The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I'm Michael Dunne. It may be the conundrum of our age, balancing convenience and efficacy of technology with our very privacy and freedom for every convenient internet search we make, there's the flip side of the coin, where big companies in the government may be searching us, and behind every wonderful app on our smartphones lurks the potential to upend our very sense of independence. This challenge is very present in our community in the form of digital license plate readers or flock cameras already in use in Eugene and pending use in Springfield, these crime fighting eyes in the sky can certainly help law enforcement do more with fewer officers, but at what cost to our privacy? We talk about it today with our own reporter who's been following this story since July, and a local advocacy group who sees the cameras as a horrible invasion of privacy. Flock cameras can provide local police with a wealth of information and evidence to catch moving violations and other crimes, all without the need for a human cop on the street, but at what cost to our personal freedom? We start this conversation with our own Rebecca Hansen-White. Note: we did reach out to the Springfield Police Department for comment, but didn't hear back, and in Rebecca's reporting, you will hear from Eugene police chief Chris Skinner. Rebecca Hansen-White Our reporter here at KLCC. Thanks so much for coming in and talking to us.
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: Thank you.
MICHAEL DUNNE: You've been following this story about these digital camera readers or flock cameras for quite some time. Just give our audience a 30,000-foot view on what these are and what they do.
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: Yeah, so flock. They're automated license plate cameras, and those have been around for a long time. Separate from this technology, these are a little bit different. They're more advanced in two ways. So, they take a picture of vehicles, which is a normal license plate reader thing to do. And you know, they can capture the plate number and letters, but they can also create what the company calls a digital fingerprint of your vehicle, and that is searchable and identifiable as well. And there's an AI learning component to it. So, they can capture the color, they can capture your, your weird bump, you know, messed up bumper, and your, your anime stickers, like they can capture that information, and that goes into the database too. And so there's this database that is searchable, is nationwide, that all these different police departments are all putting into and then homeowners associations and businesses also have bought flock cameras, and that's maintained by this Georgia based company, flock, that you know, you can search in this database if you have the if you have an account, and you can say, you know, read, Whatever my justification is, I'm doing an investigation, and I'm looking for this vehicle that I believe was involved in this crime. So, it's, it's this big database, and it's also this AI learning part. And now that Eugene and Springfield have this, but many other police departments have it too.
MICHAEL DUNNE: And so I would imagine that certainly law enforcement thinks great, it's a new tool that they can use. But I imagine there's other people who don't think so good. What's the other side of this, this new technology? What are they saying?
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: Yeah, so the ACLU has some pretty serious problems with this, and I've talked to them when, when they were first being rolled out here in Eugene, I talked to them in June, where they believe there's some serious Fourth Amendment problems. So, searching, warrantless searches, basically, is the Fourth Amendment in this case. So, you know, I think that the police say, Oh, we're not recording everybody all the time. But if you put it like in Springfield, there's that roundabout that everybody has to get through to go anywhere, sure. And if you put a flat camera there, you know, and it's at the exit of a neighborhood, you'll be able to tell, you know, oh, you know, my comings and go every time I leave my house, I'm being recorded. And so, I think that from the ACLU point of view, and some of the activists that are really opposed to this, they argue, you know, these cameras are near a facility in Springfield where people go to get trans healthcare. There's one on the way to the hospital. So, I think that, you know, there's some concern that people going to get health care, doing innocuous things, going to political meetings, that it's going to be kind of a chilling of free speech, and that things that are protected and legal in Oregon but illegal elsewhere, that you know the this national database could be used against these people who are who are coming to Oregon to do things that are legal here, or just to maybe persecute people who are doing things that are legal here, that you know, the Trump administration does not like. And so that is the concern is, you know, can we really keep the federal government out of flock’s data? And that has been a little bit of an issue too, because there have been several instances where immigration enforcement or other federal agencies have been able to access flocks data, sometimes without local cops even realizing. And I say local cops, I don't mean Eugene cops. I mean like in Illinois and other departments that have been able to get access to it, and lock has had to put up more safeguards because it has happened several times.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Okay, and it's interesting. We're going to play some sound in a second here, because our local police chief has talked about the fact that this is a resource and perhaps money saving technology as well as being a good tool for law enforcement. Let's play that clip, and then we'll come back and talk about it.
