Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brisbane council directs staff to pursue privacy‑first camera trial at Community Park after resident account of dog attack
Summary
Council members directed staff to pursue a vendor trial of a solar, wireless camera system at Community Park after residents urged action following an attack; the trial will default to face‑blur, limit retention to 30 days, exclude public audio and keep footage off public livestream during the test period.
A majority of Brisbane City Council on Tuesday directed staff to work with Council Member Frank Kern and a vendor on a limited trial of a solar‑powered camera at Community Park after residents cited safety concerns stemming from a recent dog attack.
Kern described the pilot as a one‑year experiment that ‘‘is about much more’’ than security. ‘‘Under this pilot, every face captured is automatically blurred. Privacy is the default,’’ he told colleagues, adding the proposal would set a 30‑day retention policy for footage and restrict access to unblurred images to the city manager’s office and for law‑enforcement investigations.
The vendor, identified in the staff report as Vicotta, gave a short product demonstration. ‘‘This camera has digital zoom and optical zoom,’’ company representative Joe Sassy said, and the CR63 unit can run on a 100‑watt solar panel, include live face‑blur, black out regions of the frame, encrypt recordings and store data on AWS. Sassy said the company offers 60–90‑day free trials and can provide analytics reports for usage if the city configures alerts.
The council heard public comment from residents who urged action. ‘‘My dog Luca and I were attacked by an unleashed pitbull ... The Brisbane Police Department and Sanonteo Animal Control could not issue a citation to the negligent pitbull owner’’ because officers had not witnessed the incident, said resident Clint Cardardoza, who said he later filed a small claims suit. Cardardoza asked the council to install a public camera so police and animal control would have evidence for enforcement.
Council members pressed staff and the vendor on how footage could be used in investigations and whether federal agencies could obtain recordings. Commander Garcia of the Brisbane Police Department said footage ‘‘can definitely connect the dots’’ and be useful to investigations; he added that federal agencies could obtain footage with an appropriate warrant and that legal counsel would review such requests.
Several council members said they would not support recording audio and opposed an open public livestream during a pilot. ‘‘If we were to move forward with this, I’d be really opposed to audio,’’ Council Member Davis said, and others voiced concern about unrestricted public access to a live feed. Staff and legal counsel said it is feasible to keep a trial feed off the public website and to require internal controls and agreements for any access to unblurred footage.
Council members discussed trial logistics and safeguards: mounting the camera on an existing city light pole to get a view under tree canopies, posting signs notifying the public, limiting retention to 30 days, disabling audio, and asking the vendor to provide sample analytics during the test. Staff said they intend to treat the trial as a tool for staff and law enforcement rather than a public entertainment livestream while the city evaluates impacts and community response.
The council did not adopt an ordinance or formal regulation at the meeting. Instead it directed staff to pursue a vendor trial (60–90 days free as described by the vendor), work with Kern to refine the pilot parameters, require staff reporting on how the footage would be used during the trial, and schedule community outreach before any permanent policy is adopted.
