Tag: public accountability

  • Oregon Data Centers: Who Benefits, Who Pays?

    Oregon Data Centers: Who Benefits, Who Pays?

    A video discussion about Oregon data centers, public costs, and local accountability.

    This video discusses the rapid expansion of data centers in Oregon and the questions local communities should be asking before these projects move forward.

    Data centers are often presented as economic development projects, but they also raise serious public-interest questions. They can require large amounts of electricity, water, land, infrastructure, and tax support. When those costs are spread across communities, residents deserve to understand who benefits, who pays, and what safeguards are in place.

    The issue is not whether the internet, cloud services, or artificial intelligence require physical infrastructure. They do. The issue is whether Oregon communities are being asked to absorb the costs while private companies receive the long-term benefits.

    Why this matters

    Data centers are not just buildings. They are major infrastructure decisions. They can affect electric grids, water systems, land use, tax revenue, utility planning, climate goals, and local budgets.

    Before Oregon cities and counties approve or subsidize large data center projects, residents should have clear answers about:

    • How much electricity the project will require;
    • Whether residential or small-business utility customers could see higher costs;
    • How much water the facility will use;
    • Whether the project receives tax breaks or public incentives;
    • How many permanent local jobs will actually be created;
    • What environmental impacts have been reviewed;
    • Whether emergency services, roads, substations, or other public infrastructure will need upgrades; and
    • How the public will be able to monitor compliance over time.

    Communities should not have to accept vague promises in place of enforceable protections. If a project requires public resources, public infrastructure, or public subsidies, then the public deserves transparency.

    A local government issue

    These decisions often happen through zoning changes, utility agreements, tax exemptions, enterprise zones, development agreements, and infrastructure planning. That means city councils, county commissions, planning departments, and state lawmakers all have a role to play.

    Oregon residents should be able to ask basic questions before approval, not after the project is already locked in.

    Data centers may be part of the modern economy, but that does not mean every proposal deserves automatic approval. Growth should come with accountability, measurable public benefit, and protections for the communities being asked to host this infrastructure.

    Watch the video here:
    Data Centers: They Win, We Lose

  • Questions Bend Residents Can Ask Council

    Questions Bend Residents Can Ask Council

    Part 10 of the Bend Surveillance Oversight series.

    You do not need to be a surveillance expert to ask reasonable questions about public technology.

    If a city uses tools that collect, store, search, analyze, or share public data, residents have a right to understand how those tools are governed.

    That applies to body cameras, fleet cameras, automated license plate readers, drones, traffic enforcement cameras, digital evidence systems, AI tools, real-time information platforms, and any other technology that affects public privacy, public records, or public accountability.

    The goal is not to attack City staff or police.

    The goal is simple:

    Public safety technology should answer to public rules.

    1. What systems exist?

    • What surveillance technologies does Bend Police currently use?
    • What systems are being considered for future use?
    • Which systems are active now?
    • Which systems are approved but not yet active?
    • Which systems are optional add-ons or future capabilities?
    • Which vendors are involved?
    • Are there third-party vendors, subcontractors, cloud providers, or software modules the public should know about?
    • Is there a plain-language public inventory residents can read?

    2. What data is collected?

    • Does the system collect video?
    • Does it collect audio?
    • Does it collect license plate data?
    • Does it collect location data?
    • Does it collect metadata?
    • Does it collect biometric data?
    • Does it analyze faces, vehicles, objects, movement, behavior, or patterns?
    • Is any data analyzed by AI or automated tools?
    • Are any features disabled but technically available?

    3. Where does the data go?

    • Where is the data stored?
    • Is it stored on City systems or vendor-controlled cloud systems?
    • Does the City own and control the data?
    • Can vendors access the data?
    • Can vendors process, export, or analyze the data?
    • Are cloud providers or subprocessors involved?
    • Can data be stored outside Oregon?
    • Can data be stored outside the United States?
    • What happens to the data when the contract ends?

    4. How long is the data kept?

    • What is the default retention period for each system?
    • Is non-evidence data automatically deleted?
    • Is non-hit ALPR data deleted quickly?
    • Who can extend retention?
    • What justification is required to extend retention?
    • Are retention changes logged?
    • Are retention settings audited?
    • Does the City publish retention rules publicly?

