Frequently Asked Questions
General Questions
- What are Flock cameras?
- What are the differences between ALPR and Flock cameras?
- Where are Flock cameras located?
- Does Flock surveillance violate the 4th amendment?
- Do Flock cameras impact marginalized communities?
- Which communities have removed Flock cameras?
- Who is Flock data shared with?
- Does ICE track people with Flock data?
- Do Flock cameras reduce crime?
- Does Flock improve community trust in police?
Countering Pro-Flock Arguments
- I have nothing to hide. Why does this matter?
- My phone / social media are already tracked. What’s the big deal?
- The local PD control the data, right?
- How transparent is the system?
- There are systems in place to prevent abuse. Are there really?
- The cameras are only located in [safe sounding place]. What harm can they cause?
Eugene Specific Questions
- Who is paying for all of this in Eugene?
- When were Flock cameras adopted in Eugene?
- Were City Council or the Police Commission consulted in Flock adoption?
- Was the community consulted or notified about Flock surveillance adoption?
- What policies control the use of Flock data?
Springfield Specific Questions
General Questions
What are Flock cameras?
Flock Safety is a surveillance company that licenses AI-enhances camera to cities and private businesses. These cameras are motion-triggered and continuously scanning vehicle for identifiers such as license plate, color, make and model, dents, bumper stickers, etc. With this data, they compile a “vehicle fingerprint”. The cameras use AI technology comparable to facial recognition software to identify objects in their field of view, including bicycles, vehicles, animals, and people. The devices can ID cars from 75 feet away at speeds of up to 100 mph, day or night (see the Flock Safety FAQ).
What is the difference between ALPR and Flock Cameras?
Traditional Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have been around for decades and are primarily designed to capture an image of a license plate, typically using infrared technology. The system’s main function is to read the plate number and compare it against law enforcement databases or “hotlists” for stolen vehicles or those associated with active investigations. This process is focused specifically on the license plate itself.
Flock Safety systems expand on this capability significantly. Their cameras are motion-activated and capture high-resolution images of the entire vehicle. Flock uses machine learning (AI) to analyze these images, creating a “Vehicle Fingerprint” that includes the vehicle’s make, color, type, and unique features like aftermarket alterations or damage. This allows the system to identify vehicles even if they have a temporary, partial, or missing license plate. This data is then stores in a massive cloud database that allows sharing between thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country.
These features
- Lower the threshold for surveillance and subject large number of law-abiding citizens to digital scrutiny without direct leads.
- Create a massive private surveillance network controlled entirely by Flock Safety.
- Creates the potential for unintended data sharing to beyond the control of the city.
Where are Flock cameras located?
Springfield police’s Flock cameras are here. The best place to view all camera locations is at https://deflock.me. This is a crowd-sourced website focused on discovering and documenting the location of Flock cameras. Additionally, we are trying to gather as much of this information as possible through direct public document requests. Any data discovered through document requests will also be posted on deflock.
Does Flock surveillance violate the 4th amendment?
Fourth Amendment, Constitution of the United States:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure without warrant.
Similar tracking has been put to the test and found violate these rights, specifically using unwarranted GPS trackers (link) and aerial trackers (link). A major case in Virginia is currently testing Flock data directly (link).
Do Flock cameras impact marginalized communities?
Yes.
Marginalized communities are at a higher risk. Surveillance systems in other jurisdictions have been used against immigrants, including in cities that had declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions (link). As early as 2006, police in NYC were using ALPR to record everyone who went to mosques (link).
Police have been used systems similar to Flock to track
Which communities have removed Flock cameras?
Yes.
There is a growing list of communities that are curtailing and rejecting the use of surveillance systems. Some of the most recent are
- Austin, Texas
- Denver, Colorado
- Evanston, Illinois
- Oak Park, Illinois
- Mount Prospect, Illinois
- San Diego, California
- San Marcos, Texas
- Scarsdale, New York
- Sedona, Arizona
Who is Flock data shared with?
All Flock data goes into a central repository of data. Each customer can then decide how that data will be shared. It can be made available for national and state-wide searches, or only available to a curated list of organizations.
