Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Mankato council to rescind AI surveillance approval; city manager says authorized systems don't connect to national database
Summary
Multiple residents at the June 23 meeting asked the council to rescind its June 9 approval of AI surveillance technology and demanded more public engagement; the city manager said the systems the council authorized do not connect to a national database and are regulated by the Minnesota Governmental Data Practices Act.
Residents who spoke during the Mankato City Council public forum on June 23 urged the council to rescind a prior vote approving an expansion of police surveillance technology and to give civil-rights experts the opportunity to speak to the council.
Ava (surname not provided), who said she represents a local organization, told the council she and others met with a state ACLU representative and a surveillance-technology expert and asked the council to "rescind your vote approving the AI surveillance proposal" and to allow ACLU experts the same platform the director of public safety previously received. "We hope that you can show us that you care about protecting residents' rights and privacy with your actions and not just your words," she said.
Natalia Rosio, who identified herself as a community health worker and member of Mankato's Latino community, said the council's June 9 vote made her feel the council ignored public concerns and that new evidence raised by FOIA reporting merited pause. "This is not how you build trust. It's how you destroy it," Rosio said. She described reporting that, she said, showed ICE access to license-plate data and a broader pattern of agencies using license-plate networks without local oversight.
Benton Bakke, a resident, argued that introducing AI into policing would not make the community safer and cited scholarship on algorithmic bias. "Opening the door to AI policing of our communities takes decisions away from officers who live and take part in our community," he said, and urged the council to "rescind this vote."
In response to concerns raised about national data sharing, the city manager told the council that the systems the council authorized do not connect to a national database and that the data are regulated by the Minnesota Governmental Data Practices Act. "I just want to make sure... the council has not taken action on implementing flock cameras. The two systems that the council did authorize do not connect to a national database," the city manager said, adding that the council made an amendment to the recommendation and that the city "hear[s] the concerns."
No motion to rescind the June 9 action appeared on the June 23 meeting agenda and council members did not vote to rescind the prior approval during this meeting.
