During my first year as a city councilor, I’ve come to realize that many decisions we make involve complex trade-offs, particularly concerning taxpayer dollars and the benefits delivered to our residents. The implications of these choices can be significant, though often not immediately apparent – especially in the somewhat abstract realm of crime prevention. Measuring “prevention” in terms of tangible outcomes related to individual health, safety and criminal activity presents inherent challenges.
While weighing public safety against individual privacy has not traditionally been a prominent issue, it has become increasingly common in my conversations with city residents. As a staunch advocate for privacy, I opt out of website cookies and location trackers, block the sale of my personal data (looking at you, Google), and question the growing acceptance of unwarranted photography and videography in public spaces. Navigating privacy preservation has become an increasingly complex responsibility as a city councilor – one that intensifies when we consider law enforcement’s reliance on data tools such as Flock cameras, third-party data purchases, and emerging technologies that could intrude even further into our lives.
I do not intend to underestimate residents’ concerns. Our community is currently deliberating expanded use of Flock cameras for vehicle identification, while at the same time a bill before the Colorado legislature seeks to prohibit law enforcement from acquiring or disseminating personal data from third-party vendors. Recent abuses by federal entities – particularly immigration enforcement actions by ICE – have understandably eroded trust in federal law enforcement. Last year’s actions by the Department of Justice also highlighted the risks of personal data misuse. In addition, my own experiences with data breaches involving companies I patronize have deepened my skepticism about data security.
That said, I must also acknowledge the potential public safety benefits of data use. Law enforcement has successfully used Flock cameras to track people involved in serious criminal activity, providing clear safety benefits to our community. These advantages appear to stem from responsible, limited use of data.
As we navigate this complex landscape, I advocate allowing law enforcement to use available data tools while prioritizing transparency in their use. Regular accountability measures – such as reporting how data is accessed and the justification for tracking suspects – are essential safeguards against potential abuse. Establishing an ongoing dialogue about these issues is crucial; as circumstances evolve, so too must our strategies and perspectives on the balance between safety and privacy.
I believe our police department has demonstrated a willingness to adapt to community preferences and adjust practices as needed. They understand the importance of integrity in their use of resources and recognize that maintaining public trust is essential. While I am willing, for now, to extend the benefit of the doubt, I will continue urging our law enforcement partners to strengthen protections against potential data misuse.
Ultimately, achieving full consensus on this issue may be impossible. The tension between community safety and individual privacy will likely continue to spark debate without a clear resolution. As a councilor, I welcome feedback from residents, particularly regarding the nuanced impacts of technology on daily life. Engaging in this dialogue is not just helpful – it is essential. By fostering open communication, we can work together to navigate the delicate trade-offs between ensuring public safety and preserving individual privacy.
Kip Koso is a Durango city councilor. His views are his own.
