Flock-less Cincinnati looks to shine light on surveillance
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios
Cincinnati doesn't use Flock cameras, but local, statewide and national scrutiny of the surveillance technology is prompting a conversation at City Hall about what the city does use.
Why it matters: Residents see cameras on streets, police officers and drones — and want to know what's being recorded, how it's being used and where that information goes.
Driving the news: Earlier this month, Council unanimously approved a motion directing the city manager to publicly lay out Cincinnati's surveillance systems, where they're deployed, how long data is kept and who can access it.
- The administration is also being asked to draft an ordinance that could limit data sharing and storage, establish a surveillance use policy, require an annual report and give Council oversight of related contracts.
Zoom in: Cincinnati already uses drones and contracts with Axon for body cameras and license plate readers.
- It's also pursuing a five-year expansion of its camera network, including 30 to 50 more cameras, WVXU reports.
- Separately, Council is exploring adding cameras to city-owned surface parking lots.
What they're saying: Council member Anna Albi, who authored the motion, tells Axios the process is about transparency and making sure residents know how the city uses these tools.
- Everything she's learned from Cincinnati police and the Law Department suggests the city is "really following best practices."
- "If that's true, let's codify it," she says. "Let's write that into legislation so our citizens can know exactly what we're doing as a government and have those expectations written down in law."
The backstory: Albi's work predates the current Flock scrutiny — she's been looking at surveillance oversight since Cincinnati launched its drone program last year and residents began asking how it would be used.
- Earlier this year, Council moved to prohibit sharing real-time surveillance with third parties for civil immigration enforcement without a court order or other legal requirement.
Yes, but: Albi says oversight isn't meant to keep police from using surveillance to solve crimes.
- Families of shooting victims have pushed for more cameras, she says, while others have "legitimate concerns about government overreach and that kind of Big Brother feeling."
What's next: The administration has 30 days to publicly report back at a committee meeting, likely by mid-October.
- Council plans to use that meeting to hear from residents before working through the rules, Albi says.