WE GOT flock out of Eugene and Springfield
New
February 20, 2026: THE FIGHT CONTINUES
On Monday, February 16, lobbyists for ALPR vendors Flock and Axon derailed an amendment to Senate Bill 1516 that would have established strong protections for ALPR data. They corrupted a political process that was the result of several months of hard work by Senator Floyd Prozanski, the ACLU, and organizers from Eyes Off Eugene.
Before we get to the rest of our statement on what happened and how you might be able to help, let’s make a few things clear.
First: Our efforts to develop legislative guardrails for ALPR use is not in any way an endorsement of ALPRs or ALPR vendors.
Second: The overwhelming majority of Eyes Off Eugene is entirely opposed to ALPRs for law enforcement or mass surveillance purposes. To put it diplomatically, we are extremely skeptical of their presumed value, and we believe that there is a mountain of evidence by now of the risks associated with granting mass surveillance powers to any form of law enforcement.
Now, what happened?
Up until 2:30pm on Monday, February 16th – the bill contained the following language:
‘End-to-end encryption’ means a method of data encryption that ensures only the law enforcement agency that owns the captured license plate data possesses the capability to decrypt, access or grant access to the captured license plate data.
This single sentence creates a clear definition, in law, of the purpose of end-to-end encryption in the context of vendor-managed ALPR data. It creates expectations for the purpose of end-to-end encryption while remaining flexible: it says nothing about specific encryption algorithms or implementations, which leaves room for future technological advancements.
And vendors hated it.
Lobbyists acting on behalf of the vendors tried dozens of times to weaken this language to ensure that they could continue to access, share, and even sell ALPR data whenever they wanted. We were able to successfully defeat every single one of those attempts over a period of several weeks of debate in Senator Prozanski’s workgroup. Kevin Campbell, the Executive Director of the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, even submitted public testimony supporting a version of this bill that included that same language.
On Monday afternoon, after months of debate over nearly every single word in the ALPR amendment to SB1516, we were just about to win a real protection for Oregonians’ personal information.
Unfortunately, the corporate lobbyists acting on behalf of ALPR vendors, specifically Flock and Axon, still had another move left. At 2:30pm that Monday afternoon, they were able to get someone on the committee to submit a new version of this amendment removing that hard fought definition of end-to-end encryption. Then, they lobbied Senator Anthony Broadman of Bend to vote in favor of that amendment instead. At 7:45pm, Senator Broadman voted with Republicans in favor of mass surveillance, even after his constituents had just recently won the cancellation of Bend’s contract with Flock.
During the vote, Senator Prozanski made an on-the-record statement in support of the amendment that included defining end-to-end encryption in law.
Now, this bill, as currently written, is a love letter to Flock. It forces no substantive changes to Flock’s business operations, and forces other ALPR vendors to implement some of Flock’s features, further entrenching them in Oregon.
The actions that Flock, along with Axon, took to corrupt this bill are yet more evidence that they can not be considered trustworthy partners for law enforcement, and we are now concerned that Axon’s efforts show that they are looking to copy Flock’s business model, ensuring that they retain access to ALPR data for purposes of profiting off of it.
Senate Bill 1516 was not ideal to begin with. The ACLU fought hard to reduce data retention periods below Flock’s current 30 day limit, they fought hard to restrict federal access to ALPR data as much as possible, and we all fought hard for strong public oversight. We wanted a bill like this one to have input from advocates for data security and privacy and were grateful to be a part of the process that developed it. What we won in the end was a bill that none of us were enthusiastic about, that had a few good parts and some not so good parts, but at least it had the saving grace of requiring end-to-end encryption for ALPR data that kept the vendors eyes off of it.
And then the vendors struck that from the bill.
How you can help
SB1516 must not be allowed to become law. It would be an official endorsement by the State of Oregon for Flock and all of its business practices. We need Oregon House Representatives to vote against this bill during this session.
Please contact any or all of the following representatives, express your outrage at mass surveillance, and at the corruption of a legislative process that was supposed to protect the interests of Oregonians, and demand that they vote against SB1516:
In Eugene
Representative Julie Fahey: [email protected], 503-986-1414
Representative Lisa Fragala: [email protected], 503-986-1408
Representative John Lively: [email protected], 503-986-1407
Representative Nancy Nathanson: [email protected], 503-986-1413
In Bend
Representative Jason Kropf: [email protected], 503-986-1454
Representative Emerson Levy: [email protected], 503-986-1453
In Salem
Representative Tom Anderson: [email protected], 503-986-1419
Representative Paul Evans: [email protected], 503-986-1420
Representative Lesly Munoz: [email protected], 503-986-1422
In Corvallis
Representative Finger McDonald: [email protected], 503-986-1416
In Benton and Lincoln Counties
Representative David Gomberg: [email protected], 503-986-1410
In Ashland
Representative Pam Marsh: [email protected], 503-986-1405
In Tigard
Representative Ben Bowman: [email protected], 503-986-1425
In Tualitin
Representative Farrah Chaichi: [email protected], 503-986-1435
Portland, East of the Willamette
Representative Willy Chotzen: [email protected], 503-986-1446
Representative April Dobson: [email protected], 503-986-1439
Representative Mark Gamba: [email protected], 503-986-1441
Representative Annessa Hartman: [email protected], 503-986-1440
Representative Zach Hudson: [email protected], 503-986-1449
Representative Travis Nelson: [email protected], 503-986-1444
Representative Rob Nosse: [email protected], 503-986-1442
Representative Ricki Ruiz: [email protected], 503-986-1450
Representative Tawna D. Sanchez: [email protected], 503-986-1443
Representative Thuy Tran: [email protected], 503-986-1445
Representative Andrea Valderrama: [email protected], 503-986-1447
Representative Jules Walters: [email protected], 503-986-1437
Representative Lamar Wise: [email protected], 503-986-1448
Portland, West of the Willamette
Representative Dacia Grayber: [email protected], 503-986-1428
Representative Ken Helm: [email protected], 503-986-1427
Representative Shannon Isadore: [email protected], 503-986-1433
Representative Susan McLain: [email protected], 503-986-1429
Representative Daniel Nguyen: [email protected], 503-986-1438
Representative Hai Pham: [email protected], 503-986-1436
Representative Nathan Sosa: [email protected], 503-986-1430
Representative Mari Watanabe: [email protected], 503-986-1434
Wilsonville
Representative Sue Rieke Smith: [email protected], 503-986-1426
North Coast
Representative Cyrus Javadi: [email protected], 503-986-1432
You can also look for your Representative at https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/house/pages/representativesall.aspx.
