I am under video surveillance every time I shop at a big box store, and I have grown used to the self-checkout lines at Kroger and CVS watching me as I scan my items to make sure I scan everything. The cameras also get a good view of my bald spot, so I get an amusing reminder of how much hair I am losing. When I am in a public place, I do not have an expectation of privacy the way I do in my home, or in a rental unit (such as an Air B&B) or a hotel room.

Both Bloomington city government and Monroe County government have removed Flock cameras from local use, and the county commissioners voted to pay a $3,000 fee to have the cameras removed ahead of schedule. Much of this was after public pressure and lobbying to remove the cameras. But the commissioners admit that the cameras have found missing persons. The cameras have also helped police solve crimes, both locally and in Indianapolis.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about how long data is stored and how the data can be abused to track people's movements. I cannot help but wonder how many of the people objecting to this are carrying around computers in their pockets that also track their movements and share them with faceless multinational corporations, or social media apps that have ties to authoritarian regimes like Communist China.

Some of this is a moral panic about sharing information with federal agencies for immigration enforcement. But is it really wise to take away an important tool that local law enforcement uses to solve crimes and find missing persons because we do not like the policies of President Trump? It seems more than a little short-sighted to sacrifice local safety to make a statement about national politics, especially with concerns about crime and public drug use in Bloomington and Monroe County. Local policy decisions should be based on the needs of the local community, not support or opposition to whatever the federal government is doing.

While concerns over data privacy and storage have some merit, the answer is to be forward-thinking and negotiate the contract in a way that gives city or county government control over the recordings captured by Flock or whatever other company contracts with local government for security cameras. The answer is not to recklessly take away an important tool both city and county law enforcement use to catch criminals and keep law-abiding citizens safe. Unfortunately, the Democrats in charge of local government allowed political pressure to override public safety policy.

Subscribe now

ConservaTibbs

Is opposition to cameras disproportionate?