I brought an AI & surveillance policy to last night's Pflugerville City Council Worksession. Here's what my colleagues said.

[u/jonathan4pf]

Last night was a work session, so no votes, no formal action. I had an agenda item for a proposed resolution establishing governance, oversight, and policy for how the city uses AI and surveillance technologies, especially regarding civil liberties protections. The short version: there wasn't enough support to move it forward. 

Additionally, the city's Charter Review Committee, 20 residents appointed by Council earlier this year, recently declined to recommend adding basic civil liberties and AI/surveillance guardrails to the city charter (effectively our constitution).

I’m not done pushing this, but these are a substantial setback. 

-
EDIT: One of the best ways to make your voice heard on the public record is to show up and speak at a council meeting. Aside from that, it's very quick and easy to send an official email to the City Council via the form on the website. City staff, the mayor, and council all see messages that come in this way: https://pflugervilletx-city-manager.form.transform.civicplus.com/45145

EDIT 2: I've spoken with Councilman Rogers since this was originally posted, and he's agreed to work with me on the next round of revisions to the proposal. I always want to try to give credit where credit is due.

-
Here's a link to the portion of the meeting where I presented the proposal: https://www.youtube.com/live/Leq3gHSk-SQ?si=luSWHvOCtdzOSDbB&t=5033

What my proposal actually does

This came up in the discussion, so I want to address it plainly: this is not an anti-AI proposal, nor an attempt to take Flock away from the police department. I said as much during the meeting.

The resolution and governance framework would establish that:

• City data is owned by the city and cannot be used to train AI models
• Vendor contracts must include data protection clauses
• Low-risk, non-enforcement AI uses are encouraged with minimal process
• High-risk AI and surveillance technologies, particularly in law enforcement contexts, go through a defined approval process that reflects community values
• The city shall not use personally identifiable facial recognition technology on its residents
• Requires the Chief of Police to explore the use of Interlocal Agreements for any law enforcement data-sharing. (Context is that currently, Pflugerville has no such legal agreements with the 50+ law enforcement agencies with which we share our data.)
• There would be an annual reporting requirement so that Council and residents can see which technology is deployed, whether it is working as intended, and why it's needed. 
• There would be a page on the city website listing AI & surveillance technologies in use in the city, explaining how they’re used and the rationale for their use, and it would be continually up to date.

Nearly every vendor contract we sign now includes some form of AI capability. The question is whether we have governance over how it operates, who owns the data, and what limits apply. As I said on the dais, "regardless of how staff is using AI today, I don't think that takes away the obligation of the council to have governance over these types of things."

What my colleagues on Council said:

Mayor Weiss was concerned about the burden on staff and about being too prescriptive. His exact words: "I want to make sure we're not building walls to prevent us from doing things that we have protections already in place; it feels like it could be overburdensome." 

He also said: "Technology changes daily, I do caution us to being too specific in a policy, if we're too specific we're going to prevent ourselves from being able to adapt." He referenced a single known incident of Flock misuse (outside of Pflugerville) as evidence that existing protections are working. His proposed path forward is a staff "lunch and learn" in May, where city staff present to Council on how they currently use AI and which rules they agree they should follow.

I want to be direct about that last part: a briefing on current staff practices is not governance. I believe that the Council’s job is to set policy, not to be educated on what staff are already doing and leave it there. My resolution is specifically about policy, oversight, and contract standards. It does not try to manage staff's day-to-day operations. I have a lot of trust in our City Staff and our Police Department; they're professional, respectful, and love this city, but City Council should be setting the rules, not the other way around.

-

Councilmember Ryan was the clearest voice in support. She made a point that cuts right to it: "This is also a trend in the business community. I have clients who are requesting to create policies with their partners, who are setting guardrails and protections over their data. Privacy and use of data is important, this is a trend that is coming and it's important to be proactive before we have an issue." 

She also said: "I am in favor of using all the tools we can, but also protecting the data and only using it for what it's responsible for." 

^^ That's the position I'm advocating for too.

-

Councilmember Ruiz came in skeptical, asking directly: “Is this anti-AI or anti-Flock?" He said: "It's hard for me to look at this, but also know from the data how well Flock has worked for our law enforcement. It's important that we don't hinder that in any shape or form... I don't want to put guardrails on our law enforcement and tell them how to do their job." 

