Springfield asked to reject Flock cameras

Presenter: At the Springfield City Council Sept. 2, public comments say no to Flock cameras. Rob Sheldon:

Rob Sheldon: Hi, Rob Sheldon, I’ve been a software developer professionally for over 25 years. I’m here today because of Springfield’s plan to install Flock surveillance systems in this town.

[00:00:16] First, I want to thank the city for being more cooperative with public records requests than Eugene has been. And to Springfield’s credit, this surveillance system is not yet installed. It’s not too late to pursue another option, something that is better and safer for everyone here. 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, including just outside our own home.

[00:00:41] Flock was valued this year at $7.5 billion by its investors, not for their mediocre camera hardware or the freely available software they run. That valuation was entirely for the data they collect. They are gathering the movements and associations of millions of Americans and they have ensured that they can broker that data.

[00:00:58] This is not like having a cell phone in your pocket. Setting aside the many technical reasons why that comparison doesn’t make any sense, I am, as of today, free to leave my cell phone at home. With these devices installed across the city, I will no longer be free to travel in town without Flock recording my movements and then trading access to that data for money.

[00:01:17] Flock uses local police departments as PR outlets, repeating the same lies and half-truths over and over again against public objections like tonight’s that are happening across the country. 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. As recent national news so clearly illustrated, Flock is able to provide anyone else access to that data at any time.

[00:01:41] They were doing exactly that for Customs and Border Patrol without the knowledge or permission of the affected police departments. Large legal firms and national journalists are currently investigating Flock. We have met with the ACLU of Oregon, the Institute for Justice, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and many more. We join residents and cities across the country that are working to educate public officials on how the system works and why it’s dangerous.

[00:02:03] Ky Fireside: Hi, my name is Ky Fireside. A lot of people are here tonight to speak out against Flock on behalf of marginalized communities, and I think that’s fabulous, so I’m going to speak out against Flock on behalf of myself.

[00:02:15] Springfield Police Department has been very prompt answering our public records requests. From these, we have received the proposed locations of all of the Flock cameras. This includes two of them on the roundabout at the Hayden Bridge and Pioneer Parkway. There will also be devices installed at the other end of Hayden Bridge.

[00:02:32] I live on Hayden Bridge. I cannot go home or leave home without being on camera. There are several more going up at Gateway, which means you will be filmed if you go to RiverBend Hospital.

[00:02:44] There are a number of other healthcare facilities there, including one that is well known in the queer community for providing gender-affirming care. This is the facility that I go to for gender-affirming care, and I no longer have a way to get there without being filmed. That footage is then handed over to a private company. This private company does not need to know when I go see any doctor.

[00:03:05] It’s not just Springfield Police Department and this private company to get access to the footage. Springfield Police Department will be sharing with over 60 other agencies, including many agencies that are outside of Oregon. Agencies in Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Tennessee. There’s a distinct non-sanctuary-state pattern here. There is a red pattern here. These are the kind of people that come after my immigrant father or my queer self.

[00:03:36] There are a lot of cities that are experiencing lawsuits related to Flock right now, and I’m sure we could find better way to spend Springfield’s money than fighting Flock lawsuits.

[00:03:44] Kamryn Stringfield: My name is Kamryn Stringfield. I’m an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I live in Eugene, but I work as a caregiver with a few clients in Springfield. I have to drive around both cities with my clients to get them to the places they need to go, so I’m constantly going back and forth from Eugene to Springfield and passing many Flock cameras while doing so. In Eugene, 57 plus Flock cameras have already been installed and are active and rolling.

[00:04:09] The Eugene Police Department never solicited any public input or governmental oversight before installing the system with our state taxpayer dollars. Neither did the unelected city manager when they decided to approve the contracts for these cameras. So now I am recorded everywhere I go and I can’t opt out of it and I get no say in it.

[00:04:27] I am appalled and disgusted at this move by our local government officials. And as a socialist organizer, very active in protest locally, as well as a transgender woman, this system scares me.

