Across the country, there are ongoing discussions regarding privacy issues and surveillance technology. Concerns from mass surveillance & government overreach, facial recognition and misidentification, data collection & storage risks, lack of transparency & public oversight, and other issues. In response to some of these concerns, Montgomery County is working on policy, Bill 4-25, introduced by Councilmember Mink and Council President Stewart, which aims to change the way the County uses these tools.
What’s the Purpose of Bill 4-25?
Technology is advancing fast, and surveillance tools—like cameras and facial recognition—are becoming more common. However, many have concerns about who’s ensuring these tools are used fairly. This bill seeks to add rules and oversight to keep everything transparent and protect people’s rights.
Many have raised concerns about privacy, racial justice, and civil rights when it comes to surveillance. The goal of this bill is to make sure the County isn’t secretly using new technology without public input or oversight. By requiring reports and hearings, the County hopes to balance public safety and personal freedoms.
What Bill 4-25 Would Do?
Bill 4-25 seeks to establish comprehensive safeguards governing the acquisition and deployment of new surveillance technology. It mandates the submission of impact reports before any surveillance tools are implemented, ensuring that potential consequences are carefully assessed. Additionally, the bill restricts the use of facial recognition technology to align with state laws, protecting individuals' privacy and civil rights.
To promote transparency and public accountability, the bill requires the publication of annual reports detailing the use and impact of surveillance technology. It also introduces new regulations to oversee the implementation of surveillance tools within Montgomery County, ensuring their ethical and responsible use.
Who Will Be Affected and How Will It Be Enforced?
Bill 4-25 will impact multiple groups in Montgomery County. Government agencies would be required to follow strict guidelines before implementing surveillance tools, ensuring both accountability and transparency. Law enforcement will face new restrictions on facial recognition technology to safeguard privacy and comply with state laws. Residents and advocacy groups will have a greater say in how surveillance is used, giving them more influence in policy decisions. Meanwhile, technology companies working with the County must be transparent about their tools' operations, fostering trust and cooperation.
To enforce these regulations, Bill 4-25 requires agencies to submit detailed reports before acquiring or deploying new surveillance technology. The County Council will have the authority to approve all new technology regulations, providing an additional layer of oversight. If agencies fail to comply, they may be required to discontinue the use of certain technologies. Technology companies partnering with the County must also adhere to strict privacy standards to protect residents' data.
Support & Opposition for Bill 4-25
Since the bill has just been introduced, support and opposition remain speculative. However, privacy advocates concerned about government overreach, civil rights groups aiming to prevent the unfair use of technology, and community leaders advocating for greater public input in government decisions are expected to support the bill. Conversely, some law enforcement officers may oppose it, fearing that the new regulations could complicate their work. Similarly, certain tech companies might resist the bill’s strict limitations on their products, while some government agencies may see it as an additional bureaucratic hurdle.
What’s Next?
Today, Bill 4-25 was introduced to the County Council. A public hearing will be held on March 18 where people can share their thoughts. Following the hearing, the bill will undergo further reviews and a final vote before becoming law. If passed, agencies will have a transition period to adjust to the new regulations, though the timeframe was not established.
Comments