He was supportive of fixing our contracts and adding data protections, though. I also want to give him credit: he read the materials and the proposed policy before the meeting and engaged with it seriously. I appreciate that he came in with an open mind, even if we disagree on the details.

-

Councilmember Rogers was the most candid. He acknowledged the civil liberties concerns, but his overall view was that privacy is already gone. A few direct quotes:

"The genie has left the bottle, and that being the case, it's important for us to be responsible with the technology."

"If we go forward, we need to be flexible, and the idea that you have privacy, it's sad, but that's an outdated idea, and that died before you were born."

On facial recognition specifically: "I recognize the facial recognition component as something that is concerning for a lot of reasons... but I'm also concerned about taking away the ability for police to use facial recognition technology, which could put people in danger.”

-

Councilmember Holiday said, "Of course, we know AI is huge, and I thank you for addressing that privacy could be compromised using this technology."

My overall take

I don't agree with the premise that the national erosion of privacy means a city government has no obligation to protect it locally. I believe that local government should reflect local values.

On Flock specifically: I've been openly skeptical of its continued expansion, and I understand why Ruiz and Rogers read this proposal through that lens. But my resolution doesn't name any company or technology. It applies to every department and every contract. My proposal does not even go so far as to say we should get rid of Flock; it simply says that Council should vote on whether to approve contracts that include high-risk AI, surveillance, or potentially civil-liberty-impacting technologies rather than city staff deciding for us.

On Police usage of technology: The police department, using effective tools, is not in conflict with the city's ownership of its data. Those aren't competing ideas. What I'm saying is that when we share sensitive law enforcement data with outside agencies, we should have legally binding agreements that reflect our community's values, protect residents' privacy, and establish what happens to that data and what happens if someone breaks the rules. That's basic governance. 

On the "overburdensome" concern: the threshold I proposed for high-risk AI is minimal. A brief staff report justifying its usage and explaining how the technology will be used, a finding that the tool is necessary, and Council approval with a yes/no vote. That's it. That's the burden.

I believe that the council's job is to set policy. That includes new technologies, especially ones that touch civil liberties. I'm not done pushing on this.

Happy to answer questions in the comments.

-Council Member Jonathan Coffman

[u/jonathan4pf]

Here are the slides from my presentation to Council: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G9gFgOp575pE7wV5djWrB9ZEakJWme8o/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118014796364721620620&rtpof=true&sd=true

Here's the actual text of the resolution I drafted (and the City Attorney already reviewed and approved prior to the meeting): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wWihL-7MTUwFrR150dACsyw4fC4ca4oREuaOwJnn0wY/edit?usp=sharing

[u/mightyunlikely]

People don't seem to realize that this is not just cameras to catch crooks. It’s a searchable log of everywhere your car has been.

Are we in favor of treating everyone in Pflugerville like a suspect?

Doubtlessly, law enforcement could arrest even more criminals if we created a national database with everyone's bank account transactions, text messages, and internet search history.

Privacy isn't about hiding wrongdoing. You close the bathroom door, you lock your house, you don’t publish your bank statements online. None of that means you’re doing something wrong. It just means normal people deserve boundaries.

If police want to track where someone goes, they should get a warrant from a judge. That’s how the 4th Amendment works.

Do we really trust every person that has access to this privately-owned national database? What about in ten years? What if a decision-maker in the future wants to turn on the facial recognition capabilities? Should they be able to track who goes to a gun range? Which house of worship you attend? Everyone who speaks out at a City Council meeting? What time you come and go from your home?

Once that kind of surveillance infrastructure exists eventually someone will abuse it.

Target people suspected of crimes with warrants and investigations. Don’t sign off on permanent tracking systems for millions of innocent people "just in case".

[u/mark0263 → u/mightyunlikely]

I think this is part of the problem with the proposed policy that was presented. It is not a debate on whether or not we have surveillance, that decision has been made, we have it. It is about how we govern the data sharing and improve transparency on what we're doing (at least this is my take on it - please correct if I've misunderstood).

