Dissonant Times has had far better, more technically accurate, and more in-depth reporting on Flock than other local media.

They previously reported on Flock with their June 22nd article, “Let’s Leave The Flock” ^{(archive link)}. That article predated coordinated local efforts to oppose Flock, but it included specific known camera locations and a number of strong arguments against Flock’s deployment in Eugene.

Now they have followed that up with a July 26 article, “Just Trust Us: The Continued Manipulation of the Masses by Flock Safety and EPD” ^{(archive link)} that does an even deeper dive into three specific statements EPD has made and the technical reasons that they are wrong:

1. EPD says they “own” the data, but they do not. Flock repeatedly promises their customers that the customers own the data, and EPD believes them. However, Flock — and only Flock — owns the encryption for the data in their network, meaning that Flock can provide access to it at any time without EPD’s knowledge or consent. This is a design decision that Flock made and continues to stand by, guaranteeing them the ability to benefit monetarily from this data now or in the future.
2. EPD says they have legal protection from federal overreach, but they do not. Even if we grant EPD the benefit of the doubt that they will vigorously defend the people of Eugene from federal requests, the reality is that they do not have this legal power. The federal government granted itself broad powers in the Patriot Act, regularly exercises those powers, and has recently expanded those powers.
3. EPD and Flock promise they are transparent, but they are not. Flock repeatedly runs afoul of laws and regulations across the country. They evade scrutiny, with the help of a public that is largely unaware of them, by promising small, ineffective changes that retain all of the worst parts of their system (like Senator Wyden’s recent agreement with them). EPD likewise deployed Flock without any public discussion, said initially that they didn’t need to consult the public on it, and then pivoted to saying they didn’t have time to consult the public during the year-long period between their grant approval and the installation of the surveillance network. EPD continues to repeat the same PR material that Flock has fed them, and EPD reacted to public interest in the out-of-state agencies they were sharing access with by hiding that list of agencies, and only restoring it under additional pressure. EPD has also resisted our public records requests, refusing to release information on camera locations, despite Springfield providing them without argument.

We appreciate Dissonant Times doing the hard work here to understand and report on Flock and the reasons we don’t want it, or need it, in our community.