The Eugene Police currently share their data with 20 other Oregon organization (link), including one that is known to pass data to ICE (link).
Flock reserves the right to share the data with anyone they wish in section 5.3 of the Contract, Disclosure of Footage (link).
Springfield Police share with 70 organizations across the country. See map here.
We do know that organization have abused shared data. 1, 2, 3, 4
We also know that Flock data (including from Southern Oregon) has been secretly and illegally been shared with the feds many times. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Does ICE track people with Flock data?
Yes.
There is clear documentation that show that ICE has a long usage of pulling travel data to track people. This has continued and happens regularly even in states where this usage is prohibited. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Specifically, an officer in Medford was passing Flock data along to ICE. Eugene and Springfield both share their data with Medford, making local city data fully externally available for this kind of abuse.
Do Flock cameras reduce crime?
No.
It has been well shown through multiple research studies that the use of ALPR type systems do NOT reduce crime. 1, 2, 3, 4
Does Flock improve community trust in police?
No.
These systems are shown to significantly reduce community trust in the police and reduce citizen engagement. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Countering Pro-Flock Arguments
I have nothing to hide. Why does this matter?
“I have nothing to hide,” or “I’ve done nothing wrong,” are some of the most common responses to surveillance concerns. It’s easy to say, but is flawed when we dig into it.
- Privacy is about consent, not secrecy . Privacy is about giving YOU control over your own information. You get to decide.
- Nothing to hide, everything to protect. Having nothing to hide doesn’t mean you have nothing to protect. You data can and will be used against you, possibly by the government, hackers, scammers, or businesses trying to exploit you for profit. Flock is a data broker, using your data for their profit.
- If you don’t protect your privacy, you will lose it . Tracking is a slippery slope. With a software update, license plate readers start tracking people. To combat crime, we add a few more cameras. Now let’s add in all the doorbell cameras. The companies running these surveillance systems don’t just store the data, they catalog behavior, build profiles, identify irregularities, and make it all available to their customers.
- The intentions of our elected leaders change. What was perfectly OK behavior today maybe suspect tomorrow. When our elected leaders change, the intended use for surveillance systems can be co-opted for other purposes. Stolen vehicle tracking today, becomes tracking a religious minority tomorrow. The only way to prevent this is to not have it in the first place.
References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
My phone / social media is already tracked. What’s the big deal?
There are key critical difference between corporate and government surveillance.
- Motivation – Corporations are driven by profits, governments are driven by security and enforcement
- Control – A corporation’s data collection is a commercial relationship. You can choose not to use a platform, limit permissions, or delete an account. Government surveillance is coercive. You cannot opt out of driving to work, the doctor, or your place of worship.
- Power – The government has the legal authority to detain, prosecute, kill, and imprison you, something no private company has.
The local Police control the data, right?
Something you will often hear from a police chief defending Flock systems is that the city controls the data. Flock makes a big deal in the contract to specify that the city OWNS the data (whatever that means). That is different than CONTROL. There are a couple key problems:
- Flock retains the right to give the data to anyone. Section 5.3 of the Flock Master Service Agreement (MSA) gives the company almost unhindered ability to use and share the data at their whim. They are not even required to notify the customer. Flock has already intentionally share data with the Feds.
- Flock retains data for AI training. Section 4.3 of the MSA gives Flock the right to anonymize and retain all customer data.
- Data are stored on Flock’s cloud, not on local servers. Section 2.1 of the MSA outline that the data are stored by Flock. This puts control of the data in Flock’s hands.
- Flock controls the encryption keys, not the city. In an ideal system, the city would control the encryption keys, allowing them to essentially lock all data stored remotely. Flock retains all the keys, which gives them the ability to access and use the data.
How transparent is the system?
Almost nothing about this surveillance system is transparent. In spite of the company supplied “transparency portal” (Eugene, Springfield), very few details are made public outside of legally compelling public records requests. Even then, the City of Eugene refuses to reveal to location of it’s cameras. Here are the points:
- No communication. The Eugene Police Department went more than 9 months (July 2024 – May 2025) from approving Flock cameras to telling anyone, including City Council or the Police Commission. Why not?
