In recent years, surveillance technologies used by federal, state and local law enforcement have proliferated with little to no community input. Oftentimes, this comes without appropriate safeguards in place to ensure these technologies are not abused by the government or private companies to chill what we do or say in our daily lives.

The result: a growing nationwide database of locations, movements and activities of millions of us. Note, this lucrative business of surveillance is expanding rapidly with public money. And it’s not clear who exactly has access to and controls the collected data.

Last month, the Eugene Police Department announced it would purchase 57 Flock cameras with state grant funds and gather data about every passing car. EPD says this camera network has already helped locate a person who the Lane County Sheriff’s Office suspected of homicide. While there may be good reasons to invest in technological advancements for local police, we should not gloss over the severe risks to speech, privacy, immigrant and reproductive rights that mass surveillance invites into our communities.

Eugene officials, including their city attorney’s office, are aware of these concerns and insist that their contract with Flock has necessary safeguards, such as local ownership of the data and a 30-day retention period. For example, EPD Capt. Jake Burke, who heads Investigations, says the contract provides that no other agency can access Eugene’s data without EPD’s specific authorization.

This raises the question, can Eugene actually prevent the sharing of its data by a private company doing business nationwide?

Eugene officials believe its contract fully complies with both Oregon state law and the city’s ordinances 2.495 and 2.497 that strictly limit involvement in federal immigration enforcement and restrict collecting or maintaining information about the political, social, and religious activity of individuals and organizations. Or immigration status.

In other jurisdictions, such devices are being weaponized against vulnerable people who the Trump administration and its conservative state allies are targeting. Electronic Frontier Foundation reported in May 2025 that a police officer in Texas used Flock to perform a nationwide search of more than 83,000 cameras while looking for a woman who had an abortion, including cameras in Washington and Illinois, where abortion is legal.

Also, investigative journalists with 404 Media uncovered that ICE used law enforcement access to Flock’s database to seek location data from all over the country for immigration enforcement.

The ACLU of Oregon is skeptical that the Flock contract will actually give Eugene full control of the data it generates and has made a request to review it. The ACLU also advocates for even shorter retention periods, when the camera data doesn’t result in a “hit.”

Unfortunately, no specific state legislation imposes these types of explicit limitations on the use of Flock cameras or other automatic license plate reading systems.

And that’s not the only surveillance tool that raises privacy concerns.

Right now, Oregon legislators are considering expanding the use of drones. Senate Bill 238 A-Engrossed may get final approval in the next few weeks. As written, SB 238 A would decrease meaningful oversight, weaken safeguards and greatly expand police ability to use drones across the state.

Currently, Oregon law allows the use of drones by law enforcement only when it has a search warrant issued by a judge or when there are “exigent,” (i.e., urgent) circumstances that make getting a warrant impractical.

It’s too early to say whether the final bill will include major revisions, but proponents, including Eugene Sen. Floyd Prozanski, have been meeting with civil liberties advocates and community-based organizations to identify additional amendments that could add important safeguards, clarify the intent of the bill and insert limitations on the broad uses originally proposed.

The bill is set for a work session on Wednesday, with lawmakers in the throes of the last days of the legislative session.

In this time of attacks by the federal government and other states on immigrants and people seeking abortions, it’s especially important that Oregon officials include strong safeguards on the use of surveillance. Up to now, the federal attacks have been muted in Oregon because lawmakers had the foresight – in prior years – to pass strong, community-led sanctuary and abortion shield laws that prevent commandeering and overzealous enforcement by other states, such as Texas.

Surveillance technologies must have critical safeguards and limitations, or our sanctuary and shield laws will not protect Oregonians from growing national networks of technology now being used to stifle our democracy, silence our advocacy and slash our basic rights.

Lawmakers must prioritize listening to community members and adopt state policies that protect Oregonians from growing threats of aggression by the federal government and other states. The time is now.

Prior to retiring in 2015, David Fidanque was executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. He has been a Eugene resident since 1974.

Prior to retiring in 2015, David Fidanque was executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. He has been a Eugene resident since 1974.