Surveillance Doesn’t Equal Safety
Wastes Money
Flock is a bad investment
with little return
Data is Misused
Flock Data Has Been Misused and Shared Without Oversight
Prone to Error
False Matches Lead to
Dangerous Mistakes
Violates Privacy
Flock is a bad investment
with little return
Chills Free Speech
Flock Data Has Been Misused
and Shared Without Oversight
We Can Stop It!
False Matches Lead to
Dangerous Mistakes
Flock Wastes Tax Dollars
Flock’s AI surveillance costs our cities hundreds of thousands of dollars for a system with no proven track record of preventing crime. Police have not demonstrated that this technology solves crimes that would otherwise go unsolved. This is money being diverted from what truly keeps us safe.
- Misplaced Priorities – These funds could be invested in proven local services our community values—like CAHOOTS, public libraries, and mental health response.
- No Return on Investment – In cities like San Diego, the use of similar technology showed no significant impact on solving crimes like vehicle theft.
- Proven Solutions, Not Tech Fantasies – We know that investing in housing, healthcare, and community programs are what builds a safe community—not invasive surveillance that watches everyone.
Your Location Data is Not Safe from Misuse and Sharing
Police claim our data is safe, but Flock’s system is designed for mass sharing. The data can be saved indefinitely and shared with hundreds of outside agencies, including ICE, putting our immigrant neighbors at direct risk.
- Sanctuary City in Name Only – A 2020 investigation found ICE accessed license plate data from self-declared sanctuary cities, undermining local policy and trust.
- Hacks and Leaks are Inevitable – Federal agencies using similar systems have already had their data hacked and published online. The only way to keep data secure is to never collect it.
- A Threat to Our Neighbors – Many cities are ending their Flock contracts specifically because of concerns that the data will be used to locate and deport immigrants.
AI Errors Put Lives at Risk
Flock’s system isn’t perfect—it makes errors in up to 10% of cases. In a high-stakes police encounter, that mistake can be deadly. These aren’t harmless glitches; they are dangerous flaws that wrongfully target innocent people.
- Real-World Harm – In Aurora, Colorado, a machine error led police to hold a Black family, including young children, at gunpoint. The city later paid the family $1.9 million for the traumatic mistake.
- Unequal Justice – These false matches disproportionately endanger communities of color, who already face more aggressive policing. The technology inherits and amplifies existing biases.
Your Movements Are Tracked
Flock cameras track and store the movements of every vehicle—yours included—without a warrant, suspicion, or consent. This is not targeted policing; it is mass surveillance of the entire population.
- Documenting Your Movements – This system creates a detailed map of your private life, where you work, worship, protest, and seek healthcare,and stores it in a massive database. All without a warrant.
- Targeting the Innocent – In Los Angeles, an audit of a similar system revealed that over 99% of scanned plates belonged to people not suspected of any crime.
- Unconstitutional Searches – A federal court in Virginia is currently hearing a case arguing that Flock’s warrantless data collection violates the Fourth Amendment.
A Tool to Silence Dissent
Constant surveillance threatens our freedom of expression. When people know they are being tracked, they are less likely to attend a political protest, visit a specific place of worship, or organize within their community. This is not safety; it is suppression.
- Guilt by Association – This technology captures not just license plates, but bumper stickers and other vehicle details, allowing police to search for vehicles based on citizens’ political beliefs.
- Chilling Free Speech – Studies confirm that the presence of surveillance tools deters attendance at political and religious events. People should not have to choose between their rights and their privacy.
- Eroding Public Trust – Safety is built on trust between the community and its public servants. Mass surveillance creates a culture of suspicion, not trust.
Our Community, Our Choice
We do not have to accept this future for our community. The decision rests with our local city councils, who have the authority and responsibility to reject this invasive technology now.
- Cities are Fighting Back – Communities across the country, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, have successfully restricted or banned this technology.
- Buyer’s Remorse is Real – Other cities like Austin and Denver have chosen not to renew or expand their contracts with Flock after seeing its true costs.
- Act Locally – We can be proactive in defending our rights and our neighbors. Our community can and should be next to reject mass surveillance.