Note: The Lawrence Times runs opinion columns and letters to the Times written by community members with varying perspectives on local issues. These pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Times staff.
Would you like to send a letter to the Times? Great! Here’s how to do it.
We’re not debating whether cameras can help solve crime. They can. Video evidence was central to securing a conviction in the murder of Lawrence resident Vincent Lee Walker. But that case was solved more than a year before the police began integrating cameras into the Fusus platform. The tools were already there.
Further, if you ask someone who is not trying to sell technology, the data casts doubt on effectiveness. A federally funded study of Detroit’s Project Green Light, a camera integration program much like Fusus, found no measurable change in violent crime and only modest reductions in property crime.
That is why using Walker’s story now to promote Fusus conflates two very different things. It suggests the only way to have video evidence is to build a surveillance hub. A voluntary registry is a fine idea for efficiency; Riley County already operates one without bringing in a vendor. Lawrence has gone much further.
The Axon-Lawrence PD Statement of Work, signed on Nov. 25, 2024, authorized “up to 500 camera streams configured for live view and tactical recordings,” with 469 scheduled for launch. Police staff have since confirmed that, as of Aug. 28, 280 of 343 city-building cameras are already prepared for integration, joining the 113 traffic cameras already ingesting data. The contract also included a web portal for voluntary registration, plus:
• Private-public camera integration
• Cross-camera tracking
• Integration of automatic license plate readers
• Artificial intelligence analytics
• Live access to 911 calls (currently blocked by AT&T)
The public did not see this document until it was obtained through an open records request on Aug. 8.
Staff admitted that the current AI is poor quality. However, it is already on, and it will expand automatically as new updates roll out. It is not responsible to rely on technical problems as a form of regulation. Oversight of these powerful tools currently comes only from internal departmental policies and Axon’s own terms of service. Those policies may reflect good faith, but they can be changed at any time by the vendor or the police.
There are no city rules in place. Centralizing hundreds of feeds, and potentially adding private video, also puts communities at greater risk when federal agencies demand access. That is a risk the city has assumed by beginning integration without consulting the people most impacted.
That is the real governance gap. Police say they do not have the time or desire to “spy,” but that oversimplifies the question. The system is built to operate continuously. Feeds are live once connected, and the AI modules can run at all times. Police say they do not watch the cameras unless an incident occurs, but the platform itself is designed to ingest and analyze video whether or not a report has been filed.
This timeline has been driven by the vendor, Axon — not the community. Like Uber or DoorDash, the model is to subsidize adoption, expand quickly before rules are written, and create dependency once the system is entrenched. What looks like a local policing tool is also a growth strategy for a private company.
There are also no city rules about whether private devices like Ring cameras can be integrated if Axon, the camera owner and the police agree to it. That removes the price barrier for Fusus hardware and leaves the decision up to company policies and administrative choices, not public oversight. It is another clear regulatory gap.
There was an opportunity to educate the public before the contract was placed on the consent agenda. The city could have acknowledged that the rollout was flawed, or simply admitted that the scope was larger than what had been shared. It could also have gone through the same process of community discussion that it used in the past with drones or downtown cameras, when civil liberties groups were invited into the conversation. Instead, residents have had to learn about the program through open records requests.
The question is not about whether cameras are crime-fighting tools. It is whether the community is allowed to have a say in how we are policed. Trust was lost because opportunities for transparency were not taken. The statement of work has still not been addressed publicly. Instead of opening that conversation, the department has announced its desire to expand into a Real Time Operations Center that could cost millions. That is why this time, with the scale of what was agreed to without consulting anyone, the city needs to step in and establish real rules.
Invoking violent crime while avoiding discussion of the details of contracts the city signed is not the level of debate residents deserve. Consent requires transparency, and that has not happened here.
Our ask is clear. The city should pause new integrations and analytics until it adopts a Lawrence-specific oversight ordinance created with community input. This will preserve the benefits of cameras while putting safeguards in place that match the scale of the system.
Having read many of the policies the Lawrence Police Department has drafted, we know that many are thoughtful and well-intentioned. But right now residents are scared by what they are seeing nationally, and they are rightfully concerned about the scope of what has already been set in motion. The solution is not to join a race to keep up with Axon’s expectations, but to build an oversight framework together that protects our community from invasive tech vendors, and rebuilds trust. Lawrence deserves rules made in the open, with the people most impacted at the table.
Oversight must come first. Expansion can wait. We call on all concerned Lawrence residents to come to City Hall at 5:45 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 9, and show the Lawrence City Commission that you are not just “surprised” you were never asked for consent in how you are policed.
About the writer
Kincaid Dennett (they/them) is a Lawrence-based organizer focused on housing justice, mutual aid and resisting state violence. Their work spans tenant advocacy, cooperative governance, and efforts to advance public transparency and community control. They currently serve as secretary of the board for the Kansas Association for Social Housing. Read more of their writing at this link.
If this local platform matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
More Community Voices:
Tom Harper/Lawrence Times
Max Kautsch: In loco parentis, or just plain loco – Surveilling Kansas students doesn’t make sense (Column)
“The outcome of the case will depend largely on whether the district can show that implementing software designed to monitor students the way it did was closely related enough to an important government interest — namely, student safety — to justify Gaggle’s intrusion into the students’ lives,” Max Kautsch writes in this Kansas Reflector column.
