The Vail Daily’s recent report on the destruction of Flock cameras in Avon missed an important detail: the overwhelming scale of local opposition to the devices. As mentioned in the article, the Avon Police Department’s Facebook post generated more than 18,000 comments, most of which were from out of state. The Vail Daily took that characterization from the police and used it to dismiss the reviews as outside noise rather than doing its own investigation into what local residents actually thought. Comments on Eagle County Classifieds, a Facebook group where residents discuss local issues, tell the real story of how the community is feeling. Posts there generated hundreds of comments, and I couldn’t find any support for the cameras—a rare show of unity in a group notorious for its “incessant arguing.” However, Vail Daily did not review reviews from local residents. This is especially notable since the Vail Daily regularly links to Eagle County classifieds and their reporters often use the forum to create content. This shows that they are fully aware of what is happening there.
Local residents have expressed deep concern about the nature of these devices and what they represent. Brad Welsh of Gypsum wrote: “A free nation is not a country that spies on law-abiding citizens. Public surveillance is a tool of oppression, not security.” Sean Bainbridge of Edwards noted that “these companies act as Trojan horses to get local data, information about people, information for direct marketing.” Avon’s Maria DeSimone said bluntly: “Our military has not fought to protect our rights to sell to private corporations to monitor our every move.” DeSimone is now circulating a petition calling for the cameras to be removed. Nicholas Webber of Eagle challenged city leaders directly: “Would the City of Avon serve your constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose these cameras? How do you view your role in the community?” Franco Lopez of Vail added that “mass surveillance is not the answer to crime; the moral and ethical issues we face must be addressed through other means.” The Vail Daily’s reporting treated the destruction as a crime story rather than a story of public distrust.
Institutions have staff trained to communicate with the press. They issued press releases. The average citizen does not do this. This is why local media is important: it has the opportunity to go beyond official statements and reach voters directly to understand their point of view. Unfortunately, Vail Daily chose not to make these personal connections.
Avon management had the opportunity to gauge public opinion before approving the Flock cameras. The city council meeting at which they were approved was reportedly sparsely attended, which is not unusual given the inconvenient timing of public meetings. Instead of viewing low turnout as evidence of public apathy, the city could conduct a survey or other outreach to understand how residents really feel. The city appears to have continued the work without putting any effort into it. Now that the cameras have been running for about a year, Avon has the opportunity to reevaluate the situation. Online comments do not in themselves justify removing the cameras, but they do indicate that the city should conduct a thorough and transparent analysis of current public sentiment before deciding whether to continue the program.
I’m not arguing whether Flock cameras are a good or bad policy. I’m saying our system requires officials to listen to their constituents and the local press to report when they don’t. The Vail Daily fails on the second point. Avon management has so far failed on the first issue. Eagle County residents deserve media coverage that reflects their real concerns and elected officials who take those concerns seriously. We have neither one nor the other here.
Support local journalism
Donate