Legislation Details

File #: PH 26-16    Version: 1
Type: Public Hearing-Misc. Status: Archived
In control: City Council
Final action: 8/26/2026
Title: Public comment on police surveillance technology and data privacy.
Sponsors: Anika Bowie, Nelsie Yang
Attachments: 1. Public comments

Title

Public comment on police surveillance technology and data privacy.

Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
8/26/2026 10:31 PMElaine Evans Against It is vital to protect privacy rights of individuals. This technology violates privacy rights. In addition, this surveillance tech does not increase safety and wastes taxpayer dollars. Please do all you can to protect our rights to privacy.
8/26/2026 9:06 PMDean Fingerholz Against I have worked in the IT field for over 20 years and have experience with these video surveillance companies. While contracts and configurations can be made to properly deploy systems like these, Flock has shown a consistent track record of not respecting US citizens 4th amendments rights. They take data collected from one state and offer it up to other agencies outside of that state as part of their service. With what has already become public, we know that multiple civil liberties have been violated throughout the states. Axon and other companies do offer similar services, but do not lean as heavy on the AI data tracking as Flock does. I am against adopting any technology like this unless it is city created and managed to allow for total transparency. The views expressed in this comment pertain to my personal experience with these products. +2
8/26/2026 8:29 PMJacob Pierce Against Hello, I hold a B.S. in Computer Science from UW-Madison and have nine YoE working in the video game industry. Surveillance data use already widespread in my industry. I have implemented tracking software later used to profile individuals, simulate behavior, and engineer calculated levels of addictiveness and predictable engagement at scale. This predates modern ML AI, which can now process enormous datasets, including continuous footage from public roads. Without meaningful protections, public funds may be supporting a private, for-profit company in creating a dataset do***enting the movements of every person. The financial value of such a dataset is difficult to overstate, as is its potential for misuse. I urge the legislature to establish public control and clear limits on the collection, storage, access, sharing, and sale of publicly funded surveillance data. Residents deserve transparency, accountability, and enforceable privacy protections. +1
8/26/2026 8:11 PMChris Daniel   Computer engineers like me tend to make a cl***ic mistake early in our careers: we let shiny new tools drive us, rather than the other way around. I'll admit, I've done it. But, we eventually learn that our intentions should come first. Then we find the appropriate tools to accomplish our intent. So with surveillance: Are we putting intent first? Or are we simply implementing AI-powered cameras in our communities because they're a shiny new tool? Let's take the time to articulate our intent, and understand our limitations under the law -- before we let any private entity run ahead, and extract profit from our community with no consequences. The ACLU have a model bill which outlines some good limitations and transparency around surveillance tech. It's part of an initiative called CCOPS, for Community Control Over Police Surveillance. I encourage you to have a look at that. Find more info at https://www.aclu.org/community-control-over-police-surveillance . +2
8/24/2026 2:47 PMRochelle Schmidt   I hope that this meeting is related to my recent complaint to Councilmember Johnson regarding Flock cameras and other automated license plate readers (ALPRs) in Saint Paul. There is no ambiguity in the Fourth Amendment: Government searches require a warrant. Having a private company doing the surveilling and then contracting with police departments to provide that information to them is a blatant end-run around the Constitution. It is the sort of thing that belongs in China or Russia (or 1984's Oceania), not a supposedly democratic society. The multiple allegations of misuse of the system - police officers arrested in multiple localities and charged with using Flock cameras to stalk their romantic partners or ex-partners, Flock employees spying on a children's swimming pool - give added urgency to this matter. (The title of this topic needs clarification. I don't know how to rate my opinion because I don't know whether we are discussing keeping this technology or getting rid of it.) +4 -1