The Facts About Fusus Safeguards Legislation
BL2025-690 is not Fusus
In December, the Metro Council voted down a contract for a surveillance software called Fusus. I voted no on the contract due to privacy concerns and the lack of safeguards and oversight. After the body rejected the measure, the Mayor’s Office indicated they would bring it back.
In anticipation of a future contract, I filed a bill to establish safeguards for Fusus.
The safeguards legislation is up for a vote at next Tuesday’s council meeting.
🗓️Tuesday, February 18 | ⏰6:00 p.m.
Click here to view the entire 2025 Metro Nashville Council Meeting Schedule
Fusus has been a contentious issue. It’s important we focus on the facts.
🔓What is Fusus?
Fusus is a surveillance software that (among other things) allows police to tap into businesses cameras in real time. The program is voluntary - law enforcement can only access their cameras if the business opts in.
✅The argument for: Proponents of the program say it will help combat crime and help our police solve cases faster and more efficiently.
❌The argument against: Those opposed to the technology have concerns about privacy, the scope of police surveillance powers, and potential for the state or local government to take over the program.
🕮How did we get here?
On December 3, 2024 the Metro Council voted on a contract for Fusus.
The contract failed: Sole source contracts above $250,000 require 21 votes for passage. There were 20 votes for and 18 votes against. Two members of the council were absent.
Why I voted against it: I voted against the contract due to privacy concerns, the absence of legal guardrails and oversight, and the potential for state and federal abuse of the program’s capabilities.
The mayor says he’ll bring it back: After the council rejected the contract, Mayor O’Connell indicated he would bring another Fusus contract forward in the near future.
✏️Implementing Guardrails
In anticipation of a second Fusus contract, I filed legislation to establish guardrails.
Here are the key components:
🚨MNPD can only access a participating business’s security camera in response to a health and safety emergency.
🔒MNPD cannot access a security camera if it’s located where somebody reasonably expects privacy, if it’s pointed at somebody else’s property, or if it focuses on a resident’s front door.
⏺️Private security camera footage cannot be recorded by MNPD.
🤖Integration with artificial intelligence or facial recognition capabilities to identify people is prohibited.
🟰The program cannot be used to target to harass individuals on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, national original, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
👮Only designated MNPD personnel may use the system after undergoing appropriate training, including training to comply with applicable law and policy, and may only access it from designated locations.
✔️An audit of the system is required on a regular basis, which includes a record of when a camera was accessed, who accessed it, why they accessed it, and the outcome of the incident being responded to.
📜Each year MNPD must provide a report to the Metro Council showing the number of cameras registered as part of the program, the number of incidents in which a camera was accessed, and the outcome of those incidents.
⚠️MNPD must promptly notify the Metro Council and the Mayor of any violation of the rules governing the program.
🖊️Any FUSUS contract can be terminated by the Metro Council if it is used in a way not authorized (like being coopted by state or federal authorities).
🙋Any change of these rules requires a public hearing so community members can have input.
Important Note: This legislation is not Fusus itself, nor does it approve a future Fusus contract. The mayor’s office would have to bring a new contract forward.
⚖️Why safeguards are important
Some groups with whom I have consistently aligned throughout my time on Council have opposed my safeguards legislation, implying that it increases the chances of a subsequent Fusus contract passing.
With or without my support, there are multiple paths such a subsequent Fusus contract to pass:
Same Contract (Sole Source Over $250,000): There were two members missing at the first Fusus vote, one of whom was a likely “yes” vote. This would give the contract the single additional vote needed if the same contract is brought back. Sole source contracts require 21 votes the bill earned 20 last time - only one short.
Sole Source Contract Under $250,000: The last contract was a $750,000 multi-year contract. If Fusus were brought back as a sole source contract for a single year, the amount would be under $250,000. Sole source contracts under 250,000 only require a simple majority. The “for” votes had a simple majority on the last vote.
RFP Contract: Fusus could be brought back as an RFP (Request for Proposal) contract. Unlike a sole source contract over $250,000 (the last contract) which requires 21 votes, an RFP contract requires a simple majority.
I remain open to discussion on the topic. I hope my friends and colleagues do, too.
🙋How can I share my thoughts?
If you are interested in sharing your perspective ahead of the Metro Council’s vote on February 18th, you can 📧email:
Entire council: councilmembers@nashville.gov
Me (District 20 Council Member): rollin.horton@nashville.gov
If I’m not your council member or you don’t know who your council member is, click here to find your district, council member and their email.