Racial Bias, Trans Targeting, and Murder: Nashville Rejects FRT Amid Culture War Tempest

Nashville’s Metro Council has officially rejected the Fusus police surveillance technology after nearly a year of debate and significant pushback from community groups. The rejection came despite the wishes of Mayor Freddie O’Connell, who had advocated for the technology to improve public safety and efficiency in policing.

The Fusus technology integrates video footage from public and private cameras into a network for the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD). This system is part of a broader trend where law enforcement agencies seek to leverage real-time intelligence platforms to enhance their operational capabilities. For instance, the Manchester, New Hampshire, police department is similarly attempting to recruit local businesses and the public into a large-scale video surveillance scheme using Fusus technology. However, these initiatives often face significant opposition due to privacy concerns.

The original contract for the technology was never brought to the council floor, but when the contract value was raised at the start of 2024, it sparked controversy. The legislation was deferred in February while Metro renegotiated with Fusus, and the current usage of the technology was put on hold.

When the legislation reappeared this fall, the controversy persisted. A public hearing featured dozens of community members primarily speaking in opposition. In response, the mayor’s office put forth an amended proposal that banned the use of facial recognition technology and offered an option to end the contract in case of misuse. This move aligns with broader concerns about the use of facial recognition technology, as highlighted by the UK’s Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, who has called for logical oversight of such technologies due to privacy and ethical considerations.

Community groups, including the Nashville NAACP and Community Oversight Now, urged the city to reject the MNPD’s request over concerns that Fusus would promote racial profiling and excessive government surveillance. Councilmember Olivia Hill, who is transgender, expressed particular concerns about the potential misuse of the technology.

“If you look at it on the outside, it sounds very intuitive — the cameras are already there. You’re already going to be filmed and it’s only going to be used to catch criminals and bad guys,” Hill said. “I stand before you as one of those criminals. I am illegally dressed in women’s clothes and drag. And if some police officer has a problem with the trans community … I will be arrested. And because I’ll be arrested for impersonating a woman, I’ll be put in jail with men. And that terrifies the heck out of me.”

Supporters of the technology argued that it would help police do their jobs more effectively. District 27 Councilmember Bob Nash stated: “It’s not a tracking technology,” Nash said. “All we’re doing with this software, this technology, is sending a ‘little virtual man’ down a wire to go grab the video, and bring it back to the department … it is completely precision policing.”

Verna Wyatt with Tennessee Voices for Victims also advocated for the use of Fusus technology, saying, “We’ve got a lot of crime going on. The homicides in Nashville are ridiculous, and it’s time that we protect the general public.”

Despite the support from some council members and the mayor, the legislation ultimately failed to pass. The contract required 21 votes to pass but only received 20. There were 18 members voting against, with two absent.

“Not only will Metro Police not get a helpful tool, but they will also lose existing Fusus tools that they have been using to dispatch officers to residents in need and identify officers’ locations,” Mayor O’Connell said in a statement. “Passage of this legislation would have allowed Metro Police to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively and keep Nashvillians — particularly those in vulnerable communities — safe.”

The council’s decision highlights ongoing concerns about privacy, racial profiling, and the potential misuse of such technologies. The decision is part of a larger national and international conversation about the balance between security and privacy, as seen in various jurisdictions grappling with similar issues regarding surveillance technology and its implications for civil liberties.

Source: WPLN

–

December 5, 2024 – by Cass Kennedy