[00:04:38] While I have been canvassing in neighborhoods of Eugene and Springfield talking to people from all backgrounds and identities, I can tell you that almost nobody wants this system. This AI-powered mass surveillance system is inherently intrusive and dangerous and unconstitutional. And it is in the public interest to terminate the contract with Flock Safety, which is what I ask you to do.

[00:04:59] It is entirely okay to admit that mistakes were made and to reverse course and not install this system. That would actually build trust with the community. You’re in a unique position to stop this system from being installed rather than having to spend additional resources to uninstall it.

[00:05:17] Thank you for all you do and I hope that you listen to your community members who say, ‘No, we do not want to be surveilled. We need services, good education, good health care, and all of that stuff that actually helps to prevent crime, not more corporate mass surveillance from a corporation that doesn’t have the same values we do.’

[00:05:35] Seth May: My name is Seth May. I’m here to urge you to reject the installation and use of automated license plate readers, including Flock systems. At the core is privacy. Privacy is not secrecy. It’s the ability to live, move and associate without being catalogued by the state.

[00:05:51] I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because the intentions and actions of the government are ever-changing and subject to misuse. A network that logs where we drive and when, at scale and over time, builds a dossier on ordinary people that chills speech, associations, and daily life.

[00:06:12] Some say that cell phones and social networks already track you. The critical difference is that corporations, their data is a commercial relationship. You can choose not to use the platform, limit permissions, or delete an account.

[00:06:26] Government surveillance is coercive. You cannot opt out of driving to work, the doctor, or your place of worship, and when the government collects data, it sits next to the power to detain, prosecute, and punish. That’s why constitutional protections exist to restrain state power. If you want my data, come with probable cause and a warrant.

[00:06:47] These surveillance technologies invert the presumption of innocence by treating everyone’s movements as evidence to be stored, just in case. They create real risk. False hits lead to dangerous stops. Breaches expose sensitive travel patterns and changes in leadership result in the misuse of data in ways that it was not originally intended.

[00:07:06] Public safety requires tools that are targeted, accountable, and effective. Broad suspicionless surveillance is none of those things. Instead, our communities need to invest in measures that are proven to reduce harm and not to treat every person like a criminal to be tracked. I’m asking you to declare an immediate moratorium on license plate readers and to remove any units already in place. Protect due process by requiring case-specific warrants, not dragnet data collection.

[00:07:34] Sean Maxwell: My name is Sean Maxwell. I’m in Ward 3. I’m here to speak on behalf of concerned Springfield residents who oppose the installation of the 25 camera license plate readers in our city. Surveillance is meant to enhance safety, but unchecked, it threatens our fundamental right to privacy.

[00:07:50] These cameras operated by a private company collect millions of license plate scans, every vehicle, every location, at every moment, creating a searchable database of our everyday moments and movements. While Flock promises they don’t identify individuals by race or gender, critics note the company’s data sharing practices remain opaque and unregulated.

[00:08:13] Just this summer, alarming evidence emerged: Flock had collaborated with Homeland Security via pilot programs, even though oversight was woefully lacking. As a result, a state audit and raised legal concern led to these programs being paused.

[00:08:27] Communities across the nation are acting. In Evanston, Illinois, they deactivated all 19 cameras and are terminating their contract early, citing troubling audit findings and unauthorized data sharing. Also in Oak Park, Illinois, they voted to outright cancel their contract calling it a necessary step to uphold democratic values and protect residents from surveillance overreach.

[00:08:51] Closer to home Sen. Ron Wyden secured a deal ensuring that the data from Flock cameras in our state cannot be used for any abortion- or immigration-related searches by out-of-state agencies.

[00:09:02] If the Council insists on permitting the camera installation to continue, I would ask for oversight and accountability: How many police officer positions or investigative hours will be cut or reduced because the cameras are taking over their work? How will this cost savings be reflected in the police budget rather than simply layering surveillance costs on top of current spending?