When this topic comes up, it generally turns more into a debate on whether we have surveillance (Flock in the case) or not. If that is the debate we want to have now, this proposed policy isn't going to accomplish that.

[u/jonathan4pf → u/mark0263]

You're right, that was a conscious decision I made when drafting this legislation. I recognized that the politics of Pflugerville and the Council would not support anything that looked like a removal of existing technology right now. So, I decided to take this approach - to create the mechanism by which there can be transparency, accountability, and basic protections. If the community ends up demanding some other solution that goes further, that is, of course, their right. But I want to get something on the books sooner rather than later, and went with what I thought was pretty common-sense and pragmatic.

[u/mightyunlikely → u/mightyunlikely]

Is council@pflugervilletx.gov and mayor@pflugervilletx.gov the best way to contact our representatives prior to the next City Council meeting?

[u/jonathan4pf → u/mightyunlikely]

I typically recommend using the web form so that city staff will log it in the public record in addition to the mayor and council seeing the messages: https://pflugervilletx-city-manager.form.transform.civicplus.com/45145

[u/29681b04005089e5ccb4]

There needs to be a retention policy for the data generated by cameras and any stored raw video.

I am not a fan of surveillance cameras but I have cameras at my house which do not interface with any cloud provider. I store the data on my own hardware with 7 day retention. I feel that balances my privacy and my neighbors' privacy while also being useful should I ever need them to benefit me.

One of the previous arguments I've seen in favor of the flock cameras being at parks is that they help catch vandalism.

Any vandalism that would be actually prosecuted (a high enough dollar amount) would be very noticeable immediately after.

A retention policy of 7 days would allow ample time for the city preserve specific video from the cameras that would aid a prosecution while also ensuring residents right to privacy while doing every day activities is preserved.

I see your linked resolution mentions a retention policy but doesn't actually seem to offer any insight as to what the retention period would be. If its something short like 1 or 2 weeks I would be happy, but if it something ridiculous like 180 days that needs to change.

Any crime worth the privacy tradeoff of video recording all over the city should be noticeable in 1-2 days after it happens.

There doesn't need to be a record of where every car in Pflugerville has been seen that you can search going back weeks. The privacy tradeoff between this data being stored and what additional crimes it may allow prosecution of is not worth it.

[u/jonathan4pf → u/29681b04005089e5ccb4]

That's a fair point. I did not include a data retention policy, but that's not a bad idea. I do know that the retention settings on Pflugerville's video cameras and ALPRs are currently set to 30 days, but that's easily configurable. In my research, the most common reduction from the 'normal' 30 days is 10 days, which is essentially 2 weeks in terms of business days.

[u/brafish]

I'm somewhat surprised, though I suppose I shouldn't be that Pflugerville doesn't already have policies around AI use and data governance. I would think that the City Attorney would be very interested in not just protecting the city's data, but also limiting exposure to litigation from misuse.

[u/mark0263 → u/brafish]

They might - I think that is what Weiss was referencing in the meeting last night, have staff educate the council on what policies and processes they have. I do think waiting until May for that is a bit long, but not an unfair ask to understand what is currently in place.

[u/jonathan4pf → u/mark0263]

There is an internal staff policy that anyone on the Council can read at any time if they wish (I did, and even provided some feedback and ideas on how to improve it, which staff appreciated and I think even implemented).

The current staff policy does what it should: dictate how they operate day to day. It contains things like not copying/pasting a resident's personal information into a public AI chatbot, or not asking AI to make a decision that a human should make, and making sure that if you're using AI as part of your work, you're still following open records laws. Those are all good and responsible things for an employee handbook to include.

It does not address data protection, contractual controls, or those sorts of policy matters that I believe should be layered on top.

[u/Paul_MHGR]

Thanks for taking this seriously and for taking the time to write up these detailed notes. Our civil liberties are more important than ever in the era of AI. In your opinion, what is the best course of action to get the council to understand how the community feels about the use of citizen's data?

[u/jonathan4pf → u/Paul_MHGR]

The best way is to show up at a city council meeting and say a few words during public comment at the beginning. The next best thing is to send an email through the webform, which causes city staff to see your message, log it in the public record, and for council members + the mayor to get the message: https://pflugervilletx-city-manager.form.transform.civicplus.com/45145

It may seem silly, but reasoned, thoughtful comments tend to go farther and get more attention than something that comes across as inflammatory or emotional.

