Austinites shut down two mass surveillance programs last year, worried about how the technology threatens privacy and aids Donald Trump’s attacks on immigrants. Advocates from over 30 state and local groups banded together in a coalition called No ALPRs to convince City Council to end the Austin Police Department’s automated license plate reader program in July. In August, the coalition helped compel the city to shelve a plan to install surveillance cameras in parks.
However, the proposal to put surveillance cameras in parks has resurfaced. Last week, city leaders asked Council to approve a contract on Feb. 5 with the surveillance company LiveView Technologies. Under the contract, Austin would rent “security trailers” from LVT for placement in several city parks, at a cost of up to $2 million over the next three to five years. The request comes after a pilot program showed that the trailers helped reduce car break-ins and other crimes at 15 local parks.
City leaders tried to reassure the public in a memo sent out on Jan. 26 that the surveillance would not infringe on civil liberties. The memo stated that the video collected by the LVT cameras would be owned by the city and would be permanently deleted after 60 days. It said the program wouldn’t use facial recognition, biometric identification, or automated intelligence.
The advocates were not reassured. Social justice group Ground Game Texas has urged Austinites to contact their Council representatives and demand that they reject the LVT contract. They argued that holding the video for 60 days would make it more likely to be leaked, hacked, or shared. They said that there are no real penalties if LVT violates the contract and there is no explanation of how the video would be deleted, something that is important when data is stored in a cloud.
Representatives from Austin DSA, Grassroots Leadership, and other groups attended a Council work session on Tuesday, Feb. 3, to make their objections in person. Kevin Welch of EFF-Austin, a digital civil liberties organization, said the LVT contract is fundamentally flawed because it has no enforcement mechanism. “I see data abused and misused by well-intentioned people every day,” Welch said. “The reality is, the only data that is safe is the data that is not collected. There is no bureaucratic means of reforming this. And there is no reason to trust a contract that has no enforcement mechanism.”
After the advocates spoke, the contract came under even harsher scrutiny from Council Member Mike Siegel, who spearheaded the effort to end the city’s ALPR program last year. Siegel zeroed in on the claims made in the Jan. 26 memo, asking Amanda Ross of the Parks and Recreation Department whether the contract truly bars the use of automated intelligence and the sale of data, as the city has promised.
“In the memo published on January 26, it was asserted that, ‘Under the proposed contract, the city maintains sole and exclusive ownership of all system data, while the technology provider LVT is contractually barred from accessing, sharing, or utilizing the footage for any purpose, including AI training or third-party distribution,’” Siegel said at the work session. “But my staff requested the proposed contract, and there were no contractual provisions that would bar LVT from accessing the data and using it for whatever purposes it wished. I notified staff last week that these provisions were missing, and staff said they would work to alter the contract to include these provisions. Yesterday, my office was told that staff is still working on an addition to the contract, and that, as of last night, LVT has not agreed to it – or even seen it yet.”
Ross replied that the provision Siegel referred to would be included in an addendum to the contract. She said the city expected LiveView to accept the provision but, if they didn’t, the proposal would not move forward.
Siegel said it troubled him that the city had sent out a memo that, in his words, “wasn’t true when it was published.” He said he was confused about what Council was supposed to vote on at the Feb. 5 meeting, and that if he was confused, he was sure the public was as well. He concluded by saying that the uncertainty around the LVT contract reinforces the idea that the city needs a comprehensive set of rules to govern when and how – and if – to use surveillance technology.
As it happens, Council Member Chito Vela is sponsoring such a set of rules at Council’s Feb. 5 meeting. Vela calls the proposal, which he detailed in a resolution developed with help from Siegel’s staff, the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology Act.
Vela told the Chronicle that the TRUST Act would create a broad definition of surveillance tech, including automated license plate readers, drones with cameras, facial-recognition technology, and other systems that monitor people in public spaces. It would require the city to seek Council’s approval before it acquires new surveillance tech or uses existing tech in a manner not previously approved. It would also require the city to turn down money for surveillance tech from outside sources like private donations or state and federal grants.
Vela said he makes a distinction between current surveillance technology and the old-fashioned closed-circuit cameras that have been in use for years. “We have cameras at City Hall, we have cameras at libraries, we have cameras at recreation centers, virtually every store that you go into in Austin has cameras,” Vela said. “My concern is with the use of AI as part of public safety. My concern would be the tracking of the comings and goings of individuals.”
As the conversation wound down on Tuesday, Council Member Vanessa Fuentes joined Siegel in suggesting that city leaders postpone a vote on the LVT contract for at least two weeks, so the members could first vote on Vela’s TRUST Act. Council Member Ryan Alter agreed in a post to social media when the work session concluded. The city pulled consideration of the contract shortly thereafter.
“The item is not quite ready and I’m glad it was pulled,” Vela said. “We have to make sure strong protections and security measures are in place for the video we collect.”
This article appears in February 6 • 2026.