CHIEF SKINNER: Our license plate reader technology, which is new to the city of Eugene, certainly not new in the industry of law enforcement, but new in the city of Eugene, has created a lot of controversy lately. I totally understand anytime we have a piece of technology that's designed to pay attention to people's comings and goings as it pertains to fighting crime, people are going to wonder about whether or not it's overreach and whether or not it's a level of surveillance that's not good for a community. What I would say, though, is, I would say that, you know, as an organization and as a policing organization, we have to leverage technology to do our job. I don't have enough police officers to be everywhere at all times to do the things that I think this community is asking us to do, which is to keep them safe and solve crime and catch people engaged in criminal behavior. So, the license plate reader technology, which is kind of industry standard for law enforcement across the nation, is new and is working really well in the city of Eugene. So far, we've had some great success with identifying vehicles and or license plates associated with vehicles that have been engaged or tied to criminal behavior, and also persons of interest for us, endangered and missing persons as well, to help us better understand where we might be able to interdict those cars and solve these crimes.
MICHAEL DUNNE: So, the police chief there is talking about the fact that, you know, this can replace having to hire more officers or something like that. Talk about what he said.
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: And that's that thing that a lot of police have. You know, budgets have been tight for a long time, and hiring more full-time officers is not always a choice that they have. And I think the real thing that police argue that this is this technology is good for, is it's helping them close more cases, find people quickly. They used retail theft grants to pay for them from the state. Here in a previous community, I covered them. I used to cover Spokane. They also bought flock cameras, and they, you know, were trying to use them to make up for big staffing cuts. But I think in in Eugene, you know, I in information, they put out about a month ago, I think that they said that they'd used flat cameras to make 43 arrests, and in cases from Homicide to shoplifting, which is, which is the justified purpose of why they got them is to close more shoplifting cases. And the company has argued that most crimes are committed with the assistance of a vehicle. And so, if you really want to solve and close those crimes, then you should be, you know, using these and they're also used for, like, Amber Alerts and different stuff like that that they're good for. So, I think there is, there is that argument that those police are like, we need more tools to really be effective with less people, and we need a way to gather better evidence, and they see flock cameras as a way to do that. Yeah, reintroduce you to the audience, talking to our own Rebecca Hansen white, talking about flock cameras in our community.
MICHAEL DUNNE: You mentioned, you know, for example, that this goes into a large database, and right now there's a lot of fear about what the federal government might do and you were able to get some sound from the highest levels of government. Now, we're going to hear comments from congressional leader Val Hoyle about this. Let's play this now and then we'll come back and talk about what she said. But also, I believe Senator Wyden has said some things about this.
REPRESENTATIVE HOYLE: I have great concerns about the flock cameras, specifically the way the federal government and ice and Homeland Security is using access to people's private information should terrify everybody. You know, if you are someone that cares about privacy rights, what is happening at the federal level is unconscionable, right? And also, I believe, yeah, it's unconscionable. So, the flock cameras, I have concerns about what is happening with the information that is picked up by these flock cameras and I think that whether it's the ACLU or members of our immigrant or trans community they are, they're justifiable in their right to be concerned about how this information is being used so where it is a local issue, but we're keeping, we're keeping apprised of it and talking with people in the community, both at the city level, and then community activists as well.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Yes, so kind of give us some context around what she's saying there.
