Utah’s Truth in Taxation model is built on a simple idea: before government reaches into your wallet, it has to tell you why, and give you a chance to speak up.
The same principle should apply to surveillance technology. Whether it’s installing license plate readers, deploying facial recognition systems, or data-sharing networks across agencies, these technologies directly affect the right to privacy and freedom of movement.
Yet, such decisions are often made quietly within local boards, law enforcement agencies, or administrative departments with little to no public input. A “Truth in Surveillance” process would flip that dynamic, ensuring that communities decide where and how these tools belong.
Public hearings would shine a light on government technology plans. Agencies would be required to disclose the surveillance tools they intend to use, the data they will collect, how long it will be stored, who will have access, and for what purposes it may be shared. Citizens could then question, challenge, or support those decisions before they happen.
This process invites transparency and deliberation. Not only will the public be informed, but government entities will also weigh more carefully the necessity and risks of the technology. As with tax increases, public justification will naturally discourage unnecessary or poorly conceived expansions of surveillance.
“Truth in Surveillance” hearings would solve fragmented technology use across jurisdictions. Currently, some agencies and counties employ extensive digital tools, while others do not. A statewide hearing requirement would ensure that the same democratic principles apply whether the decision is being made in Salt Lake City, St. George, or Moab. By standardizing expectations, smaller communities become safeguarded from adopting complex surveillance systems without fully understanding their costs, data risks, or implications for residents’ freedoms.
In these proposed hearings, the Utah Privacy Commission plays the role of the Tax Commission, giving a thumbs-up before a vote is taken. This approval would ensure all legislative rules have been followed. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse for a citizen pulled over for a traffic violation, neither should this excuse exist for government agencies.
Ultimately, this approach builds trust between citizens and the government. Utahns value both innovation and limited government, and transparency keeps those values in balance.
Truth in Taxation became a model of fiscal transparency, and Truth in Surveillance could do the same, making Utah a leader in protecting citizens’ privacy above all else.
Public consent, earned through open debate, not administrative action, is the only legitimate foundation for government agencies to use surveillance tools in a free society. Even in the digital age, liberty requires vigilance and sunlight.
