Key Takeaways
- The Milton City Council has given first‑reading approval to an ordinance that creates legally enforceable safeguards for any future use of surveillance technology.
- Mayor Shane Evans expressed skepticism about current AI‑based surveillance, stating the technology is not yet trustworthy enough to protect civil rights.
- The proposed measure would require council approval, public hearings, transparent reporting, and a detailed surveillance‑use policy before any technology—such as automatic license‑plate readers, biometric systems, gunshot detectors, or Flock Safety cameras—could be acquired or deployed.
- Certain devices are exempt from the rule, including police cruiser cameras, emergency audio recorders, utility meters for billing, and body‑worn cameras.
- Violations by city employees would trigger disciplinary action, and any pre‑existing contracts that conflict with the ordinance must be terminated as soon as legally possible.
- The ordinance will receive a second and final reading on Nov. 10; if passed, it will take effect immediately.
Overview of the Proposed Ordinance
During its regular meeting on Tuesday, the Milton City Council advanced a proposed ordinance designed to impose legally enforceable safeguards on the city’s potential use of surveillance technology. According to the draft, the ordinance’s purpose is to “establish legally enforceable safeguards, including oversight, transparency and accountability measures, to protect civil rights and civil liberties before, and if, surveillance technology is ever deployed by the city of Milton.” The measure had its first reading that evening and is slated for a second, final reading on Nov. 10 at Milton City Hall. If approved, it will become effective immediately thereafter. The council’s action follows an August vote in favor of creating an ordinance specifically targeting the use of Flock Safety Group or other artificial‑intelligence surveillance cameras within the city limits.
Mayor’s Concerns About AI Surveillance
Milton Mayor Shane Evans articulated his reservations after the meeting, emphasizing that he does not yet have confidence in AI surveillance to protect citizens’ rights. He said, “I don’t think the technology is there to actually protect the community against their rights. Until we know more about it, I don’t think we should actually move forward with any kind of surveillance or AI, Flock or anything like that.” Evans added that while he sees some potential benefits, he worries that the collected information could be repurposed for other, less transparent uses. His comments underscore the political motivation behind the ordinance: a desire to pause deployment until the technology’s implications are better understood.
Scope of Surveillance Technology Covered
The ordinance provides a comprehensive definition of what constitutes surveillance technology for regulatory purposes. It includes automatic license‑plate readers, biometric surveillance technology, gunshot detection systems, location hardware and services, and surveillance cameras. By enumerating these categories, the city aims to close loopholes that could allow certain devices to escape scrutiny. The breadth of the definition signals Milton’s intention to treat a wide array of emerging monitoring tools—ranging from facial‑recognition software to acoustic gunshot sensors—under the same accountability framework.
Approval Process and Public Participation
A central feature of the ordinance is the mandatory city‑council approval process that precedes any acquisition or deployment of surveillance equipment. Before seeking funds, acquiring new technology, borrowing unapproved devices, repurposing existing gear for a new use, or entering into agreements to share surveillance data, a city entity must hold a council hearing at which the public is afforded an opportunity to provide input. The ordinance states that the council must give “express approval” of the surveillance use policy before any of those actions can proceed. This requirement ensures that elected officials and residents have a formal say in decisions that could affect privacy and civil liberties.
Transparency and Reporting Requirements
To maintain ongoing oversight, the ordinance obliges any approved city entity to submit a surveillance‑use policy to the council and make it publicly available when seeking authorization to fund, acquire, use, or contract for the technology. Additionally, each approved technology must be accompanied by an annual surveillance report detailing its use, performance, and any incidents of misuse. These reports will be available to the public, allowing the council to evaluate whether the technology continues to meet the standard for approval. The draft notes that “Based upon information provided in that surveillance report, the council would then determine whether the technology has met the standard for approval.” This creates a feedback loop designed to curb mission creep and ensure accountability.
Exemptions from the Ordinance
Recognizing that certain monitoring tools are integral to routine municipal operations, the ordinance carves out specific exemptions. Police cruiser cameras, emergency audio recording devices, utility meters used solely for billing purposes, and body‑worn cameras are excluded from the new requirements. These exemptions acknowledge that some forms of surveillance are already subject to separate regulatory regimes or are deemed essential for public safety and service delivery. By limiting the scope of the ordinance to higher‑risk or more invasive technologies, the council seeks to balance privacy protections with practical operational needs.
Enforcement and Penalties
The draft includes a clear enforcement mechanism for violations. It stipulates that “Any city employee who knowingly violates this chapter shall be subject to appropriate discipline pursuant.” While the exact disciplinary procedures are not detailed in the excerpt, the language signals that non‑compliance will not be tolerated and that internal accountability measures will be applied. Furthermore, any contracts or agreements signed before the ordinance’s enactment that conflict with its provisions must be terminated as soon as legally possible, ensuring that existing arrangements do not undermine the new safeguards.
Next Steps and Timeline
The ordinance will undergo a second and final reading at the Milton City Council meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on Nov. 10 at Milton City Hall, located at 1139 Smith St. If the council votes to approve the measure at that session, the ordinance will take effect immediately thereafter. Mayor Evans and council members have indicated that the forthcoming vote will be a critical juncture in shaping how Milton approaches emerging surveillance technologies, with the aim of protecting civil rights while still allowing for beneficial uses that meet strict transparency and accountability standards.
Quoted material is drawn directly from the source article provided.
https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/milton-w-va-advances-proposed-ai-surveillance-ordinance