Skip to content
ORWELL INDEX

Oregon

Grant County

On record

Checked 26 Aug 2026
Technologies
0
Systems
0
Devices mapped
0

No community-mapped points in this snapshot

The OpenStreetMap snapshot captured 26 Aug 2026 contained 0 surveillance points inside the county boundary. This is a result from that source, not evidence that no surveillance technology operates in Grant County.

About the map →

No dataset this site uses records a single surveillance device in Grant County. No EFF Atlas entry, no camera mapped by OpenStreetMap contributors, nothing. What the county’s own minutes record is a camera system covering the courthouse, the jail, the parole and probation offices, the District Attorney and the Justice Court, assembled over three years without any single decision to build one.

It starts in December 2024, when the Emergency Management Coordinator introduces three State Homeland Security Grants:

“All three pertain to the upgrade and instillation of a county-wide security system that will support the Courthouse and the Parole and Probation offices. The third grant is for equipment and infrastructure that will support they system in both buildings. lncluded will be a camera security system, upgrade access control and door security.”

On 25 November 2025 two contract amendments pass, each 3 to 0. The first extends the work to the jail:

“the County has partnered with the Circuit Court and Oregon Judicial Department for the installation of security cameras throughout the building. The grant to was expanded to include cameras around the exterior perimeter and interior hallway of the jail.”

$63,461.25 for that one. The second adds $20,392.80 “to install cameras and moniters in the District Attorney and Justice Court Offices.”

By 1 April 2026 the plan has grown again, now funded at a different order of magnitude: “a multi-phase approach funded by a $2 million legislative appropriation to install screening equipment, consolidate public entry points, and upgrade surveillance”.

The spelling errors are the county’s own and we quote them as we found them.

Describe this accurately, because the accurate description is the interesting one. These are cameras on public buildings, not plate readers on roads, and not cameras aimed at people going about their day. Every step was minuted. Every vote was unanimous and public. Nothing here was improper or concealed.

What makes it worth publishing is the shape. Three Homeland Security grants, a partnership with the state judicial department, two amendments and a $2 million appropriation, spread across three years. Each one arrived as a funding item. None of them arrived as a question about how much of a small county’s public buildings should be under camera, because that question never had a meeting of its own.

Two smaller passages show how a system like this keeps growing. In February 2025 the Fairgrounds manager, discussing a new RV park, said “she would like the opportunity to jump on board with Eric Bush in the purchase and installation of security cameras.” An adjacent department asking to join an existing program is how these things spread past their original justification, and here it is in one sentence.

And from the November 2025 minutes, a condition attached by the funder:

“One of the conditions required by the Oregon Judicial Department in funding security and screening equipment is the designation of a single public entrance to the courthouse.”

A state agency funding cameras also decided how a rural courthouse can be entered. It is a small sentence with a real consequence for anyone who uses that building, and it is not the sort of term that appears in an announcement.

There are no plate readers in this record. Searches for ALPR, automated license plate, Flock, Axon, Vigilant and body-worn all return nothing across 309 machine readable documents. Two hits looked relevant and were not: the Road Department “monitoring various road cameras for snow conditions requiring scheduling plowing operations”, which is weather, and an airport report thanking someone “for reporting drone activity near Runway 17”, which is somebody else’s drone reported as a hazard.

What the record never says is how many cameras there are or where they point. The documents are funding amounts. There is no retention rule and no access policy anywhere in them. We read the County Court and the Budget Committee from 2023 forward; thirteen other categories on the county’s portal and all nine of its cities are unread.

Who approves it

These systems were approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have confirmed where they meet and how comment works.

How to show up in Grant County →

Trackers

Meetings, contracts, records

Nothing listed yet. The trackers launch here, and facts appear only with their sources.

How the inventory works →

What you can do

Civic action

Show up

Public comment is open to any resident, and you do not have to be an expert to use it. The hub says what to expect in each room, how long you get to speak, and where to check the schedule before you go.

How to show up in Grant County →

Personal protection

Protect yourself

Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.

Surveillance Self-Defense ↗

Get the digest

A regular digest of what changed in the world of surveillance: the counties we published, the devices that appeared on the map, and the public meetings where these decisions get made. We send it when there is enough to report.

Subscribe to the newsletter

One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.