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: So Val Hoyle has said, you know, this is a local issue. I can't force Eugene or Springfield to do anything. But she has, I think, talked to elected leaders from each city about this issue. I think she is concerned about what this data could potentially be used for, because there are, you know, federal data points that might be used now by the Trump administration in ways that the people that originally created that data did not intend. The Trump administration is asking for our voter data from Oregon, and a lot of Medicaid data that you know is not what the people who created those sets want it to be used for. They don't want it to be used for immigration enforcement, sure. And so I think there's a similar concern of like is the data, the massive amounts of data that flock has really safe from that Ron Wyden has actually reached out to flock, Senator Wyden to actually talk with the company about this stuff, and, you know, has made those efforts to try to have those conversations and directly share some of his concerns about it. And he did get an agreement from them to exclude Oregon's data, which a few other states have opted into this exclude Oregon's data from searches where, when police officers, you know, there's an there's an interface that they use, where they type in the information that they're looking for, and there you have a justification box that you have to fill out. And so, Wyden asked for Oregon to be excluded from searches with the justification of investigating abortion or immigration. So, in those types of searches, Oregon data is excluded. There are also different ways that Oregon can try to make itself not appear in national searches. And I think that after that announcement that he had been working with on that, there was some local activists who did raise some concerns, because they're saying, You know what, if police who are actually searching for immigrants just decide to put in a really generic reason, but they are actually still searching for immigrants, if they just decide to search, I'm just doing an investigation, and that's the only justification they provide. That doesn't mean that necessarily, that might create a false sense of safety. And so, Wyden and his team did acknowledge that and say they're still trying to have conversations and still monitoring this issue, and that's probably not, you know, a really catch all safeguard that will really completely fix that problem.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Sure, before I let you go, you know, is this etched in stone? Are there still opportunities for the public to sort of engage with this kind of, are there still some council meetings that might be an opportunity for dialogue to give us where this is, you know, kind of where it's going to be in the next few weeks or months?
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: Yeah, so Eugene and Springfield Police are both planning to discuss this this fall. So, Eugene is actually going to talk about it on Wednesday. Okay? Wednesday, they're going to have a work session about flock contract, how it's being used. The mayor has talked a little bit about that at a recent City Club. She did say that you hosted, by the way, that I did host, yeah, what she did say at that City Club is she really wants to have a community conversation about how this technology is used. And she has sort of backed up the police to sort of say it is helping close cases and solve serious, bad crimes. So, she has kind of spoken up, but she wants to have a community conversation, and there is at least a council conversation coming, and they can, they can vote to end the contract with block if they want to, which is what our local activists want them to do. So, they could do that. Nothing scheduled right now, but if they really wanted to, either local government could have that conversation in Springfield, Eugene is using the cameras right now. They've been using them for months. Springfield has installed them, but they are not using them yet. They said that they would not turn them on until a public community conversation happens, and so it's not on the calendar yet, but Springfield city council did have a brief discussion about this issue. Where they did listen to the community, and they heard the concerns about having these near healthcare facilities. And so, I think there is supposed to be a conversation at some point this fall where they take a second look at the contract, they take a look at where the cameras are located, and, you know, decide the future of if we want to have this technology. So, there are conversations scheduled, and anyone can go to city council and tell them what they think about these cameras. And you know, I don't think that the door is closed on this issue yet.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Okay, well, we know you'll be continuing to follow this. Rebecca Hanson, white, thanks so much for coming in and talking about this, this very controversial and interesting issue.
REBECCA HANSEN-WHITE: Thank you.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Now let's hear from Eyes Off Eugene, a local organization who wants these cameras out of our city and our lives. Ky Fireside, an organizer with eyes off Eugene, thanks so much for coming in and talking to us.
KY FIRESIDE: Thank you for having me.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Talk about what your organization does, and it's specifically the argument against the use of what are called flock cameras.
