Trust, Technology and Keeping Fairfield Safe

For the past few months, Fairfield has been having an intense conversation about automatic license plate readers. Listening to some of the debate, you might think ALPRs are a new technology that has suddenly appeared in our town.

They aren't.

Subscribe

Fairfield Police have been using license plate readers for more than 15 years. As far back as 2010, ALPR cameras were mounted on Fairfield police cruisers, helping officers identify stolen vehicles, locate wanted cars and investigate crimes. The technology has evolved since then, including the move from cameras mounted on police vehicles to fixed cameras along our roads, but ALPRs have been a part of policing in Fairfield for a long time.

That's important context for the debate we're having today.

Technology changes, and increasingly powerful technology deserves scrutiny. We should know how long data is retained, who can access it, how it can be shared and what safeguards are in place. Those are legitimate questions.

But there's another part of this story that hasn't received nearly enough attention.

Earlier this year, before the recent public outcry over ALPRs, Fairfield Police Chief Michael Paris had already reviewed the department's use of Flock and decided Fairfield should move away from the company. He identified concerns with the existing Flock system and determined that Axon offered technology, security, privacy protections and support that better met the standards he expected for Fairfield.

The Flock contracts were not renewed, and the department began transitioning to Axon.

Think about what that says about our Police Department.

It didn't take a public uprising. It didn't take hundreds of angry Facebook posts. It didn't take residents telling our police that they should be concerned about privacy and data security.

They were already asking those questions themselves.

To me, that's exactly what responsible policing looks like. Give officers the tools they need to do their jobs and keep our community safe, establish strong rules governing those tools, and expect the people in charge to continually evaluate whether the technology and the companies behind it still meet Fairfield's standards.

And that kind of judgment matters to me.

Our police officers are our neighbors and members of our community. They are professionals who respond when we need them, investigate crimes, find missing people, recover stolen property and work every day to keep Fairfield safe. I trust them not because I believe police technology should be beyond scrutiny, but because I believe our department has demonstrated that it takes the responsibility that comes with that technology seriously.

Trust doesn't mean writing anyone a blank check. Trust and accountability aren't opposites. We should demand both. If policies need to change as technology changes, change them. If stronger safeguards are warranted, put them in place. And if there is evidence that technology has been misused in Fairfield, we should confront it.

But our discussion should also be based on what is actually happening here.

For more than 15 years, Fairfield Police have used ALPR technology as one of the tools that helps them do their jobs. And when the department developed concerns about one of the companies providing that technology, its leadership acted.

That matters.

So by all means, let's keep asking questions. Let's insist on transparency. Let's make sure the guardrails keep pace with the technology.

But let's also recognize something that I think has been lost during the last few months: Fairfield has a thoughtful, professional police department that was scrutinizing this technology before most of us were even talking about it.

I trust them to continue doing that. And I believe their record has earned that trust.