Berkeley joins a growing list of jurisdictions pumping the brakes on contracts with the controversial spytech firm, whose automated license plate readers (ALPRs) can track vehicle movements across entire cities and share that data with law enforcement networks nationwide.

Here's where it gets interesting. We're generally sympathetic to the argument that public safety tools — including surveillance technology — can be valuable when deployed with proper oversight and clear limits. Car thefts and property crime are real problems that real people deal with every day, and dismissing every law enforcement tool as dystopian doesn't actually help the single mom whose Honda Civic just got stolen for the third time.

But Flock cameras raise legitimate concerns that go beyond the usual activist talking points. The company's data-sharing agreements are opaque, their retention policies are questionable, and the potential for mission creep is enormous. When a private company builds a nationwide vehicle-tracking network and sells access to thousands of police departments, that's not just a local policing decision — it's the quiet construction of a surveillance infrastructure that would make any liberty-minded person uncomfortable.

The irony of Berkeley — a city that has historically refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities on principle — nearly signing up for a system that could theoretically help those same federal authorities track people is... chef's kiss.

The right answer here isn't "no surveillance ever" or "cameras everywhere." It's transparency, strict data retention limits, independent oversight, and sunset clauses that force regular reauthorization. Technology isn't the enemy. Unchecked government power wielding technology with zero accountability? That's the enemy.

Berkeley may have stumbled into the right decision for the wrong reasons, but we'll take it.