Letter to the editor: Serious concerns regarding Flock cameras

Some Springfield residents made their voices known about their thoughts on Flock cameras last weekend at the No Kings protests in Springfield and Eugene. BOB WILLIAMS / THE CHRONICLE

Dear Editor:

I’m writing as a proud member of the Springfield community to express my strong opposition to the utilization of Flock license plate reader cameras.

Let me be clear: I am not anti-police. I support our officers and the difficult work they do to keep Springfield safe. I believe most members of our police force are honorable, community-minded individuals who truly want what’s best for this city. My concern is not with our officers’ current intentions, but with the long-term implications of introducing a system of mass surveillance into our public spaces.

There is an appetite, especially in challenging times, to give law enforcement new tools in the name of safety and efficiency. I understand the impulse and empathize with the position that police departments are in, which are chronically understaffed, underfunded, and heavily criticized in recent years. However, unrestrained surveillance, especially AI-driven, invites the possibility of misuse – not necessarily today, but down the road. 

We’ve already seen how quickly the definitions of “acceptable behavior” and even “criminality” can shift. In 2020, many of us witnessed government overreach at a state level that was deeply unconstitutional. Regardless of where one stood politically, the precedent was unsettling.

The danger lies not just in what these cameras can do today, but in what they could be used for tomorrow. Systems like these often outlive their original intent, and history teaches us that surveillance infrastructure, once installed, rarely goes away. After 9/11, “temporary” counter-terror programs became permanent; traffic and red-light cameras turned into police databases; and health or ID systems have expanded into broad monitoring networks. There is no reason to assume Flock’s system would be any different. Springfield should not gamble with civil liberties.

Other communities have already recognized this risk and taken a firm stance:

The stated purpose behind Springfield’s proposed Flock camera installation, and the source of its funding, is a grant from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) under the state’s Organized Retail Theft Program. To be clear, this was not money that simply appeared or was offered to the City unsolicited. The Springfield Police Department actively applied for this grant, just as Eugene did, in order to obtain the funds. My understanding of the program is that this was a voluntary choice by law enforcement, not a state mandate. The grant itself is taxpayer-funded, authorized under ORS 137.686, which directs public money from legislative appropriations to the CJC for this program. In short, it is the people of Oregon who are paying for these cameras, and to be clear – residents of the City of Springfield. Many of those same people are now saying, loudly and clearly – do not use our public dollars to surveil our own community. This is not a partisan issue either. Residents across the political spectrum are united in opposition.

Springfield doesn’t need to follow a path that others are now reversing or rejecting. We can lead differently by putting trust in our community, our officers, and our shared values of liberty and transparency.

Please listen to your law-abiding constituents; take the cameras down immediately. We love this city. We want it to thrive. And we want to keep it free. The utilization of Flock cameras is not consistent with the character, values, or long-term wellbeing of Springfield.

Aleah Abeyta

Springfield 

More from our Newsroom