Metro is endorsing small businesses use Axon's Fusus tech. But does it use Chinese hardware or resell your data? Many questions unanswered.
Axon's site doesn't list Fusus terms of service. What are we even asking our small business owners to agree to?
Axon’s Fusus, the product Metro Nashville is endorsing, allows small business owners to purchase, at their own expense, hardware and software needed to integrate with Metro’s Community Camera Safety Network. Fusus does not have publicly available terms and conditions that detail what exactly small business owners would be agreeing to with their data.
Metro Council is agreeing to build a system with no insight as to what they’re recommending the small businesses they say they are protecting would be signing up for. This seems like a bad idea.
Fuses Terms and Conditions are listed as “Third-Party-Terms” on Axon’s website. But when you click that link, it just takes you to a Fusus product marketing page with no terms and conditions to be found.
Mayor O’Connell is framing the debate over Fusus on whether residents trust ourselves.
But that framing is misleading and makes those of us with concerns just seem like bad actors who are distrustful of our neighbors.
Many of us have faith in local government and local law enforcement. Restrictions put in place by Council resolution may well prevent local misuse of data. But as Freddie O’Connell, the digital privacy hawk knows, even while all politics is local, contractual arrangements between private citizens and global weapons and surveillance companies are not.
Don’t Miss the Next Council Meeting on Axon’s Fusus. Click to get a calendar reminder.
Council will be discussing adding restrictions on FUSUS, which will set the foundation for its approval.
This isn’t a question of local trust.
Regardless of how much we trust each other, the shepherds of Metro Nashville are bringing an (alleged) wolf into its flock. The restrictions and protections Metro has proposed are about controlling the flow of data between Axon and Metro — but not between the small businesses in Nashville (to whom they are full throatedly endorsing this service to) and Axon.
To my knowledge, and please inform me if I’m wrong and I will correct this post, Metro has no oversight into the contractual agreements between Metro residents and Axon and what Axon can do with their data.
But this is not the impression you’d get reading official Metro documents where the city is endorsing the security, privacy, and trustworthiness of this particular corporation’s product — before Council has even agreed to a contract for the service.
On both sides of this equation is a $50B weapons and surveillance company with a reputation for ethically questionable behavior. Unlike Metro, most small business owners in Nashville, do not have budget set aside to negotiate protections for their data — nor does Metro have oversight into the content of those contracts between Axon and the small business people who’d be “partners” in the Community Safety Camera Network.
Simple business arithmetic says that a $750k contract and $300 per device fee is small potatoes for a company that large — there’s very plausibly more ROI to be made on the data collected by small businesses in Nashville than by providing a debatably effective software as a service tool.
Axon’s physical hardware has, by their own disclosure on their website, been susceptible to hacking by third parties. Has the Fusus technology suffered this same vulnerability? If so, has it been fixed?
Concerns about Axon’s body cameras worn at polling places that were made with Chinese electronic parts led to a still pending lawsuit over whether this could compromise election security. Does the Fusus hardware that Metro is endorsing use Chinese parts? If so, are they susceptible to hacking from the Chinese Communist Party? Would Trump administration restrictions on Chinese-made hardware affect the use of Axon tech that uses Chinese-made parts?
Due to the lack of publicly available terms and conditions for donor camera owners, it is unclear what happens once content is uploaded to Fusus, fususCORE, or any Axon-integrated tools for "donor" cameras. It is not clear at this point what happens to ownership of the content and/or any metadata or AI generated insights created from that. From what I’ve seen, the only restrictions in this whole system we are publicly aware of are about MNPD’s acquisition and use of footage.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll send a correction.
Since the Fusus terms of service that donors would be signing are not publicly available, we must ask on behalf of business owners (because it doesn’t seem that Metro is asking for them) what would they be agreeing to?
Who would they share that data with? Non MNPD law enforcement? Data brokers? Others? What protections do you have if the software is hacked and your image or voice ends up on the dark web? From what I can see from Metro documents about the side of the arrangement between the donor camera provider and Axon, Metro’s position seems to be: “that’s a you problem.”
All of this would perhaps not be a problem if Metro was presenting Nashville small business owners with a variety of options that could allow them to connect their cameras to an integrated security network. This could feasibly leave it to consumers to do their own due diligence about the security and reliability of various technologies and companies.
Yet Metro is consistently on government platforms endorsing the trustworthiness of this SPECIFIC product and lending its police force’s logo to a public website controlled by Axon that endorses the company’s product — a product that it does not yet have a contract for.
Metro’s Risk of Only Looking at Limited Risk
It’s a mistake to only focus on the harm that can come to vulnerable populations when footage taken from the cameras owned by small businesses in Nashville are given to MNPD.
Metro can, in theory, control what happens in the data pipeline between Axon’s Fusus and itself. But Metro cannot control what happens to the data when it is provided to Axon from the donor businesses. It cannot, to the best I understand, control or regulate the ownership agreements, data sharing, provisioning to other forms of law enforcement, use of AI, or other things Axon could decide to put into its contract.
