I asked Claude.ai to define surveillance technology. In response, it replied, “devices, systems, or software that are used to monitor, track, and collect information on people, places, or things.”

Municipalities use a wide range of surveillance technologies on a regular basis. How many of the following typical use cases does your agency use?

• Body-worn cameras used by law enforcement officials and in some cases, by firefighters, and others.

• Security cameras used in public building facilities (offices, garages, parking lots), and outdoor facilities (parks and recreation facilities streets, public events).

• Mobile video cameras and GPS (location) trackers mounted in public safety and public works vehicles (and perhaps others). This category includes fixed location and mobile automated license plate readers (ALPRs). They have the ability to identify vehicle owners, roadways, pedestrians, and driving habits along with license plates.

• Traffic and right-of-way cameras, including those that may record pedestrians.

• Video camera-enabled drones available to police, fire, emergency management, construction code officials, and others, such as recreation departments to record public events (and post them online).

• Recordings of phone calls (public safety, 9-1-1 emergency lines, and 3-1-1 information lines).

• Use of privately made video recordings in police investigations, from retail locations and residential internet-hosted cameras (e.g., Ring, Nest, etc.).

• Multi-purpose “Internet of Things” data collection points. These are sensors mounted in public spaces such as along streets, on traffic lights, in parks, or embedded into infrastructure. They can record vehicle and pedestrian counts, collect environmental data (e.g., air quality, weather, noise levels), supply video, if enabled, and provide public Wi-Fi connections (that can also track cell phone numbers).

• AI facial or voice recognition applications that can identify people using biometric visual or auditory cues in live or recorded videos (e.g., 9-1-1 call-taking or automated phone attendants/chatbots.

• Use of commercial AI databases to identify people (facial recognition) who may be involved in illegal activity.

• Software used to monitor employee work activities (particularly for remote workers).

Knowing how this technology is used in your organization is a form of risk management. There is significant value in understanding potential issues and risks surrounding them in order to address them effectively. There may also be value in periodically informing elected officials of any issues that may warrant action. This could include an assessment of the public’s perception of their use.

Create a Surveillance Tech Policy and Use Inventory

Take the time to conduct (and then maintain) an inventory of the various sources of surveillance data. It can be useful to know what data is collected, who maintains it, how access is controlled and stored, and the costs involved. Having explainable policies in place when something happens can lower the temperature during what might be a stressful situation.

It will serve you well when the inevitable questions pop up about your practices. For example, understanding your use of commercial databases now will prevent distraction later. The same applies to ensuring that law enforcement agencies have written policies covering the use of privately owned video doorbell camera recordings and commercial property surveillance video footage.

The use of AI-driven facial recognition software to identify individuals is particularly challenging. These systems carry the potential for false positives (misidentifying someone in a photo) and can create significant liability and litigation risks. Depending on the circumstances, individual civil rights and constitutional protections need to be respected when these resources are used as part of an investigation.

Your policies should ensure that confirmation practices are used whenever any AI-driven decisions are made, otherwise known as having a “human-in-the-loop.”

Given the tenor of today’s times and your community, there may be value in a public discussion when adopting a new surveillance tech.

Managing Surveillance Data

Review your data storage and management procedures to ensure that your practices are consistent with state laws and policies. When there are discretionary local options, adopt practices that address how data is used, how long it is kept, who has access, and if and how it will be publicly available.

Municipalities should have a sense of the technology’s costs (financial, societal, and reputational) versus its benefits. Financial costs include staff management time and storage fees; they will rise with the volume of data stored. Societal and reputational costs may come into play when deciding what physical locations warrant surveillance and if the technology is obvious or invisible to those affected by it.

Drone Video-Collected Data

Drones and their multiple capabilities are becoming ubiquitous in government. Absent any state policies about drone data retention, agencies should retain their data based on context and content.

Apply comparable retention rules for surveillance footage or short-term retention rules for incidental videos (e.g., keeping them for 30 days before destroying them). Consider privacy and security issues when releasing drone data through public record requests. Retaining records that exceed retention requirements adds costs and risks that may offset the possibility of future value.

Ensure that any video sources, including drone data transmission and data storage methods, are kept secure. Keep critical facility information and sensitive data confidential within the agency and comply with federal laws on storing data outside the United States. Practices are evolving, but governments can consult resources like the CISA drone privacy and data protection guide for assistance.

In this case, time spent on preparation will be worth the effort when you have an incident that involves these areas, and the public wants immediate answers. Be proactive instead of reactive.

MARC PFEIFFER, an ICMA Life Member, is a marginally retired New Jersey town administrator and state agency manager. He is currently a senior policy fellow and assistant director at Bloustein Local, a unit of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University. (marc.pfeiffer@rutgers.edu)