Peregrine Technologies Police Data Integration Platform
Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
At a glance
- Public comments
- 10
- Last 30 days
- 0
Last discussed Apr 8, 2026.
Public comments (10)
Criticized the proposed Peregrine Technologies contract, citing liability limits, data security risks, and potential impacts on civil rights.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:28:40 →Voiced opposition to the data integration platform agreement, urging the council to let the previous failed vote stand.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:38:30 →Expressed opposition on behalf of immigrant communities, citing risks of mass surveillance and data sharing.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:41:40 →Expressed distrust of large tech surveillance platforms.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:48:10 →Highlighted process concerns and raised questions about data capture and storage under surveillance software.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:49:50 →Urged rejection of the 10-year contract and questioned data compatibility issues.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:53:00 →Voiced strong opposition to data surveillance tools.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:55:50 →Criticized council procedures and expressed strong opposition to predictive policing tools.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 10:58:00 →Expressed support for local police officers and the challenges they face in public safety.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 11:00:20 →Spoke in support of Peregrine Technologies, citing compliance safeguards and community safety benefits.
Development Review Hearing — April 8, 2026 · 11:03:30 →