QuickTake:

The Eugene Police Department said it “has identified vulnerabilities and limitations” in the Flock system that did not meet the standards of the department and the community. Springfield’s deputy chief said his department no longer had confidence in the system. While the departments were moving away from Flock, both said they still believe the underlying technology has value in fighting crime.

The Eugene Police Department said Friday, Dec. 5, it has “immediately” terminated its contract with Flock Safety, making the announcement in a news release sent at 7:20 p.m.

Less than an hour later, Springfield police announced that they also will be removing their Flock cameras.

The moves come after months of public outcry against the license plate-reading cameras.

While both departments said they still believe the underlying automated license-plate recognition technology has value in fighting crime, both also cited concerns with their current vendor, Atlanta-based Flock Safety.

“The department has identified vulnerabilities and limitations that raise concerns about the system’s ability to meet EPD’s operational needs, data security requirements, and community expectations,” the Eugene police statement said. “After further evaluation and internal discussion, the department has decided to discontinue the contract.”

Springfield police, in its statement, referred to unspecified “vulnerabilities and limitations” identified by Eugene police.

“Our responsibility is to safeguard both the integrity of investigative tools and the trust our community places in us,” Springfield Deputy Chief George Crolly said in a statement. “Given what we have learned, we do not have confidence that the current system provides the level of control and assurance we require.”

The Springfield statement also said, “all Flock automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras within the city will be covered in the coming days, pending their full removal.”

Flock Safety has come under fire from U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and others with concerns about data sharing with federal agencies, but the statement from Eugene police did not specify what “vulnerabilities and limitations” caused it to terminate the contract.

“Eugene Police’s ALPR system experience has demonstrated the value of leveraging ALPR technology to aid investigations, apprehend felony suspects, and recover stolen vehicles more quickly,” the Eugene police news release said. “However, the department must ensure that any vendors meet the highest standards for safeguards surrounding privacy, data handling, data security, and system reliability.”

A few other cities in Oregon and several in Washington have also recently turned away from Flock Safety, at least temporarily.

“It was a joint call by me and [Eugene Police Chief Chris Skinner] and ultimately came down to trust,” Eugene City Manager Sarah Medary told Lookout Eugene-Springfield Sunday. “We need the community to trust we are making decisions and deploying tools and technology that protect with integrity. We’ve been working on policy updates and contract changes to try and ensure that and ultimately could not get there.”

She said Skinner and the next city manager will navigate whether the city will look for a new vendor for the technology, noting there is a City Council work session scheduled Feb. 18 to discuss the cameras generally.

In Springfield, police in September said they would not turn on the cameras until a wider community discussion about the technology could take place.

Springfield Police Chief Jami Resch in a statement Friday said: “ALPR remains a valuable tool for modern law enforcement. We will be seeking ALPR options that meet our standards for data security, system transparency, and operational control. As we move forward, we intend to continue our work with community members to ensure those expectations are clear and are met.”

Eugene signed a $342,000, two-year contract with Flock Safety for 57 cameras. The full amount has already been paid, in March and June. Installation of the cameras began in May. Police bypassed any public presentation about the technology and did not seek approval from the Eugene City Council.

Springfield police previously said the cost of the 25 cameras in that city would be $77,000 per year. Both Eugene and Springfield police departments said they used state grants to cover the costs of the cameras.

Skinner, the Eugene police chief, has been steadfast in advocating for the technology, which captures vehicle information and alerts officers when a vehicle linked to a crime passes by one of the cameras placed at street intersections, for example.

Skinner stated that the license-plate recognition technology helped a department with limited manpower and also limited financial resources.

But more than a dozen citizens at a July meeting of the citizens’ advisory Police Commission voiced strong opposition to the technology, with many expressing concerns about the cameras possibly being used to track vulnerable populations in federal immigration enforcement operations, for example.

Skinner in September announced the city would attempt to renegotiate its contract with Flock Safety, but by that time the voices opposing the technology had grown louder as more citizens spoke at city meetings against use of the cameras.

On Oct. 8, the Eugene City Council voted unanimously to pause use of the cameras.

Even though two days later Skinner at a press conference called the Flock Safety cameras key in helping police identify seven suspects arrested in connection with an alleged burglary ring targeting Asian American households, the City Council had not added further discussion of the cameras to any meeting agendas.

The Lane County Sheriff’s Office has a deal for 22 Flock Safety cameras, but none have yet been installed. Sheriff Carl Wilkerson in October said the cameras “would only be placed along state highways and major county roads.”

The citizen group Eyes Off Eugene formed to oppose use of the technology in Eugene and Springfield. In a September statement to Lookout Eugene-Springfield, the group referred to also working with other local organizations, including the Lane County Immigrant Defense Network, Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Trans Alliance of Lane County and others.

“This is a very wonderful and exciting victory for the people of Eugene and Springfield who have rejected Flock’s dragnet surveillance!” Kamryn Stringfield, an Eyes Off Eugene organizer, said in a text message Friday.

“This happened only due to the organized campaign led by Eyes Off Eugene and other local groups to cancel Flock. Of course we now ask that the Lane County Sheriff take this as a signal to cancel his contract with Flock too,” Stringfield said.

The Oregon State Police and Junction City Police Department in Lane County use in-car license-plate reader technology provided by a different company, Axon, which is a major provider of technology to police departments across the country.

Axon has also begun selling a pole-mounted product with similar technological features to Flock Safety cameras installed in Eugene and Springfield.

As recently as last week, Eugene police updated its policy guiding use of license-plate recognition, stating that only Lane County law enforcement agencies with valid data-sharing agreements would have direct access to data captured by Eugene cameras.