Wilder council rejects privacy ordinance tied to Flock cameras

Our Take

A 2-2 tie should mean a measure fails to pass, not that it dies outright — and give Wilder credit, because the Community Privacy and Data Sovereignty Act is headed to the ballot instead of the shredder. That's a rare outcome in the Flock debate, where most city councils either rubber-stamp a camera contract on a quiet Tuesday or let a vendor sales pitch do the talking. Here, a genuine ordinance to ban ALPRs and lock down how the city handles surveillance data got a real hearing, and when politicians couldn't agree, the people get the final say. That's how it should work everywhere.

Mayor Devenberg's tie-breaking no vote is worth sitting with. It's easy for an elected official to say cameras are about public safety while dodging the harder question: who gets to see the data, how long is it kept, and what happens when it's misused or hacked. An ordinance that actually answers those questions threatens the status quo that lets police departments and private companies like Flock expand networks with minimal oversight. Killing it in committee, even by one vote, is a win for that status quo — unless voters overturn it themselves.

Wilder is now a test case worth watching: can a small town push back on automated surveillance through direct democracy when its own council won't? Check our camera map to see what's already been installed near you, and head to take-action for tools to bring a similar fight to your own city council before it even gets to a tie.