- No location release. EPD refused to release camera locations, making it impossible to know how they impact marginalized communities
- Useless logs data. Audit logs are almost useless. The information is skimpy and the details generic at best.
- No details. Why were specific camera sites selected? What is the systems intended use? How is the system actually being used? Who is accessing Eugene/Springfield data externally? All of these questions have been asked, and not responded to.
There are systems in place to prevent abuse. Are there really?
- Audits. Eugene full policy on Audits is: “ALPR system audits should be conducted on a regular basis.“. That is all. No frequencies or responsibility identified. Regular could mean every 2 years.
- Inadequate audit logs. Search audit logs contain 5 fields of data. If you look the most common search reasons are almost entirely 1 or 2 words, “UUV” being most common. The logs are intentionally data-light.
- Lack of public oversight. There are no processes in place to access impact, evaluate effectiveness, or examine the system for misuse. The community has essentially been told to “trust us” on a government surveillance network.
- Unmonitored data sharing. External data searches can only be examined through public records request. There is no easy way for the public to know how many searchers are happening or why on the data collected locally.
The cameras are only located in [safe sounding place]. What harm can they cause?
How are camera site selected? What impact might they have? Do they target marginalized groups? Great questions.
In Eugene, we can’t answer any of these. The city has refused to make this information available. We know from crowd sourced camera locations that they are all over. How many have been placed in neighborhoods? What about near churches? No one knows and we can’t vet this as a community.
In Springfield, they have been much more open about camera locations. Even so, some cameras are placed in questionable places. We still don’t know why about site selection or the impact.
The bottom line is that surveillance cameras stifle public engagement and erode community trust in our police force.
Eugene Specific Questions
Who is paying for all of this in Eugene?
You are, of course. This is entirely funded through tax-payer dollars.
More specifically, the initial contract with Flock Safety was paid through funds obtained by the EPD through an Oregon Organized Retail Theft grant, funded by Oregon tax payers. This grant covers the first 2 years of cost, about $330,000 allocated for the contract. After the end of the grant, those costs will move onto the city directly.
You can read more about ORT grants use.
When were Flock cameras adopted in Eugene?
The contract (link) between the City of Eugene and Flock Safety, signed on March 24, 2025, by Sarah Medary, Eugene City Manager.
Installation of the 57 cameras has occurred during the spring and summer of 2025, although we see evidence that cameras are being moved regularly as they test new locations.
Were City Council or the Police Commission consulted in Flock adoption?
No.
From direct conversations with City Councilors and member of the Police Commission, we know that except for one or two individuals, neither group was consulted about the Eugene Polices decision, purchase, and deployment of a mass surveillance network in our community.
Many member of these groups embarrassingly found out about it through news and public comments at meetings.
Was the community consulted or notified about Flock surveillance adoption?
No.
No effort has been made by the Eugene Police to reach out to the community about the decision to adopt a mass surveillance network. The Police didn’t even consult with the Police Commission, the group whose mission it is to “Increase communications, understanding and trust between police and the people in Eugene” and to “…protect the civil rights and liberties of everyone in Eugene” (link).
What policies control the use of Flock data?
The Eugene Police Department has developed policy 1204 – Automated License Plate Readers. This policy is based on a generic template policy from Lexipol on ALPR, with some modifications for Eugene. The policy is very slim, lacking things such as requirements for auditing (how often, etc.).
Springfield Specific Questions
Who is paying for all of this in Springfield?
You are, of course. This is entirely funded through tax-payer dollars.
More specifically, the initial contract with Flock Safety was paid through funds obtained by the SPD through an Oregon Organized Retail Theft grant, funded by Oregon tax payers. This grant covers the first 2 years of cost, about $93,000 allocated for the contract. After the end of the grant, those costs will move onto the city directly.
You can read more about how these SPD are using these funds, and about ORT grants use in general.
What policies control the use of Flock data?
The Springfield Police Department has developed policy 37.1.1 – Automated License Plate Readers. This policy is based on a generic template policy from Lexipol on ALPR, with some modifications for Springfield. The policy is pretty slim, but at least indicates that audits will occur annually (this should be quarterly).