Citizen Portal
Sign In

Public warns county about Flock Safety cameras; county attorney says state law bars AI surveillance of public places

Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners (Committee of the Whole) · January 29, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents urged caution and cybersecurity review before any procurement of Flock Safety cameras; County Attorney Enruth told the council that Montana law (HB 178 and MCA 44‑15‑104) prohibits government use of continuous AI facial recognition or persistent AI surveillance in public spaces.

Three residents who identified themselves and several commissioners discussed AI‑powered surveillance camera systems often marketed as license‑plate recognition tools. Speakers described cybersecurity and privacy concerns, and the county attorney said state law limits the county’s authority.

Lede: Nathan Bowman and other public commenters warned that solar‑powered AI camera systems gather sustained location and biometric data and urged the council to require cybersecurity audits, public comment and cost‑staffing analyses before any purchase by local government.

Context: Multiple commenters — including Jason Rackham and Finn Garen — described alleged cybersecurity problems, third‑party data processing and examples of other municipalities that have removed or litigated against Flock Safety and similar systems. Bowman asked the council to ask IT and legal staff specific questions about security audits, public‑records burdens and liability before any proposal is considered.

Legal clarification: County Attorney Enruth told the council that House Bill 178 (passed in the recent legislative session and signed by the governor) prohibits government implementation of artificial‑intelligence surveillance of public places; he also cited Montana Code Annotated 44‑15‑104, which prohibits continuous facial recognition software. “Any of these products would be deemed illegal here,” Enruth said.

Council response: Chairman Morgan and Chief Executive Gallagher said, to their knowledge, the administration is not pursuing Flock Safety contracts; commissioners thanked presenters for raising awareness. A motion to refer the submitted questions to the county attorney and IT department for a formal response failed on a 2‑yea, 9‑nay vote, then the council voted to place the communication on file (10‑yea, 1‑nay).

Why it matters: The discussion flagged privacy, cybersecurity and public‑records implications if such camera systems are ever proposed. Commissioners and staff agreed the existing state law prevents governmental deployment of these AI surveillance functions, but private owners may install cameras on private property, which raises separate questions about local ordinances and enforcement.

What’s next: The council placed the citizen communication on file. Commissioners suggested continued public discussion and education about the systems and noted that local officials will rely on legal and IT guidance if a vendor proposal is ever formally presented.