Public commenters at the Oct. 20 Lane County Board of County Commissioners meeting urged the county to stop a contract the sheriff has for Flock automated license‑plate readers, saying the cameras pose privacy risks and can be used by federal agencies.

Why it matters: dozens of speakers and online commenters across Eugene, Springfield and other parts of Lane County have objected to similar systems installed earlier this year in some cities. Speakers at the commission meeting said Flock cameras record more than license plates — including vehicle descriptions and interactions between people — and that data can be shared with law enforcement agencies including federal partners.

What people told the board: “These AI‑powered cameras store everything they see — attributes including height, skin color, hair color, clothing,” said Chloe Longworth, a speaker who identified herself as representing Talk. Jacob Griffin, who identified himself as a trans man, said use of Flock cameras “scares me” and called the systems a dragnet for tracking who people associate with; several speakers referenced reports that ICE agents have accessed Flock data elsewhere.

Board reaction and next steps: commissioners signaled concern and asked Sheriff Wilkerson to appear before the board to explain the sheriff’s contract, installation schedule and the sheriff’s office data‑sharing and retention plans. Commissioner Trigger requested the briefing include the legal implications for the county and any data‑management policies. Commissioners did not vote on the cameras at the meeting.

Context: speakers noted ongoing litigation and public debate elsewhere in Oregon. The city of Eugene has faced lawsuits and public scrutiny over its contract and data disclosures; residents said Eugene turned some cameras off pending further review. Commenters asked the county to follow a precautionary pause and to confirm whether a contract has been activated or cameras physically installed.

Ending: Commissioners agreed to schedule a work session with the sheriff and county counsel to review the contract status, privacy safeguards and legal risks, and to report back to the board after that briefing.