SPRINGFIELD – The Springfield and Eugene police departments on Dec. 5 announced that they have officially terminated use of their Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) systems, citing unspecified “vulnerabilities and limitations” that “prevent them from meeting operational needs, data security requirements, and community expectations.”
The system they have been using, called Flock, is a public-private safety network that provides a mass surveillance platform to local police agencies, using solar-powered cameras to collect and upload data to their systems.
Use of these systems has been an ongoing debate in Springfield since September, with stacked public comment periods during city council meetings raising concerns about federal overreach, privacy violations, transparency and accountability, and effectiveness versus cost.
Tye Weisenfluh, a Springfield resident in opposition to the technology, called the announcement “an absolute surprise.”
“SPD and EPD both had said they would not make a decision until next year, then all of a sudden changed course and together canceled their contracts,” Weisenfluh said, which leads to “more questions than answers.”
Why the change?
SPD Deputy Chief of Police George Crolly stated in the news release that, “given what we have learned, we do not have confidence that the current system provides the level of control and assurance we require.”
Crolly declined to provide further specifics of the security or operational issues, or “vulnerabilities and limitations” uncovered during the system’s use, including whether the unintentional reactivation of an SPD camera on Nov. 7 near 28th and Olympic streets was a contributing factor in the termination decision.
“That sort of quick decision-making late on a Friday creates more questions. … We don’t know, but hopefully they explain the decision further,” Weisenfluh said.
What’s next?
Flock cameras within the city will be covered “in the coming days,” pending their complete removal, according to SPD, though the specific process for their full decommissioning and removal remain unclear. While the departments confirmed the cameras would be covered immediately, Crolly declined to provide a specific timeline for their physical removal.
SPD also declined to disclose what will happen to the sensitive license plate data that the system has already collected during its operation, leaving the data’s long-term security and disposal unaddressed.
The departments stated they will continue to seek additional ALPR technology to implement at an unspecified timeline, with SPD Police Chief Jami Resch calling the technology “a valuable tool for modern law enforcement, noting that “this move does not represent a shift away from ALPR technology itself. SPD will continue to work closely with the community and our law enforcement partners, including the EPD, to identify tools that police can use to enhance public safety.”
Resch, in the news release, stated that SPD “will be seeking ALPR options that meet our standards for data security, system transparency, and operational control. As we move forward, we intend to continue our work with community members to ensure those expectations are clear and are met.”
SPD referenced the need to “safeguard community trust” and declined to specify the steps the departments would take to build trust following the removal of the system.
The department also declined to comment on what methods will be used to gather this community input, or what specific, measurable standards will be required for the next system regarding data security, system transparency, and operational control – such as whether a new system will be locally hosted or have stricter, shorter data retention limits.
“We can’t just blindly accept convenience in trade for our freedoms,” Weisenfluh said. “In a digital age where AI is increasingly being used to find relationships between all sorts of data points about our lives, giving up our location history without even requiring a warrant is one of the more dangerous moves a government can force upon the population.”
It remains unclear whether the SPD has initiated a formal Request for Proposal process for a replacement vendor, and the department declined to disclose the budgeted amount for a new ALPR system or the specific vendors currently under consideration.
Weisenfluh said that, if the new ALPR technology can withstand the test of the 4th Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and if the technology will not provide “a blueprint of the daily travels of law-abiding citizens, let’s have that discussion.”
Meanwhile, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office continues to use its Flock cameras, with ongoing discussions to implement them in other cities, such as Creswell, which contracts with LCSO for its police services.
Weisenfluh hopes that LCSO will “see the writing on the wall and learn from the mistakes of SPD and EPD.
“This was a huge mistake that could have been avoided if they had left room for public comment,” Weisenfluh said.
Advocacy will continue through Eyes off Eugene, Weisenfluh said, which is a local advocacy group that has been campaigning against the use of Flock cameras.
“The organizers … will be pressing hard at the state level for legislation that protects against these reckless forms of mass surveillance,” Weisenfluh said.
UPDATE: After this story went to print on Tuesday, LCSO also announced it will discontinue use of the Flock cameras. Read that story below, along with past stories following this issue.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE
