Denver’s use of Flock surveillance equipment has generated pushback and privacy concerns from residents. Law enforcement agencies tout it as a game-changer for criminal investigations, but critics call it a breach of civil liberties. Last week, when Mayor Mike Johnston unilaterally decided to extend Flock’s contract with the city, hundreds of residents packed a town hall meeting in protest. So, we sat down with the mayor and asked him to address residents’ concerns directly.
Federal Interference and Immigration Enforcement Concerns
Mayor Johnston tells us that the city has shut down access to Denver’s Flock database to any entity outside the city of Denver, including at the state and federal level. More than that, Johnston says the city has limited the database’s search capacity so even Denver police officers can only make searches related to specific crimes — none of which can be related to immigration.
“Now the only people that can access it are Denver police officers. Those Denver police officers are sworn not to ask someone’s status,” the mayor says. “And if Trump or anyone else comes to [Flock] to subpoena data … they can’t ever give up our data without us,” he adds. If Flock were to violate those terms of the contract? “They’ll pay $100,000 if there’s ever an infraction of any sort.”
Defending an Executive, Unilateral Decision
Despite the fact that City Council previously voted against a Flock contract extension, the mayor went forward with a contract at an amount just under the threshold that would require council approval — a move that looked a lot like an attempt to circumvent City Council.
The mayor rejects that allegation. “If you remember, I was the one that asked the city council to vote down the measure,” he says. After that, he says he asked for time to come up with an alternative. “We've come up with a better system, and now we have a chance to pilot this at no cost, which is entirely what the law allows and requires in Denver. And if there is gonna be a new cost, we will bring it back to council, and they'll have to vote to pass it.”
Reader Ben P. puts it bluntly: “In a city that just had a massive protest around executive power, how are you comfortable with your decision?”
Johnston defended himself against the comparison to President Trump. “I think when you're talking about a president who's weaponizing the Department of Justice, or who's letting Bitcoin CEOs buy their way into pardons, or taking people off the street without due process and disappearing them to El Salvador, those two conversations should never happen in the same sentence.”
What about Surveillance Generally?
We heard lots of questions and comments from listeners who are opposed to the creeping presence of surveillance in Denver in general. We know the mayor has already signed another contract with Flock to provide first-responder drones, so what’s the end game? Will Robocop be patrolling the streets someday soon? What about residents’ privacy?
“We want to be able to use technology to keep the city safe in a way that still protects everyone’s civil liberties,” the mayor explains, with the caveat that there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. “I think there is a way to do both.”
“Let me give you an example,” he adds, bringing up the fact that many bars and restaurants downtown have installed metal detectors to stop people from bringing in guns. Those precautionary measures still don’t stop someone from leaving a gun in their car and retrieving it when an alcohol-fueled situation escalates. “That does happen, and we can show you the data,” the mayor says. “There are a number of blocks downtown where we have cameras that oversee those lots. And right now, the places that do not have cameras have much higher rates of shootings than those that do.”
“So, I think that's not an indirect relationship,” he says. “We think that makes Denver more safe, not less.”
👉 Psst! Want more?Hear from the mayor on the Vibrant Denver bond, the future of the Denver Pavilions, and more…
Tune into the whole convo ⬇️ 🎧
