Making Sure New Technology
Works for the People It Serves
Overland Park is building a Real-Time Information Center: a centralized hub connecting drones, license plate readers, and private camera feeds. We're working to ensure this investment delivers value for residents with the same standard of management our city is known for.
Surveillance News Roundup
Ring drops Flock (but keeps Axon), FBI accesses "deleted" Nest footage, and what we learned from the Public Safety Committee.
What This Is About
Overland Park is making a significant investment in public safety technology. Like any major city investment, the RTIC works best with clear expectations for residents, for officers, and for the vendors the city partners with.
Who owns the data?
When a license plate reader logs your commute or a camera captures your driveway, that information should belong to Overland Park, not a tech company. Our framework ensures the city retains full ownership of all data, including the AI-generated descriptions and searchable indexes the system creates. Vendors are prohibited from using city data for their own purposes, and when data reaches its retention limit, vendors must certify it's been permanently deleted from all systems.
What can you expect as a neighbor?
If a private camera integrated into the system can see your property, you have a right to know. Our framework creates a public registry and a notification process so residents aren't left guessing.
How do we know it's working?
An annual transparency report would show where assets are deployed across the city, how often the system contributes to results, and what it costs, including whether vendors are actually deleting data on schedule and the outcomes of any discipline referrals. The same kind of accountability we'd expect for any public expenditure.
What are the rules?
Clear guidelines for data retention, case-based access, and emergency use give officers a consistent framework. When data is deleted, the AI-generated descriptions and indexes the system creates are deleted with it. Investigation data has maximum retention limits so nothing is kept indefinitely. And the emergency designation is limited to genuine threats to life, not planned events or routine coordination.
Does it affect how people show up?
Attending a council meeting, joining a neighborhood event, or participating in community life shouldn't come with the feeling that you're being monitored. Our framework draws a clear line: the RTIC is a public safety tool, not a tool for tracking public life. That boundary matters for a city that wants residents to stay engaged.
What happens if the rules are broken?
The framework was designed so that following the rules is easier than breaking them. And breaking them has real consequences. If your data is misused, you can take direct legal action against the city or the individual responsible. Officers who violate the access rules face mandatory investigation, not at someone's discretion, but automatically. And evidence collected in violation of the framework is inadmissible in Municipal Court. These aren't suggestions. They're enforceable commitments.
Our Proposal
Our framework is organized around five key areas that ensure Overland Park's investment in public safety technology is well-managed, accountable, and enforceable.
Oversight & Review
The City Council authorizes the RTIC on a two-year cycle with public hearings. A civilian advisory panel reviews monthly audit logs and provides independent findings.
Data Ownership
Overland Park retains 100% ownership of all data. Vendors cannot use city data to train AI models or for product development. Contracts include zero-cost exit clauses.
Resident Protections
A public registry tracks all private camera integrations. Neighbors are notified when an integrated camera can see their property. Routine investigations require case-based access.
Emergency Balance
Officers can access live feeds immediately during life-threatening situations with no delays. Core protections, including facial recognition prohibition and audit logging, remain active at all times.
Real Consequences
Residents can take direct legal action if their data is misused. Officers who violate the rules face mandatory investigation. The framework is designed so that accountability isn't optional; it's built in.
Why Governance Matters Now
We want to be clear: this proposal isn't a response to anything this city government has done wrong. Overland Park has a track record of responsible management, and the officials leading this investment have been open to dialogue.
But infrastructure outlasts any single administration. The rules we set now will govern how this system is used by future councils, future chiefs, and future vendors, under circumstances none of us can predict. The best time to define those boundaries is when everyone at the table agrees on the intent.
"Make sure the tools built to protect this community can never be turned against the people who built it."
If we're going to adopt technology this powerful, we should be just as intentional about the governance. And we've built this framework so that the rules have real teeth, not just for the department, but for anyone who breaks them.
Understanding the Risks
Every section of our proposal addresses a specific, documented risk. These aren't hypothetical. They're patterns that have played out in other cities.
Scope Creep
Systems designed for one purpose gradually expanding into broader monitoring without public review or authorization.
→ Addressed by: Council authorization cycles, technology update triggers
Vendor Dependency
Cities locked into contracts where their own data is stored in proprietary formats, or vendors use city-collected information commercially.
→ Addressed by: Data ownership protections, zero-cost exit clauses
Data Procurement Backdoors
Departments supplementing systems with purchased commercial data from brokers, bypassing traditional warrant processes.
→ Addressed by: Data broker limitations
Parallel Access
Officers accessing the same data through a vendor's separate portal, outside the rules that govern the city's own system.
→ Addressed by: Parallel access prohibition
Incidental Capture
Private cameras integrated into the network capturing neighbors' properties without their knowledge.
→ Addressed by: Public registry, neighbor notification
Chilling Participation
Residents feeling uncertain about whether attending public meetings or community events puts them in a database.
→ Addressed by: First Amendment protections, case-based access
Data That Outlives Its Source
AI-generated descriptions and searchable indexes can persist after source video is deleted, allowing movement reconstruction indefinitely.
→ Addressed by: Derived data deletion requirement (Section 18)
What Other Cities Have Done
Our proposal draws on frameworks adopted by over two dozen cities nationwide. We studied what worked, what didn't, and what fits Overland Park.
CCOPS Model
The most widely adopted framework, passed in 26 jurisdictions. Focused on democratic authorization before acquisition.
Our proposal adapts this for technology already in deployment.
Oakland, CA
Privacy Advisory Commission reviews all new tech. Oakland also pioneered a private right of action, giving residents direct legal standing to enforce oversight rules — a model our proposal draws from.
Lesson: advisory authority works; direct enforcement gives residents a stake.
Seattle, WA
Considered the strongest ordinance nationally. Requires impact reports and council votes. But implementation stalled.
Lesson: good policy needs built-in accountability for overseers too.
Providence, RI
Integrated commercial data brokers like LexisNexis, allowing access to personal information that would normally require a warrant.
Lesson: governance must cover data procurement, not just cameras.
Want to help get this proposal implemented?
City Council members need to hear from residents like you. We've made it easy with templates and scripts.
Private Technology in Public Spaces
The RTIC governance proposal covers the city's system. But there's a broader conversation happening in neighborhoods across Overland Park about private technology operating in public spaces.
Companies like Flock Safety install license plate readers in neighborhoods and HOA communities, often marketed directly to residents. These systems collect data on every vehicle that passes: residents, visitors, delivery drivers, anyone. That data is stored on company servers, shared across a national network, and accessible to law enforcement, often without the knowledge of the people being recorded.
Who decided to install a camera network in your neighborhood? Was every resident informed?
Where does the data go, and who can access it?
What happens when a private company's terms of service change?
Do renters have any say in whether their daily movements are logged?
If this is something you care about, we want to hear from you.
OPVoice is looking for residents who want to help shape how we think about private technology in our neighborhoods. Whether you live in a community with Flock cameras, you're on an HOA board weighing a proposal, or you just want to understand what's already in place, your perspective matters.
Get in Touch →This Proposal Is a Public Resource
This proposal is a public resource for the residents of Overland Park. Have questions or want to share feedback? We'd like to hear from you.