Supporting Police Does Not Require a Blank Check for Surveillance

A conservative should be able to support effective policing without treating every new surveillance tool as an automatic improvement. Government power does not become harmless because it arrives with a convenient search box and a promise to catch criminals.

Senator Josh Hawley has invited the chief executives of Flock Safety, Axon Enterprise, Motorola Solutions and Verkada to a September 23 hearing of his Senate Judiciary subcommittee. His office announced the invitations on September 18 as part of an investigation into surveillance technology and privacy. Invitations are not confirmation that all four executives will appear, and the hearing has not yet taken place.

The question deserves more than the usual exchange of slogans. Police have legitimate reasons to investigate vehicles connected with crimes. Citizens have equally legitimate reasons to ask who can search records of their movements, how long information is kept and what happens when somebody uses access improperly.

Accountability needs to be specific

Atlanta offers a useful example of what oversight actually involves. The city announced plans to introduce legislation on September 21 governing public-safety camera technology. Its September 15 statement said an audit of 115,578 Flock searches flagged 79 for further investigation. The city explicitly cautioned that a flagged search is not a confirmed violation.

That caveat matters. Seventy-nine inquiries cannot honestly be described as seventy-nine proven abuses. But an audit also demonstrates why a general assurance that everyone follows the rules is insufficient. Somebody has to examine actual use, investigate anomalies and explain the outcome.

Atlanta’s proposed framework includes access controls, data-retention standards, audits, independent compliance review and vendor obligations. These remain proposed citywide standards, not a law already passed. Their value will depend on the final details and how seriously they are enforced.

Limited government applies to useful tools, too

The weakest argument for expanding surveillance is that people with nothing to hide should have nothing to fear. Ordinary Americans should not have to explain their private routines to justify limits on government access. Personal curiosity, political hostility and simple mistakes are reasons to build safeguards before a system becomes indispensable.

Nor does skepticism require pretending that investigative technology has no value. A serious debate should compare demonstrated benefits with the scope of the information collected and the opportunities for misuse. Evidence of usefulness is relevant; it is not permission for every possible use.

Lawmakers should press for practical answers. Which searches require additional authorization? Can a supervisor identify who accessed a record and why? What prevents unauthorized sharing? How are inaccurate matches challenged? What consequences follow a substantiated violation?

Those are questions a responsible supplier and a well-run police department should welcome. Clear limits can protect legitimate investigations from the damage caused by unauthorized conduct and public mistrust.

Conservatives understand the danger of concentrating power in institutions that insist they can regulate themselves. That skepticism should not disappear when the institution buys a camera. The coming hearing is an opportunity to demand enforceable boundaries while respecting the real work of law enforcement. Supporting the police and expecting accountable government ought to be part of the same argument.

Written byNaomi Carter

Social Issues Columnist · Editorial Pen Name

Naomi Carter is a conservative columnist whose work focuses on women, identity politics, gender, race, media, and the cultural institutions influencing younger Americans. Carter became increasingly skeptical of progressive politics after seeing complex questions of identity reduced to rigid ideological categories. Her writing challenges political orthodoxies on both race and gender while emphasizing individual agency, personal responsibility, free expression, and equal treatment under the law. At The Dispatch Room, Carter frequently examines how political narratives are created, amplified by media and institutions, and ultimately experienced by ordinary people.