    5. Who can search the data?

    • Who has access to each system?
    • Are users limited by role?
    • Can every officer search the system?
    • Can supervisors search it?
    • Can dispatch search it?
    • Can prosecutors access it directly?
    • Can vendors access it?
    • Can outside agencies access it?
    • Are searches required to include a case number or incident number?
    • Are searches required to include a purpose?
    • Are all searches logged?
    • Are search logs audited?
    • What happens if someone searches improperly?

    6. Can outside agencies access it?

    • Can federal agencies access Bend surveillance data?
    • Can out-of-state agencies access it?
    • Can regional law enforcement systems access it?
    • Can fusion centers access it?
    • Can private companies access it?
    • Can vendors respond directly to outside requests?
    • Does the City require case-specific legal process before sharing?
    • Does the City require written authorization before sharing?
    • Does the City publish annual data-sharing statistics?
    • Can the City deny outside requests?
    • Can the City audit outside access?

    7. Can vendors activate new features?

    • Can vendors activate new AI features?
    • Can vendors activate analytics features?
    • Can vendors activate biometric tools?
    • Can vendors activate ALPR features?
    • Can vendors activate real-time monitoring?
    • Can vendors change retention settings?
    • Can vendors change data-sharing settings?
    • Does Council approval happen before new capabilities are enabled?
    • Does the public receive notice before major feature changes?
    • Are disabled features independently verified?

    8. What about facial recognition and biometrics?

    • Does Bend use facial recognition?
    • Does Bend plan to use facial recognition?
    • Do any current systems have facial recognition capability?
    • Are biometric features disabled?
    • Who verifies that they are disabled?
    • Would Council approval be required before biometric features are activated?
    • Would the public receive notice?
    • Would there be legal review and technical review first?

    A simple local rule would be:

    No facial recognition or biometric identification without explicit public approval.

    9. What about AI police reports?

    • Does Bend use AI-assisted police reports?
    • Does Bend plan to use AI-assisted police reports?
    • If AI is used, are original AI drafts preserved?
    • Are officer edits logged?
    • Does the final report disclose AI assistance?
    • Are prosecutors notified when AI was used?
    • Can defense attorneys obtain AI drafting records through normal discovery?
    • Can the vendor use Bend data to train AI models?
    • Has the system been independently audited?
    • Are serious incidents excluded or subject to extra safeguards?

    A simple local rule would be:

    No AI-generated police report without an audit trail.

    10. What oversight exists?

    • Has the City conducted an independent technical audit?
    • Does each system have a public use policy?
    • Does each system have a public retention policy?
    • Does each system have a public sharing policy?
    • Are complaints tracked?
    • Are violations reported publicly in aggregate?
    • Does Council review surveillance systems before renewal?
    • Does the City publish annual transparency reports?
    • Are total annual costs publicly reported?
    • Are future renewals and expansions clearly identified?

    11. What safeguards will Bend adopt?

    • Will Bend adopt a surveillance technology ordinance?
    • Will Bend require Council approval before acquisition or expansion?
    • Will Bend publish a public inventory of all surveillance technologies?
    • Will Bend require public use policies before deployment?
    • Will Bend set short retention limits?
    • Will Bend require logged searches with case numbers?
    • Will Bend restrict federal and third-party sharing?
    • Will Bend prohibit facial recognition without explicit public approval?
    • Will Bend require independent technical audits?
    • Will Bend require annual public transparency reports?
    • Will Bend prohibit vendors from activating new capabilities without City approval?
    • Will Bend require public review before contract renewal?

    A short version residents can send

    Residents who want to keep it simple can ask Council this:

    Before Bend expands police surveillance technology, will the City publish a plain-language inventory of all systems, identify what data each system collects, explain where the data is stored, disclose retention periods, require logged searches with case numbers, restrict federal and third-party sharing, prohibit facial recognition without explicit public approval, and require annual public transparency reports?

    These are not anti-police questions.

    They are public governance questions.

    If a technology is powerful enough to collect, search, store, analyze, or share public data, it is powerful enough to deserve public rules.

    Bend residents deserve clear answers before police surveillance systems expand.

    Further reading

    Series links

  • Other Cities Are Already Asking Better Questions

    Other Cities Are Already Asking Better Questions

    Part 8 of the Bend Surveillance Oversight series.

    Bend does not need to invent police surveillance oversight from scratch.

    Other cities are already asking the same basic questions:

    • Who approves surveillance technology before it is used?
    • What data is collected?
    • How long is it kept?
    • Who can search it?
    • Can outside agencies access it?
    • Can vendors change settings or activate new features?
    • Does the public receive annual reports?
    • Can elected officials review the system before it expands?