KY FIRESIDE: We are a work group that formed after a city council meeting. A few of us realized we all had some major concerns about this system that was being installed without anyone's prior knowledge, seemingly without consent of the city council or the police commission. The big concern with flock over say other ALPR systems define that for us, please, automated license plate readers, thank you, which are all over the place. They're in parking garages to make sure that you are paying for the correct amount of stay. But with flock, this information is all stored off site on their servers. They control the encryption keys so they have full access to all of the data that they are collecting, and they've been installed all across the country, so they are able to aggregate a tremendous amount of data. The flock company has been valued at over 7 billion with a B dollars, despite annual revenue of only around 300 million. And the reason for that is they have not revolutionized any sort of hardware or anything, but they have really changed the amount of data that is being collected about people. So if I know that you go to the grocery store and I see you there at 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning, that doesn't mean much, but if I know that you go there every Saturday at 11 o'clock and you're there for 17 minutes, that data starts to become a lot more valuable.
MICHAEL DUNNE: And this is a private company that would, again, as you as you talked about, sort of take data and not exactly sure what they might do with it. You've went to your website, you've kind of showcased a lot of different, you know, concerns. Talk about some of those as well, in terms of, like, some of the evidence that you've gathered about what could happen?
KY FIRESIDE: Yeah, and I want to clarify that this isn't about abuses of the system that could happen. These are abuses of the system that have already been okay and continue to happen. Okay. For example, a group of police in Southern Oregon were found sharing data with federal agencies, including Border Patrol. Data has been shared with ice. Data has been shared to track people seeking health care across state lines, and to even pull that further, I think when you talk about healthcare, one of the big concerns, as I understand it, reading some of your materials, is that, for example, abortion is illegal in certain states and legal in others. And that's one of the concerns, is that correct, right? And there's really no good way to track whether someone is using this information to find someone who's had an abortion. There is a field in the user interface where a user can put in the search reason, but it's a free form field. You can put in anything you want. And if you want to track someone who's had an abortion, you might just write in that field investigation, which is what a lot of them do. We recently did an analysis of the audit logs, which are published, and we've put this on our website now, but we found some really interesting things in Eugene, specifically, where we've got officers that are searching for more than five days in a row, which makes us wonder what they're doing. Are they searching Off, off the clock, or are they sharing passwords? We found people that are searching through a lot of different day parts. So at some point you should be off the clock and not working, but if you're still performing searches, we wonder what, what's happening there? So we have submitted this analysis to our new police auditor, and we are waiting for a response on that.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I imagine you've had opportunities to talk to perhaps just general members of the public. Is this a situation where as more people learn about that, learn about this, more questions arise?
KY FIRESIDE: Yeah, the biggest question we've gotten is just, how is this different from other surveillance or other license plate reading systems? What's been really amazing is the public has come forward so passionately about this, and its people from every background you can imagine, every political background, every social, economic background. This has been such a uniting issue in an era where people are so divided, it's just been incredibly interesting.
MICHAEL DUNNE: So, I guess one of my questions for you Kai is, is this still sort of a fluid situation as I understand that they're in use in Eugene. They're installed, but not used yet in Springfield, but it's not necessarily a fait accompli.
KY FIRESIDE: There's still potential for action. Talk a little bit about that. Yeah, both city councils have work sessions scheduled. Eugene is October 8, and Springfield's will be October 20, because this system was installed without consulting city council, they're going to be having these work sessions and asking, how did this happen, and what can we do about it? The contract for Eugene specifies that the city can cancel the contract in the interest of public safety. It's very cut and dry. It's very, very clear. So, we're hoping that they choose to do that at this work session. Okay, if members of the public are concerned about this, what can they do with regard to flock cameras? So many things, call your city council person, call the city manager, call the mayor. You can email these people as well. If you go to our website, eyes off eugene.org, we've got a petition you can sign when we have events. You can show up at an event, give public comments, or just hold a sign.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Ky Fireside, an organizer with Eyes Off Eugene. Thank you so much for coming in and talking to us.
KY FIRESIDE: Thank you for having me.
MICHAEL DUNNE: That's the show for today. All episodes of Oregon On The Record are available as a podcast at KLCC.org. Tomorrow on the show, we will check in on what's going on in Portland and the Trump administration's attempt to, in some people's eyes, invade Rose City. I'm Michael Dunne, host of Oregon On The Record, Thanks for listening
