Residents urge Lane County to reject Flock surveillance camera contracts

Several residents used the meeting's public comment period to urge Lane County officials not to adopt Flock Technologies' license-plate/vehicle-tracking cameras.

Denise Jessup, who identified herself as a District 3 resident and retired psychotherapist, told commissioners that "greater efficiency in arrests does not warrant mass surveillance or the loss of freedom" and asked the board to "stop Flock in Lane County."

Chuck Arford, a retired county employee, warned about ties between private companies and federal enforcement systems, saying private data collection could be accessed by larger systems and used beyond the county's intent. Rob Sheldon, a software and network security professional and organizer with Eyes Off Eugene, told the board that contractual language does not guarantee operational control of data and that Flock has engineered systems that can provide third-party access without local knowledge. Sheldon offered to consult with county officials and said journalists have uncovered prior abuses tied to the company's data.

Other callers echoed privacy concerns and urged the county to review Flock's corporate security practices rather than accepting only the company's public statements. Joyce Peters, a resident, said she had used conventional retail camera footage to recover stolen property and questioned whether broad public surveillance is worth the privacy trade-offs.

No county action on Flock cameras was taken at the meeting; the speakers sought to influence future procurement or contracting decisions.

Speakers: - Denise Jessup (public commenter): "Greater efficiency in arrests does not warrant mass surveillance or the loss of freedom." - Rob Sheldon (public commenter, Eyes Off Eugene): "You probably have been reassured that you have a contract that states that you own the data collected by Flock. This does not actually grant you control or power over that data."