[00:09:25] Robin Mayall: My name is Robin Mayall. I’m here today to ask you to do a bold and courageous thing and cancel your contract with Flock cameras, the mass surveillance company that is currently poised to go into our community.

[00:09:39] I have worked in technology for four decades, including software engineering, database administration, analytics, cybersecurity, infrastructure, and even on machine learning tools themselves. I am not at all opposed to the judicious use of technology. but with the increased power and speed of data sharing and analysis that AI brings to the world comes increased responsibility for safeguarding the personal information of your citizens, these community members here of Springfield.

[00:10:08] There are many problematic red flags in the way Flock data can be exposed. Others have talked to some of these, including miscategorization of searches by other law enforcement entities, integration of Flock license plate reader data that is planned with data sourced from a variety of other entities, including data brokers, which are kind of quasi-legal and often have data that come from breaches or other information that is not public records.

[00:10:38] Flock’s data may also be exposed via password sharing or password compromise and above all by cybersecurity data breaches. The dangers of mass surveillance tools, especially as they rapidly change and grow and incorporate AI capabilities, far outpace the abilities of cities and law enforcement staff to effectively govern and moderate their use.

[00:11:00] They sit above the ability of our government entities to regulate, control, and protect their data—and thus protect their citizens. Citizens who trust their community and their law enforcement both create a safer community and safer law enforcement.

[00:11:16] I’m asking you to consider the safety and the privacy of all of your citizens and please remove these cameras.

[00:11:23] Glenn Olheiser: Hi, my name is Glenn. And I’m here to talk about our Flock cameras. Flock cameras are just a gross oversight. And it is really deplorable that as both cities consider having these, that it’s an acceptable form of tracking to have every resident’s information for, you know, 30 days, I think in Eugene’s case.

[00:11:49] And, you know, the government has tools to track phones, to, you know, listen to phone calls, to do these things already. The problem, well, the difference is, is that they need warrants, right? They need proof, they need criminal activity going on in order to facilitate those from a judge because they’re, you know, regulated from the government.

[00:12:10] Things like Flock and other automated license plate readers, there are no regulations such as that. There’s no requirements for a warrant. There’s no anything. It’s all a piece of paper and a contract.

[00:12:23] And I think that although everybody has the best intentions, I’m sure people are human and it’s going to get misused. I think that, you know, personally, I don’t have a criminal record and I don’t, you know, do a bunch of spooky stuff, but at the same time, I don’t want people to just be able to Google up where my car is for the past month. I think that that’s egregious.

I think it’s a, it feels like a really big invasion in my privacy as people have spoken to here. I think that it is just, there’s so many cases and possibilities for abuse that although whatever positives would potentially come from it, it’s not worth the cost and our privacy. I implore you to reconsider your contract and hopefully cancel the installation.

[00:13:13] Jordon Kelley: Hi, I’m Jordon Kelley, and I would like to talk about our Flock cameras. If I went into Best Buy and I bought the cheapest laptop, I could get near a Flock camera and I could access its Bluetooth and then, with just a little bit of tech savviness, could access the entire Flock safety system. It’s not a very secure system, it’s just not.

[00:13:37] Eugene and Springfield police, they’re not going to share our data. Flock Safety is going to share our data. No one’s naive to think that they’re not going to sell it and anybody can use this if they want to. It’s a couple YouTube videos away from figuring out how to jailbreak the system. It’s just not that secure.

[00:13:53] Saying no to Flock Safety isn’t saying no to fighting crime. It’s not saying no to helping the police do that. It’s not even saying no to using advanced AI technology, which is inevitable and going to happen. It’s not saying no to using that technology.

[00:14:10] Saying no to Flock Safety is saying no to low standards, where we allow the data that we don’t own to be owned by whoever wants to invest in it, to get access to it. And it’s saying no to a low security system that is going to surveil everyone.

