Albany’s sole Flock surveillance camera, photographed downtown on Nov. 26, 2025.
Albany’s sole Flock Safety surveillance camera has been temporarily disabled as a result of city council action on Wednesday night, but for now the camera equipment will stay in place.
The continued use of the license plate reader is up in the air because the city council fears it might have been accessed in the federal drive to find and deport illegal aliens.
The camera recorded vehicles going across the intersection of First Avenue and Ellsworth Street, at the foot of the Ellsworth Street Bridge.
Near the end of Wednesday’s regular meeting, Councilwoman Steph Newton moved to direct the police department to stop using the camera. She cited a report by the nonprofit Oregon Law Center to the legislature claiming that Albany’s Flock camera, despite assurances to the contrary, had been accessed by federal authorities hundreds of times.
Councilwoman Carolyn McLeod immediately seconded her motion.
City Manager Peter Troedsson urged the council not to cancel an important tool in tracking crime suspects and finding missing people based on the Portland group’s claims, which he called “flawed at best.”
Police Chief Marcia Harnden gave the council a written report challenging the Law Center claims. She said the police in December turned off the ability of agencies other than Oregon law enforcement to search the Albany Flock data. She showed logs from January and February that confirmed no out-of-state agencies accessed the data.
After a flurry of parliamentary back and forth, the council voted for an amended motion to merely suspend use of the camera. Councilors also voted to invite someone from the Law Center to come and explain its report about alleged federal access to the Flock cameras in Oregon.
Albany pays Flock Safety, based in Atlanta, $14,000 a year to operate four license plate readers. It ordered the cameras after getting a state grant to combat retail theft. But only one camera has been installed. The police hoped to install the others at Walmart and near Fred Meyer and Heritage Mall.
You might think opposition to the cameras is justified based strictly on the fear of “Panopticon,” which means constant and universal government surveillance. But the council’s move appears motivated mainly by opposition to federal attempts to enforce immigration law. (hh)
I listened to the meeting myself… Councilor Newton clearly said she used to work in data and privacy and that her concern is about our data being shared outside of the current contract. She didn’t mention immigration at all.
Feels like you’re projecting something onto her comments that just isn’t there.
She mentioned the news report last week alleging that immigration had accessed the Albany data hundreds of times.
Councilor McLeod mentioned those concerns before Newton had a chance to, during the same meeting. So, it was actually both of them.
Hilarious! The city council worries that the cameras are used to find illegal alien felons, but welcome cameras collecting taxes from people doing 31 mph in a 40 mph zone at 10:00am.. you democrats are wild
Those cameras don’t take photos of EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE that passes by them.
Excellent reply, rejoinder and rebuttal Mac. Liberal’s brains are impossible to understand.
They defend criminal illegal aliens and go after us.
They die on the 20% side of the hill on 80/20 issues. If one of the liberals on the council needs to reply to me, I can be found on FB
Good! Mass surveillance is wrong.
You may be interested to know that retailer (such as Lowe’s in Albany) also use flock cameras on their property at the entrances and exits.
I would be interested to know how they are using data, and if they allow 3rd party agencies to use it.
I really doubt Lowe’s has true LPR cameras that access law-enforcement databases. If they have cameras, they probably use them for internal affairs issues, such as thefts from the business.
Considering the expertise of the City Staff in other software decisions, I doubt they are capable of preventing the gov from going through any City data system they want.
Eugene is removing its Flock cameras and I believe Springfield is too. I can’t comment much on it because I don’t subscribe to the Register Guard. You can use their Search function to find articles.
Over the years of reading the Hering philosophy, such as it is, Hering has always been vehemently opposed to what he describes as government overreach.
Apparently, when it comes to this government, – and its desire to spy on citizens, then overreach is alright. As long as the Flock camera intrusions are used against brown people and others the current government finds undesirable, Hering believes those actions are justified, your privacy be damned.
Albany cops do not need FLOCK cameras. There are no armies of criminals flooding over the bridges, invading the city. The people of Albany do not need to pay Flock Safety $14-thousand dollars per annum just so the current autocratic regime can tap into the feed and spy on its citizens from the comfort of their Washington DC arm chairs. Hering’s position exposes him for what he is.
“….Apparently, when it comes to this government, – and its desire to spy on citizens, then overreach is alright. As long as the Flock camera intrusions are used against brown people and others the current government finds undesirable, Hering believes those actions are justified, your privacy be damned…..”
And you got to that statement how? You have become beyond delusional in your hate for anything that doesn’t resemble Communism.
You cannot avoid cameras in the world we live in today.
Keep your nose clean and smile ;)
Smile :)
This action dismantles only the one at the Bridge and not the ones at Lowe’s! Flock scratches the surface on surveillance . Flock has horrible record. Why do you think their partner Ring cameras just got obliterated stock wise because of their Super Bowl ad! These others are just as bad!(Fog reveal, Nova, Weblock, Paragon
Nso exedus, pegasus)
This is a civilian surveillance entity that does not just look at license plates. These cameras have fullvideo and audio surveillance. These devices flow into flock OS. Every device in their network becomes a deputized surveillance node. This includes other partnership devices such as homeowners associations, businesses, ring, cameras, etc.. searches can be Freeform meaning they can simply search green hat, red shirt, and it would pull up anyone meeting that criteria. Then they can investigate anyone using flocknova. which now can link Other electronic forms of identification, such as social media phone tracking, it can then identify anyone living in your house. They even have the ability to identify anybody visiting you by setting up a Geo fence search around your address through up device signals around your house. These searches do not require any kind of warrant, case number or reason! I do not know if Albany requires a warrant before they use nova. These cameras do in fact not capture personal information but a license plate is tied doing an identity and your identity is freeform searchable in their system. Because flock uses disparate systems, not just police systems a search looking for someone with a blue shirt, red hat and has a truck with landscaping business decals on it would be considered. And police agencies could based on information provided to them get a warrant and disrupt your life, even though you had absolutely nothing to do with Whatever was being investigated so you were presumed guilty not innocent based on information that had nothing to do with you . If you really don’t care about surveillance and that you have nothing to hide then the next time you shower just leave your door open! The problem with nothing to hide is that laws, Norms and interpretations of guilt are not fixed. Without privacy there is no preventing retroactive criminalization because you no longer control the evidence of your life. This just creates a system of presume guilt.
If you are a responsible person, you should not mind having your journey across the bridge into town recorded. If you are driving a stolen car it may be to your detriment. Don’t wotty, be happy.
If our government was run by responsible people (which is never the case in any government), maybe the people wouldn’t fear mass surveillance. If you do some quick research on Flock cameras, you’ll find out that they have been abused by the authorities–and not just to harass immigrants. China has cameras everywhere. Is that what you want for America?
The only worry should be: Are there enough safeguards to keep the system from being abused by someone with bad intentions?
What we seem to have here is a majority of the Council being more worried about the rights of illegal doers instead of the rights of law abiding citizens. With their vote about ICE of late you can see which side they are on.
First they came for the….