Many cities across the country implemented surveillance technology policies over the past decade as local governments increasingly procured tools to automate and streamline certain public operations. As national headlines and questions about ethics, privacy, and civil liberties have shifted and reemerged over the last year, local surveillance technology policy is becoming a more visible part of city agendas. While some conversations focus on individual tools, the most consequential decisions are increasingly about process: who authorizes a contract, what policies must be public, how long data can be retained, and what reporting is required to maintain oversight.
In Austin, City Council discussions over a proposed parks security contract helped bring those questions to the front. Local debate focused on what data protections exist, and how the city verifies vendor terms and technical settings before deploying technology. That same week, Austin leaders began tying the immediate procurement issue to a citywide policy. Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela’s Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology, or TRUST, Act was introduced to create a new ordinance covering how the city funds, acquires, and authorizes surveillance tools. The proposal described council approval requirements for new surveillance funding, acquisitions, and third-party agreements, along with public release of use policies at least two weeks before council consideration and inclusion of those policies in final contracts.
Formal action followed shortly after. Earlier this month, the Council passed a resolution directing the city manager to draft an ordinance amending city code by April. The resolution calls for publicly available policies describing each use of surveillance technology, including what data it can legally collect, and it included provisions related to facial recognition and limits on data collection for marketing.
Other cities are landing in similar places through different approaches.
In April 2025, the New York City Council announced passage of a legislative package intended to expand and strengthen oversight under the 2020 Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act, commonly known as the POST Act. The package was framed as a response to oversight concerns raised after the original law took effect. It included:
- Intro 168, which allows the Department of Investigation to request a detailed list of surveillance technologies in use and requires biannual reporting on technologies acquired or retired, including access and retention policies
- Intro 233, which requires a public policy governing facial recognition and biannual audits of facial recognition use, with results reported to the Department of Investigation and posted online
- Intro 480, which expands what must be included in impact and use policies, including disclosures about outside entities receiving data and related safeguards, plus added reporting and tracking requirements
In Seattle, the debate is shifting to what the city should do with the network it already has. This week, Mayor Katie Wilson addressed surveillance cameras in her State of the City speech, acknowledging ongoing concerns about data security and misuse while also noting the argument that cameras can support investigations. Wilson, who criticized expansion during her campaign, has not fully committed to shutting down existing police surveillance cameras, leaving open what changes her administration will pursue next. The current debate is happening in the shadow of a major council decision last fall. In September 2025, the City Council voted to expand the Seattle Police Department’s CCTV surveillance pilot, adding new surveillance zones and allowing additional camera feeds to be routed into the department’s real time crime center.
Meanwhile, in December 2025, the San Diego City Council voted on a set of police surveillance use policies after extended public comment. The debate focused heavily on safeguards and oversight, with some of the most attention on tools tied to license plate reader use and smart streetlight related systems.
At the same time, Denver’s conversation has run through contracts and vendor decisions as well. In October 2025, City Councilors voiced concerns about how a surveillance contract extension was handled and what that meant for oversight and accountability. More recently, Denver has indicated interest in replacing its license plate camera vendor and exploring alternatives.
In New Orleans, the use of live facial recognition linked to a private nonprofit network prompted questions in December 2025 about how oversight works when the infrastructure is not city owned. City officials paused the program to review whether the arrangement complied with local ordinance.
These local examples point to a common reality, the stakes of local surveillance policy are increasingly increasing and set by the guardrails cities build around procurement, authorization, and ongoing oversight. The cities that are shaping the next phase of policy are the ones converting public sentiment and discourse into codified requirements.