hansel Aguilar, director of the city’s Police Accountability Board. “Vehicle theft was the most clear (application) with this, but even with that, the evidence is mixed on its potential and effectiveness to prevent auto vehicle thefts.”

Berkeley Police have been pushing for the cameras, which will operate under a two-year pilot program and city leaders will evaluate after whether they should continue using them. Berkeley Police Department will begin installing the devices this fall, and exact locations have not been determined.

“We know that good data in, lends itself to good data out, and we are now working to accomplish that,” said Jessica Perry, public relations officer for the Berkeley Police Department.

Supporters say that the license plate readers can increase the likelihood and speed at which police can identify drivers who pose a risk to street safety or who are wanted for other serious crimes.

At least 733 stolen vehicles have been reported in Berkeley so far this year, a 67% increase from a year ago, according to police department data. On the whole, crime reports in Berkeley are up 15% compared to last year.

The approved pilot program will require an initial setup cost of $250,000 and it will cost an estimated $175,000 annually to maintain the devices.

Berkeley already has some scanners installed on parking enforcement vehicles, Berkeleyside reports, and several law enforcement agencies in Alameda County already use some amount of automated license plate readers (ALPRs).

In June, Berkeley also approved the use of 10 fixed surveillance cameras to be placed on city intersections to help identify other crimes, like thefts and shootings.

Vacaville has seen a 33% dip in auto thefts since the city approved of the scanners in 2019, Berkeley Police Sgt. Joseph Ledoux said at a City Council Public Safety Committee meeting in June. But members of the Police Accountability Board questioned the statistic.

“That number could be misleading, because the period where that decrease occurred was before some of the ALPRs were installed,” said Aguilar.

Berkeley’s Police Accountability Board voted against the cameras in June. Members were not convinced that privacy risks would outweigh any benefits from the added surveillance.

“We should, with any surveillance technology, just be mindful of its promises and make sure we manage our expectations as a community,” Aguilar said. “I know a lot of people are concerned about these reported crime trends and I don’t want the police department to be put in a situation where we treat any tool as a magic bullet.”

The American Civil Liberties Union echoed their concerns with the technology and wrote a letter to Berkeley City Council ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

“ALPR systems represent a massive expansion of surveillance that frequently do not bring commensurate public safety benefits. Rather, in many circumstances, this technology causes more harm than good,” the letter reads.

In addition to data privacy concerns, ACLU wrote that technologies like ALPRs are often deployed in disadvantaged neighborhoods and could disproportionately punish residents in those areas.

“ALPR systems are easily misused to harm marginalized communities,” the ACLU wrote. “As with other surveillance technologies, police often deploy license plate readers in poor and historically overpoliced areas, regardless of crime rates.”

Tracy Rosenberg, advocacy director of Oakland Privacy, a citizens’ coalition that advocates for the regulation of surveillance technology, worries that the data collected by the scanners is susceptible to data breaches, and she’s skeptical over how the tool could prevent most types of crime.

“I’ve heard people saying it will prevent gun violence and a number of other things that it in very practical terms won’t do … So we have a situation where we’re using municipal resources for something that may not be able to deliver what people are being promised,” said Rosenberg.

“Do we really want the government tracking everywhere that our cars go and putting it into a cloud database online? These cloud databases can be leaky, things get hacked,” she added.

Rosenberg similarly has concerns with a statewide speed camera pilot program that is currently working its way through the California Legislature.

The bill, AB 645, would allow San Francisco, Oakland and San José to pilot an automated speed camera system, along with Los Angeles, Glendale and Long Beach.

Supporters say it can help deter pedestrian accidents and other road collisions. Funding collected from speeding tickets, which can run from $50 to $500 depending on the violation, would be earmarked for street infrastructure improvement projects.

Critics like Rosenberg say that cities should first invest in infrastructure improvement, violence prevention programs, and building better roads, which can improve traffic and public safety.

She pointed to how cities like Oakland and Richmond have used license plate scanners for years, but continue to battle many of the same challenges as Berkeley.

“If these readers really stop and prevent crime,” she said, “then why on earth haven’t they been working in those cities?”

KQED’s Rachael Myrow contributed reporting to this story.