All this would be fine if Metro hadn’t repeatedly said things like this publicly:
This may be true in respect to the Donor and MNPD’s relationship, but this is not necessarily the case about the video footage when Axon is in possession of it in Fusus. That would be detailed in the terms and conditions in the Donor/Fusus contract — which we haven’t seen.
I believe that Metro has been, likely unintentionally, misleading the public as to the extent of oversight over the footage donor businesses would be providing and the expectations of privacy that can be expected for those businesses. And this could have serious consequence for Metro.
Points to Consider
Limited Oversight of FUSUS Data:
Metro’s Role:
Metro only governs its own access to FUSUS data. From my reading, it has no control over how Axon processes, stores, or distributes the footage outside of MNPD’s official data pipeline.Dual Agreements:
Donors of their cameras, i.e. small business owners, must sign two separate agreements:A data-sharing agreement with MNPD, which seems to have been written by Axon, available at connectmetronashville.org/terms-conditions.
A separate, seemingly as yet undisclosed contract with Axon that governs the broader handling of their data.
Metro’s scant references to the “agreement between the donor and Fusus” vastly underplay the significance of this contractual arrangement between citizens and the $50B corporation.
Implication:
Metro endorses Axon’s system without knowledge or oversight of Axon’s contractual terms with residents, leaving a significant gap in accountability, especially given MNPD and Metro’s endorsement of Fusus on various websites hosted on both public and private sites.
Opaque AI and Data Practices:
AI Restrictions:
Metro has banned AI analytics within its own data pipeline, but this restriction does not appear extend to data within the Axon system as that is outside of MNPD’s pipeline.
Potential Uses by Axon:
Axon might apply AI-driven analytics (e.g., object recognition, behavioral tracking, metadata extraction) on donor-provided footage outside the MNPD-controlled framework, and supply this to as yet unknown parties.Despite Metro’s prohibitions on AI usage, Axon’s MNPD endorsed site connectmetronashville.gov indicates that AI will be used to “mitigate criminal activity.” Is this site out of date, or is it implying that there will be usage of AI that would detect “crime” outside of the MNPD pipeline and provide to other forms of law enforcement?
Uncertainties:
It’s unclear if Axon can process footage with AI for third parties, including non MNPD law enforcement.
There’s no disclosure on whether AI-enhanced insights or metadata can be shared with private security firms, insurers, or other agencies.
Unclear Data Ownership and Metadata Rights:
Raw Footage Ownership:
According to MNPD’s Terms and Conditions, business owners retain ownership of raw footage — but this appears to be in respect to their specific data pipeline and does not address the relationship between the donors and Axon.Lack of Clarity on Derived Data:
No public document I have found confirms who owns the footage, metadata or any AI-generated insights derived from the footage.
Ethical and Liability Concerns:
Transparency Issues:
Metro’s endorsement is provided through a website controlled by Axon that uses MNPD branding, potentially misleading businesses about the extent of Metro’s oversight.
Liability Risks:
Misrepresentation and Consumer Protection Claims:
If businesses believe that the MNPD is directly overseeing data practices due to the prominent display of its logo, they might claim they were misled. This misrepresentation could lead to legal claims if the actual control over data handling lies with Axon.Breach of Privacy or Data Protection Laws:
Should Axon misuse the data or fail to protect it as businesses expect—based on the assumption of MNPD oversight—Metro might face criticism or legal repercussions for endorsing a system that doesn't fully safeguard sensitive information.Shared Liability for Data Misuse:
In cases where data is improperly managed or if unauthorized sharing occurs, Metro could be seen as complicit in the failure to secure the data, especially if their endorsement via the MNPD branding influenced business participation.Ethical and Fiduciary Responsibility Concerns:
Metro's endorsement might imply an assurance of proper oversight. If that assurance turns out to be unfounded, affected parties might hold Metro responsible for any resulting damages or breaches.
Potentially misleading information:
It may not be sufficiently made clear that the information regarding access to video content and control of is specifically in respect to MNPD’s access to video content and not necessarily Axon’s. Metro is not in a position to make claims about Axon’s ability to access or control of video content as that would be defined in the seemingly forthcoming terms and conditions.
Consequences:
Businesses could unknowingly agree to risky terms, and Metro may face ethical and legal consequences if Axon mishandles the data or behaves in ways that Metro led the public to believe was not possible.
Metro Nashville’s endorsement of FUSUS raises serious concerns about transparency, data privacy, and accountability. While Metro’s policies only govern its own data access, Axon’s broader, undisclosed practices leave key questions unanswered about AI usage, data ownership, and liability. Businesses may inadvertently sign away critical rights in their separate contract with Axon, and Metro’s endorsement via an Axon-controlled website—with MNPD branding—compounds ethical and oversight issues. A clear, publicly available Terms of Service is essential before Metro can responsibly endorse FUSUS.
I like Mayor O’Connell. I think he’s a good man. I think he’s been caught between rocks and hard places for a while on this, and hasn’t seen a way out. We all want to see him succeed because it will help Nashville succeed.
There’s one person he needs to be listening to more, and that’s himself.
I agreed with him in 2009.
I agreed with him in 2018.
And I’ll agree with him when he posts this sentiment again in 2027 if he gets back to his authentic self.