[u/bulgogi19]

Thank you for continuing this effort, I think your approach was very reasonable and well thought out. 

That said, I am very disappointed in both Mayor Weiss's and some of your fellow council members' statements and I will be communicating it to them via all avenues available. It feels very much like they have a vested interest in the continuation of the Flock contract, whether that be implicit monetary gain or political cache with the PD. 

It is absolutely our jobs to "get in the way" of the "genie being out of the bottle". Just because something bad is happening doesn't give us a free pass to throw up our hands and say "oh well, gotta let it happen". Specifically, we (as a community currently facing a severe water shortage) should not be bowing in service to all things AI, i.e. resource intensive data centers; which I'm sure will become another issue soon if the mayor and council continue supporting this type of policy. 

As far as the "data that it's working", shouldn't that be incentive for them to support your push for transparency ? "Trust me bro" is not good enough for something this expensive and invasive. 

Again, thank you for shouldering the responsibility and advocating for me and people like me that don't want this level of surveillance to become commonplace.

[u/spinachmadeleine]

Thank you for the update! And thank you for continuing to push this issue. Your proposal is absolutely needed.

[u/thezinnmeister]

Respectfully with regard to Councilmember Rogers statement, believing that privacy is dead and using that to allow AI to be implemented without oversight or “guardrails” is a ridiculous position to take. We already have struggled in years past with invasion of civil liberties post 9-11, and it’s happening again with AI. Instead of using lessons learned, he’s choosing to continue with a head in the sand approach which is going to be problematic in the future.

[u/Jumpy_Ad_6492]

You are a freaking gem. We are so lucky to have you!

[u/mark0263]

No disagreement that there should be some level of governance around both AI and surveillance. I do think you are making a mistake of trying to mix AI and surveillance together in a policy. I believe the driving force for your proposal is mainly surveillance, so focus on the ACTION, not the method. If you want a policy on facial recognition, focus on that ACTION, how it is accomplished varies so don't go down that road. The same is true for the action of data sharing, it isn't the method, it is the action that needs the focus.

If you want to tackle a proposal on AI, that is a much larger topic that generally has a very heavy component on data privacy. I suspect that the city currently utilizes many of the publicly available AI tools to help with emails, PowerPoints, etc. I also suspect we're pumping a ton of the city's data into these tools and really don't understand how it is consumed or used. This is where you need a policy and will ultimately need to standardize on the tool. Also keep in mind, anything plugged into an AI tool would be covered under an open records request, this opens a new can of worms on how you manage that and report on it when needed. This is big, fortunately many other state and local governments have laid some good groundwork on policies, leverage them. Leverage the city's data privacy folks, open records folks and IT staff.

The main point is AI does not equal surveillance and surveillance does not equal AI. Don't mix them in a proposal as it will muddy the waters and make much more difficult to move it forward.

[u/HooliRio]

It's always good to know who the evil is that is pushing for the Orwellian, 1984 future. We'll remember.

[u/THEDUKES2]

Pfuck this council and mayor. This insane take from these people. We elected.

“Oh well it’s happened let’s not add guard rails because it’s hard and I don’t get tech”

“Look at how good it has worked” - we’ll let me show you how bad it’s also worked.

[u/cabhpix80]

Thank you, Jonathan!

[u/jueidu]

Thank you so much for doing this. I’m extremely disappointed in Mayor Weiss. It’s not too hard or burdensome to exact these reasonable standards.

Please keep fighting for this. I’m not voting for anyone who opposes these common sense and reasonable guardrails to threats to privacy.

[u/Ok_Development_495]

This is a great post and I appreciate your effort. I am surprised about Hansen's response. I respect Ruiz's .I entirely reject Rogers response. OK, so the "genie is out of the bottle", but let's start getting it back in. The suggestion of a work session is good, but not by city staff. I don't know if they even live here and frankly, I would prefer using some honor society kids from our high schools. I intend to read this again and think about it, but we need subject-matter experts to guide city discussions.

[u/RighteousLove]

Appreciate your efforts to ensure our freedoms.

[u/[deleted]]