SPRINGFIELD – More than 100 people filled Springfield City Hall and about two dozen more joined online during a City Council meeting Sept. 2 – with several people citing privacy concerns over a new surveillance system.
During the council’s first regular session back after summer break, public comments lasted for over an hour, with approximately half of the speakers expressing opposition to the installation of Flock camera systems, which utilize AI technology to record vehicle traffic – and everything else in its view.
What are Flock cameras?
According to its website, Flock Safety is the largest public-private safety network that “unites communities, businesses, schools, and law enforcement to solve and deter crime.” Flock sells a surveillance to local police agencies like the Eugene and Springfield Police Departments. Data from the solar-powered cameras is uploaded to systems managed by Flock.
AI image recognition from its software is used to label objects in videos. For example, a police department can use the software to find specific vehicles, all the way down to their bumper stickers and visible damage.
“The perceived benefit is peace of mind, faster resolution of incidents, and smarter community safety – not just crime prevention,” said George Crolly, SPD deputy chief.
According to Crolly, SPD’s timeline for installation has been fluid, based on planning and availability, but they are hopeful that cameras will be up in the coming weeks.
SPD plans to install 25 of the license plate recognition (LPR) cameras in various locations around the city.
Public weighs in
Rob Sheldon, a professional software developer and North Springfield resident, shared his concerns about Flock cameras during the council meeting.
“If the stated purpose of these is to combat retail theft, it’s hard to see why so many of these installations are planned for residential areas,” Sheldon said. “I will no longer be free to travel in town without Flock recording my movements and then trading access to that data for money.”
Deputy Chief Crolly explained that license plate recognition “provides reassurance in areas that have experienced break-ins, burglaries, or suspicious vehicle activity,” adding that the technology allows police to quickly identify suspect vehicles connected to crimes–even non-violent ones like package theft, vandalism, or fraud.
“This should reduce investigative time by providing direct leads instead of relying solely on eyewitness accounts,” Crolly said. “They impact traffic safety by helping identify vehicles involved in reckless driving, DUIs, Amber Alerts, or Silver Alerts, and also support traffic investigations.”
Ky Fireside, who lives near Hayden Bridge, noted concerns about camera locations and privacy, citing proposed sites such as the roundabout at Hayden Bridge and Pioneer Parkway, as well as the far end of Hayden Bridge.
“I live on Hayden Bridge. I cannot go home or leave home without being on camera,” Fireside said.
Fireside is also concerned about the proposed cameras along Gateway, as people would potentially be filmed if they visit Riverbend Hospital and several other healthcare facilities there, including one that is well known in the queer community for providing gender-affirming care.
“That footage is handed over to a private company. This private company does not need to know when I go to see any doctor,” Fireside said, adding that over 60 agencies across the country could have access to the footage.
Besides EPD, at least 10 other local agencies are already utilizing Flock cameras. According to Crolly, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office, Oregon State Police, Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, and Florence Police Department are just a few on that list.
Crolly said law enforcement leadership, patrol officers, detectives, and crime victims are pushing for the installation of LPRs.
“You will be told that everything is fine and safe because your police department has a contract that states that they own the data. This is a lie,” said Sheldon. “As recent national news so clearly illustrated, Flock can provide anyone else access to that data at any time. They were doing exactly that for Customs and Border Patrol without the knowledge or permission of the affected police departments,” he said.
A Sept. 3 article by Straight Arrow News reporter Krystal Nurse revealed that in Illinois, the secretary of state’s office “audited a sample of Flock Safety’s data from 12 law enforcement agencies in June, and learned at the end of August the tech company didn’t have safeguards in place to prevent data sharing.”
“My interactions with community members on this topic have been positive and supportive as those folks understand how LPRs allow police to help keep the community safe,” Crolly said. “But, I am not unaware of the opposition by some who view it negatively.”
Four people, all in opposition to the cameras, provide public input via Zoom.
Sam Cook, a technology specialist in Springfield, highlighted the financial difficulties facing essential services, which may be offset by the increased expenses that Flock cameras bring for taxpayers. He suggested a rearrangement of resources.
“Firefighters (are) being overworked, and the library (is) facing budget cuts. Granted, the Flock system comes from a state grant, but when that grant expires, we will be expected to foot that bill. Ongoing costs will be at least $171,000 per year. Asking us to eventually pay for a system that spies on us and enriches a private corporation that seeks to profit off of our information while essential services face dire circumstances is ludicrous,” Cook said.
“I just want to acknowledge that it has been a little bit of a marathon of public testimony, which is good. That is why we’re here to hear from the public,” VanGordon said.
“It might be more helpful for us if we have a longer memo about what the contract is and how we’re implementing it. Start with the basics,” VanGordon said. “Thank you to those of you who provided testimony this evening. It’s compelling, and I think it’s worthy of some further research.”