[00:14:28] Sara: Hi, I’m Sara. I’m asking you to cancel the police department’s contract with Flock cameras. This private company whose startup was bankrolled in part by Peter Thiel of Palantir, is a major move toward a free-speech-quelling surveillance state. The carte blanche surveillance of civilians and long-term storage of their surveillance data without any warrant or probable cause is a constitutional violation of unreasonable search.

[00:14:54] In fact, its breach of our right to privacy is being litigated in Virginia now, and similar surveillance measures have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the past.

[00:15:04] The Flock camera system has already been abused. For example, in 2023, a month’s-long Electronic Frontier Foundation investigation found that California police departments were sharing records containing detailed driving profiles of residents with out-of-state agencies against California law.

[00:15:21] According to their master services agreement, Flock is able to share camera data with the federal government or other departments and agencies, even if the police department theoretically owns that data. Flock claims that they’re suspending cooperation with the federal government, but that position can be revoked at any time (if you’re even willing to take a scandal-embroiled corporation like Flock at their word.

[00:15:43] Even if Springfield PD only shares that data with other departments in Oregon, it only takes one Oregon officer, hundreds of miles away from here, to share our data with the feds or whomever else they want, regardless of the Springfield’s department’s policies or state laws.

[00:16:00] The marginal benefit to public safety that it may provide is not worth the devastating damage it’s already doing to jurisdictional sovereignty, our basic expectations of privacy, and our ability to function as a sanctuary state legally. Please spend that money on firefighters and CAHOOTS instead. Thank you so much for your service to our community.

[00:16:21] Mysti Frost: My name is Mysti Frost. I am asking City Council to please cancel Flock surveillance. These systems have built-in biases against communities of color and people with disabilities and more. Please protect our community’s privacy and cancel Flock surveillance.

[00:16:43] Sam Cook:  Hello, my name is Sam Cook and I’m an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. I live in Eugene but work in Springfield as a technology specialist. I’m speaking to you tonight about the city of Springfield’s decision to implement Flock cameras in town.

[00:16:59] I applaud Springfield for its transparency in this process and I hope that the spirit of dialogue will continue in reviewing this question. As we have heard from many folks tonight, there are a lot of concerns about essential services facing financial difficulty, firefighters being overworked, and the library facing budget cuts.

[00:17:17] 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 which spies on us and enriches a private corporation that seeks to profit off of our information, while essential services face dire circumstances, is ludicrous.

[00:17:41] The Flock system represents a waste of our state resources towards a regime of social control. This system endangers our hardworking immigrant neighbors and infringes upon our freedom of movement.

[00:17:52] I asked the Council to consider prioritizing the needs of the people of Springfield and canceling this contract in favor of investment in the resources that actually prevent and fight crime. I ask the city to reject the implementation of this system and implement an ongoing ban on ALPR (automatic license plate reader) systems.

[00:18:08] Jacob Trewe: Hi there, my name’s Jacob Trewe. I’m also here to talk about Flock cameras. And I won’t belabor the point. Folks a lot more eloquent and well-spoken and educated than me are able to go into why the details of why it’s just so—well, why it’s not a good idea if we’re there for Springfield or here in Eugene either.

[00:18:26] But a big part of it is personal. I really don’t want those Flock cameras monitoring my kids as they’re playing with their grandma and their aunt. And one thing that I don’t think other folks mentioned as much is that even with this whole deletion after 30 days thing, Flock in their contract, you know, admits that they’re keeping a chunk of that data to train their AI systems, train up their models there. So they are retaining data on us.

[00:19:00] And the fact that under their models there, they can not only just read license plates, the whole ALPR side of things, but they can also recognize bumper stickers and you know, dents and other things on the cars.

[00:19:15] It just feels like an overreach in surveillance technology that I’m not comfortable with. And I think all should consider the fine testimony of the folks who came before me and reject this contract and discontinue and not put any Flock cameras up there in Springfield.

[00:19:32] Presenter: Public comments ask the Springfield City Council to say no to Flock cameras. One of the reasons: to prevent government officials from obtaining video recordings of your children.