A body camera system North Bend can live with
We are not against body cameras. We are against cloud based police surveillance: a system that hands recordings of this community to a private company whose servers sit outside our control. North Bend was asked to find a camera system the people would be okay with. Here is our answer: a set of contract requirements any acceptable system must meet, and a table showing which companies actually meet them.
The contract language we demand
These are the terms the city should put in writing in any body camera agreement. If a vendor cannot sign to them, the vendor does not get the contract.
- 1. On-premise storage only. All footage is stored on city owned servers inside the department’s own network. No recording is transmitted to, hosted on, processed by, or copied to any vendor owned or third party cloud. This is not negotiable and must be stated as a binding term, not a policy that can change.
- 2. Chain of custody on every file. Every view, export, redaction, copy, and case association is logged with the user, date, time, and reason. The log is append only and shipped off the video server in near real time.
- 3. Searchable metadata. Footage is tagged by officer, unit, date, GPS location, case number, and event type so attorneys and investigators can find what they need without scrubbing hours of video.
- 4. Built in redaction. Faces, license plates, and objects can be blurred, and audio muted, in the system itself; no third party tool required. Redacted and disclosure copies are new files with their own digest pointing back to the master.
- 5. Standard, intact export for attorneys. The original file stays untouched. Attorneys on both sides get a usable copy with its integrity hash, in a standard editable format, and physical media export (disc or write once media) for courts and offices that still require it.
- 6. Retention that follows Oregon law. Retention is set by the applicable Oregon records schedule, with legal hold overrides for any charged, appealed, or litigated case. A purge must never fire while a case is under hold.
- 7. A real exit. A non-appropriation clause and clean export of all data if the city ever leaves, so a future council is not locked in the way the Axon deal would lock us in for five years.
One more requirement that no hardware vendor can meet for us: a CCOPS community oversight board with real authority over what the system records and how the footage is used. A camera is a tool. The community needs a say over the tool, not just the purchase.
Which companies fit
A check means the vendor’s published materials say the capability is available. A dash means the capability is not clearly confirmed in their public materials and must be proven in writing before we accept it. Every cell is a vendor claim from their own marketing, not an independent test; the city should run any shortlist on its own servers before signing.
| Company | Body camera | On-premise / no cloud option | Chain of custody & audit | Searchable metadata | Built in redaction | Attorney / court export | Meets our contract |
| WOLFCOM | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | – | Strong fit |
| Motorola / WatchGuard | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Strong fit |
| Linear DIMS | No (evidence platform) | Yes | Yes | Yes | – | Yes | Fit with camera partner |
| VIDIZMO | No (evidence platform) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Fit with camera partner |
| OpenText | No (evidence platform) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Fit with camera partner |
| Axon | Yes | Yes, but cloud by default | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Fails unless forced on-premise |
| Digital Ally | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | – | Yes | Fails (cloud powered) |
| Flock Safety | No, plate reader only | No | Yes | Yes | No | – | Fails (not a body camera, cloud) |
Notes on the table
WOLFCOM is the clearest true no cloud option we found. Its whole pitch is “no cloud dependency”: an on premise server on your network, a CJIS compliant evidence manager with audit trails, chain of custody, tagging, and redaction, with body cameras and docks feeding it. The physical media export cell is marked with a dash because their materials do not spell it out; ask for it in writing.
Motorola / WatchGuard is the strongest established name on the list. Its Evidence Library is marketed for cloud, on premise, or hybrid, keeps storage on local servers, and adds what we asked for directly: synchronized multi device playback, unlimited secure sharing with district attorneys, courts, and media, and disc export for offices that need physical media.
Linear, VIDIZMO, and OpenText are evidence management platforms, not cameras. Each is marketed as deployable on premise. You would pair one with a camera that docks to it. They fit the requirement if the city buys the hardware and the platform together and holds them to the same contract language.
Axon is here so you can see how it lines up. Axon does sell an on premise product called Evidence Local. But the contract North Bend was handed is the cloud version, and Axon’s default is cloud storage with an agency managed cloud. A company that has to be forced off its own default is not a natural answer to a concern that is specifically about the cloud. If the council insists on Axon, the on premise path must be written into the agreement, not promised later.
Flock is here too, because it keeps coming up. Flock makes automated license plate reader cameras, not body cameras, and the data is processed and stored in Amazon’s cloud. It is a separate surveillance system entirely, and it does not fit this requirement at all. Including it here shows why: a plate reader is a different tool from a body camera, and neither Flock’s cloud nor Axon’s cloud is what “local control” means.
What we are asking the council to do
- Take the seven contract requirements above and put them in writing as binding terms.
- Run any vendor shortlist on city owned servers before a single camera is bought.
- Adopt a CCOPS community oversight model so the community has a real say over what is recorded and how it is used.
- Vote no on any contract that keeps recordings in a private cloud.
Public safety and civil rights work together. A camera in the right system with local storage, real oversight, and an honest exit is a tool the community can trust. A camera in a private cloud is a bet we do not need to take.