|
|
Why I Voted Yes on the Axon ALPR Contract
|
Neighbors,
I want to take a moment to explain my vote on the proposed contract with Axon for automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology.
I voted in favor of this contract.
This wasn’t a decision I took lightly. I’ve heard clearly from residents — some who strongly support this technology, and others who are deeply concerned about privacy and surveillance.
|
|
|
|
Privacy Matters. And I Share Your Concerns
|
Here's the reality: we live in a world where data is already being collected constantly, often by private companies with far less accountability than government. That doesn’t mean we ignore risks.
As a personal example, I use GrapheneOS on my phone. I run Pi-hole at home. I take active steps to limit how much data about me is collected and shared. If you’re interested in protecting your privacy and aren’t familiar with tools like GrapheneOS or DNS-based blockers like Pi-hole, I encourage you to learn more. There are organizations that can help.
But you don’t need to be technical to understand this: I share your concerns about privacy. It means we need to be thoughtful and intentional about how we govern tools like Axon.
|
|
|
|
|
We were burned by Flock. There’s no question about that.
Both the vendor and, in my opinion, decisions within the executive branch contributed to a loss of trust. That experience should shape how we move forward.
But I don’t believe the right response is to say we should never work with vendors again. That would mean walking away from tools that, if done right, can help our residents.
The lesson from Flock is that we need to do better:
- clearer contracts
- stronger guardrails
- better compartmentalization of data
- real oversight and accountability
|
|
|
Public Safety, Particularly in District 10
|
Crime is down citywide, but if you look at a heatmap of reported crime in Denver (look at the last 60 days), there is still a significant concentration in District 10.
I hear regularly from constituents who are frustrated that more isn’t being done to address crime. Supporting tools that may help law enforcement respond more effectively is one way to answer that concern.
Denver residents expect that if their car is stolen, police will do everything they can to get it back. If someone harms them or their loved ones, that person should be held accountable.
Automated License Plate Readers have already helped, including:
- the recovery of more than 400 stolen cars
- the removal of more than 60 firearms from our streets
- the investigations of 16 homicide investigations
|
|
|
A Limited, One-Year Approach
|
I believe a limited, one-year contract strikes the right balance.
It gives us the ability to evaluate the tool while putting boundaries in place.
This is not a citywide deployment. A contract with 50 cameras translates to fewer than 20 intersections. As I understand it, only about two intersections in District 10 would be included.
And it’s worth noting: a single camera only captures one direction. Fully covering an intersection would require multiple cameras — meaning this is a targeted, not expansive, deployment.
|
|
|
Reproductive Rights, Immigration Enforcement, and More
|
I recognize that many have written in with concerns about values from outside Denver. I support this limited contract because it is designed specifically to resist values that outside entities try to force on Denver. That is something I told the Mayor was important to me, and I believe he heard my concerns.
As one example, the Axon contract explicitly forbids the camera data to be used to enforce reproductive rights. I believe Denver feels strongly about reproductive rights in our city and state, and we should actively resist other entities as they attempt to force their values on us. Here's a snippet directly from the contract:
Exhibit D, 6.2: Statutory Obligations. The Contractor acknowledges that as a person acting on behalf of the City, the Contractor is subject to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-116-101 and shall not provide Safety Data or expend resources to further any out-of-state investigation or, to the extent constitutionally permissible, any federal investigation or proceeding that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions upon any person or entity for engaging in a Legally Protected Health-Care Activity.
There are also provisions which provide specific penalties should Axon share data without our knowledge. And other provisions that require Axon to notify us if they receive communication from other entities. And still other provisions which limit immigration investigations, for example:
12.2. Personal Information Protection. As required by D.R.M.C. § 28-251 and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-74-102 et seq., the Contractor, including its employees, agents, and Subcontractors, shall not share any Personal Identifying Information (PII), as defined in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-74-102, with third parties for purposes of investigating for, participating in, cooperating with, or assisting in federal immigration enforcement, including enforcement of civil immigration laws and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325 or 1326, except as required by applicable federal or state law or to comply with a judge-signed or magistrate-signed subpoena, warrant, or order. The Contractor shall not collect or disseminate individually identifiable information regarding national origin, immigration status, citizenship status, or place of birth except as expressly required by applicable federal, state, or local law.
Also, the data collected is limited in nature and does not include DMV searches or facial recognition. Per Axon:
The vehicle intelligence system records vehicle information only. It identifies license plate images and contextual vehicle images. It does not run searches against DMV records, or do facial matching or any similar analysis of people appearing incidentally in ALPR images.
[source: Denver 7]
|
|
|
Contracts Aren’t Enough. We Need Policy
|
At the same time, contracts alone are not enough.
We should not place a few guardrails in one contract and assume we’ve fully addressed the issue. In Denver, the executive branch establishes rules and regulations, but it’s City Council’s role to create law through ordinance.
We need both.
That’s why I’m working with Councilmember Alvidrez on Best Value Contracting, to ensure our contracts reflect Denver’s values. While that effort is focused on construction, the principle applies broadly: our values should be embedded in how we operate.
For surveillance technology specifically, I believe we need a dedicated ordinance. I understand a couple Councilmembers are already working on this ordinance - Councilmembers Parady and Gonzales-Gutierrez - and I want to support them in crafting this legislation.
During this one-year contract period, we should do that work.
|
|
|
We should define what Denver’s values mean in practice:
- limiting scope
- compartmentalizing data
- ensuring information is retained only as long as it serves a clear public purpose
We learned a lot from our experience with Flock, and I believe this contract reflects some of those lessons.
At the same time, our experience with Axon should inform future legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the surveillance task force to develop that policy.
|
|
|
So yes, I supported this contract.
But just as importantly, I support the work we must do next to ensure this technology is used in a way that reflects who we are as a city.
This is not the end of the conversation. It’s the beginning of getting it right.
As always, I welcome your feedback.
Sincerely,
Chris Hinds
Denver City Council, District 10
|
|
|
