UC Campus Surveillance Data Found Flowing to Federal Border Agency
Table of Contents
The Paper Trail to the National Targeting Center
Public records unearthed by The Ellis Collective, a student-led research initiative, suggest a widening gap between the University of California’s stated privacy policies and its actual data-sharing practices. The findings indicate that multiple UC campuses have been funneling data from automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), specifically to the agency’s National Targeting Center (NTC).
The evidence stems from reports generated by VehicleManager, an ALPR service provider used by UC Riverside and UC Merced. These logs explicitly show data being forwarded to “CBP – NTC.” For a system of universities that often positions itself as a sanctuary for students and faculty, the direct pipeline to federal immigration and border enforcement agencies represents a significant point of contention and a potential violation of California state law.
The ‘Fusion’ Problem: How Data Leaks Through Agreements
ALPR technology is often marketed as a tool for solving violent crimes—a claim echoed by UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof, who noted that the campus’s pilot program with Flock Safety has aided in criminal investigations. However, the technical reality of these systems is that they create a permanent, searchable digital ledger of movement. When this data is shared with “fusion centers” like the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), it rarely stays within the confines of a single agreement.
The Ellis Collective argues that the UC Berkeley agreement with NCRIC creates a cascading effect. Because NCRIC serves as a hub for numerous state and local agencies, any entity with access to the fusion center can potentially query UCB’s data. This “resharing” phenomenon effectively strips away the privacy protections intended at the source, transforming a campus security tool into a broad federal surveillance asset.
Contradictory Narratives and Legal Friction
The response from UC administration has been a mix of silence and firm denials. While UC Riverside and UC Merced police departments have declined to comment on their specific data-sharing arrangements, UC Berkeley has pushed back against the allegations. Mogulof stated that UCPD does not permit data sharing for immigration enforcement purposes and maintains that granting access to an agency does not authorize that agency to further distribute the data.
However, the scale of the activity is difficult to ignore. External audit logs from UC Irvine reveal tens of thousands of database searches over the past year, illustrating the high velocity of queries running through these systems. The discrepancy between the university’s claims of strict auditing and the documented flow of data to the CBP-NTC has led to a growing legal battle.
Litigation and the Public Records Act
The revelations are the result of aggressive use of the California Public Records Act, which mandates that government entities maintain and disclose specific records. This transparency has now evolved into a courtroom conflict. Daniel Negrete, director of The Ellis Collective, recently filed suit against the UC Regents, alleging that UC Riverside improperly handled his public records requests. Negrete has also threatened similar legal action against UC Berkeley.
In a brief response to the litigation, UC Office of the President spokesperson Stett Holbrook stated that the University of California has not yet been served with the complaint and will respond in court. For now, the legal battle highlights a critical tension in the modern campus: the balance between the perceived need for high-tech policing and the fundamental right to privacy in a public educational space.
