In a recent city council meeting, discussions centered around a proposed surveillance ordinance aimed at regulating the use of surveillance technology, particularly in light of concerns regarding facial recognition capabilities. The ordinance, which emerged from discussions in November 2022, seeks to align with the principles of the ACLU's Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) model ordinance.

Council members raised significant concerns about the potential misuse of surveillance data, particularly regarding facial recognition technology. One council member proposed an amendment to explicitly prohibit the use of facial recognition and gait analysis technologies, suggesting that violations could be classified as a Class A misdemeanor. This proposal was met with support from constituents who expressed fears about the implications of such technology on privacy and civil liberties.

City staff clarified that the current surveillance technology in use, specifically the Flock system, does not have the capability to perform facial recognition, focusing instead on vehicle identification through license plates. However, concerns were voiced about the possibility of data being extracted and used in conjunction with third-party software for facial recognition purposes. The police chief assured council members that the department maintains strict control over the data collected and does not share it with external entities.

Public comments during the meeting highlighted a range of opinions on the ordinance. Advocates for stricter regulations argued that the ordinance lacks sufficient safeguards against potential abuses, particularly in light of past incidents involving police misconduct. Some community members called for clearer definitions of disciplinary actions for misuse of surveillance technology, emphasizing the need for accountability.

The council also discussed data retention policies, with varying opinions on how long surveillance data should be stored. While some constituents advocated for shorter retention periods, others expressed concerns about the costs associated with data storage and the implications for ongoing investigations.

As the council prepares to vote on the ordinance, the discussions reflect a growing awareness of the complexities surrounding surveillance technology and the need for robust oversight to protect civil liberties while ensuring public safety. The outcome of this ordinance could set a significant precedent for how surveillance is managed in the city moving forward.