    That is the important lesson.

    The issue is not whether every city has reached the same conclusion.

    They have not.

    The issue is that communities across the country are realizing that police technology should not expand faster than public oversight.

    Austin: surveillance technology should require public rules

    Austin offers one useful model.

    In February 2026, the Austin City Council passed a resolution called the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology Act, or TRUST Act.

    The resolution directed the City Manager to return with an ordinance regulating the adoption, acquisition, deployment, use, and review of surveillance technology by city departments.

    That matters because it shifts the question from one contract at a time to a broader public framework.

    Bend could take the same approach.

    The public question should not only be whether a single contract sounds reasonable.

    The broader question should be what rules apply before surveillance technology is acquired, expanded, renewed, or materially changed.

    Mountain View: vendor assurances were not enough

    Mountain View, California offers another useful lesson.

    In January 2026, the City publicly stated that it had discovered unauthorized queries and potential access to Mountain View ALPR data.

    The City said Police Department staff had met with Flock Safety leadership about “the security and control of our data,” and said it was “upset and disappointed with how our data was accessed.”

    That example matters because it shows why vendor assurances are not enough.

    The lesson for Bend is simple:

    Do not wait for a data-sharing problem before creating data-sharing rules.

    Pima County: cost and AI concerns can cross political lines

    Pima County, Arizona offers another example.

    Reporting in early 2026 described the Pima County Board of Supervisors rejecting a proposed $45 million contract expansion involving Axon technology and AI tools.

    Reported concerns included cost, AI expansion, and whether the investment made sense for the Sheriff’s Department.

    That example matters because surveillance oversight is not only a privacy issue.

    It is also a budget issue.

    Public safety dollars are limited.

    Every dollar spent on bundled technology, AI tools, cloud subscriptions, hardware refreshes, and add-on features is a dollar not spent somewhere else.

    That does not mean technology is never worth funding.

    It means elected officials should ask hard questions before long-term commitments become automatic.

    Ferndale: public pressure can lead to stronger oversight

    Ferndale, Michigan offers another useful example based on reporting about local ALPR oversight discussions.

    Reporting described residents raising concerns about license plate reader expansion and city officials discussing stronger policies.

    That is important because public oversight often improves when residents ask specific, grounded questions.

    Community engagement does not have to stop technology.

    It can improve the rules that govern technology.

    The pattern is bigger than one vendor

    This is not only about Axon.

    It is not only about Flock.

    It is not only about ALPRs.

    It is not only about body cameras.

    It is not only about AI.

    The larger issue is how cities govern powerful surveillance systems once cameras, cloud storage, software subscriptions, data-sharing, analytics, and vendor platforms become part of public safety operations.

    A city can support public safety and still insist on public oversight.

    Those goals are not opposites.

    What Bend can learn

    Bend can learn at least five things from other cities.

    1. Oversight should happen before deployment or expansion, not after controversy.
    2. Citywide rules are better than one-off contract debates.
    3. Data-sharing limits should be explicit and enforceable.
    4. Vendors should not be the only source of truth about how systems work.
    5. Annual public reporting builds trust without exposing sensitive case details.

    These examples do not prove that Bend has the same problems.

    They show why Bend should adopt safeguards before problems occur.

    Bend can ask better questions now

    Police technology can be useful.

    But useful tools still need rules.

    If other cities are asking stronger questions about surveillance technology, Bend can too.

    The question is not whether Bend should copy another city word for word.

    The question is whether Bend should create its own public framework before future expansions become harder to unwind.

    Better questions today can prevent harder problems tomorrow.

    Further reading

    Series links

  • FISA Section 702: A Hide & Speak Livestream

    A featured Hide & Speak livestream exploring privacy, surveillance, civil liberties, and the public accountability questions that increasingly shape modern civic life.

    This featured Hide & Speak livestream brings together a timely conversation on privacy, surveillance, civil liberties, and public accountability. As these issues continue to move from abstract policy debates into everyday life, discussions like this one help make the stakes clearer and more accessible.

    Originally streamed last Saturday, this conversation is now archived here for anyone who was unable to join live or who wants to revisit it.

    Watch the full video below:

    Watch on YouTube: Hide & Speak: A Conversation on Privacy, Surveillance, and Public Accountability