Half Moon Bay will be bringing a conversation about the city’s automated license plate readers back to the City Council after the community raised concerns about data-sharing risks with federal agencies.
“We’re trying to develop some information we can share with the public and then have a conversation about it,” Mayor Debbie Ruddock said. “We have a large Latino community here, and a large farmworker community — some in Half Moon Bay, some in the county. We want to look out for the most vulnerable people, as well as everybody else.”
The technology can be used for authorized law enforcement to respond to emergencies, apprehend people suspected of crimes and identify stolen vehicles and missing people, for example. Residents have historically expressed privacy concerns with the cameras, which were installed as many cities across the county began to use similar technology.
The decision to review the city’s contract with Flock Safety, which has operated 16 automated license plate readers at seven locations across Half Moon Bay since fall 2025, comes as other Bay Area cities are terminating relationships with the company.
Mountain View announced its decision to turn its ALPRs off after findings that hundreds of law enforcement agencies, including several federal entities, had accessed its license plate data without authorization, the Mountain View Voice reported. Santa Cruz made a similar decision earlier in the year amidst data privacy concerns and increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement from the Trump administration, according to KQED.
Recommended for you
Though California law prohibits license plate data from being shared with agencies out of the state, counties are becoming more wary of surveillance technology companies given these data issues — a concern Half Moon Bay shares, City Manager Matthew Chidester said.
“We have heard the concerns loud and clear. We express the same concerns. … We’re taking proactive steps right now to ensure the communities’ information is protected,” he said. “Ultimately, if it’s not the right fit for our community, it’s something we can change.”
The city has taken steps to ensure its contract with Flock Safety is being followed and mitigate any potential risks, including an upcoming meeting with the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Chidester said.
The City Council will discuss the topic at an upcoming meeting in February or early March so residents can weigh in on the city’s two-year Flock contract, Ruddock said.
“We sign an agreement with Flock, we expect it to be followed to the T, because of the sensitivity of the information. Any breach is cause for concern, but there’s heightened concerns today, because of everything that’s going on with our country,” she said. “We want to be clearheaded about it, but we don’t want to put the community at risk either.”
A reminder that if electronic data is gathered, it can be used by others, regardless of what local or state authorities legislate or want. Let’s not forget Jack Smith spying on Republican lawmakers by having judges sign non-disclosure orders to obtain data. The people being spied on never knew, until now, they were being spied on. Since Jack Smith is saying his actions were lawful, feds could find ways to get hands on ALPR data. National security, anyone? If California cities don’t want to use ALPR data to enforce law and order, it is my understanding that individuals can install ALPRs on their property. Are they allowed to give, not share, data to assist law enforcement, local and federal?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
A reminder that if electronic data is gathered, it can be used by others, regardless of what local or state authorities legislate or want. Let’s not forget Jack Smith spying on Republican lawmakers by having judges sign non-disclosure orders to obtain data. The people being spied on never knew, until now, they were being spied on. Since Jack Smith is saying his actions were lawful, feds could find ways to get hands on ALPR data. National security, anyone? If California cities don’t want to use ALPR data to enforce law and order, it is my understanding that individuals can install ALPRs on their property. Are they allowed to give, not share, data to assist law enforcement, local and federal?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.