Why We Need "Vocal Minorities"

In October I had the pleasure of interviewing Cari Ann Tetzlaff on my Media Rants podcast on the topic of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology. (You can subscribe to the channel for free HERE). Cari is an Oshkosh resident, animal behavior specialist, and an active citizen. 

How did an animal trainer become so passionate about ALPR technology? 

In the interview Cari said that some of the passion came from a commitment to advocating for civil liberties, and concerns about the way such technologies can be used to help ICE "disappear" people in the Trump era. But it was more than that: when City Hall tried to defund the Oshkosh Area Humane Society, Cari (who worked at the Humane Society for more than 10 years) became incensed at the suggestion that the OAHS was somehow overcharging for its services. She became further incensed after learning that city leaders were willing give much more money to a surveillance corporation (i.e. Flock Cameras) than what OAHS ever received. So she became part of the movement to raise awareness about ALPR technology, and persuade local governments to rescind Flock contracts, or not renew them, or not sign them in the first place.   

At the Oshkosh City Council's October 13 meeting, Mayor Matt Mugerauer argued without evidence that the majority of Oshkosh citizens actually support Flock, and that the opponents represent a "vocal minority."  I asked Cari about the Mayor's comments, and her response reminded me of why representative democracies require "vocal minorities" in order to arrive at sound public policy: 

"If you want to be a change agent and you want to help your community understand a problem better and you want to work towards change, you're going to start out as a member of a vocal minority. That's actually something I'm really proud of . . . being willing to take a stand when an issue isn't well known yet, and helping bring--through education, advocacy, and awareness--that information to a wider audience." 

Cari's comments were channeling a number of principled leaders from America's past, including the legendary urban planner, journalist, and  activist Jane Jacobs: 

"Perhaps people with my point of view are a minority today. But the fact of being in a minority does not, in itself, trouble me, nor do I see anything un-American about being in a minority position. Quite the contrary. The minority views of one day are frequently the majority views of another, and in the possibility of this being so rests all our potentiality for progress." 

If you think about it, almost everything most people today consider to be part of a decent society--from women's suffrage to the 40-hour work week to ending child sweatshop labor to much else--started off as a plea from a vocal minority. (Today we are in a dystopian reality where not even a vocal majority can ensure basic decency in public policy. Keeping corporate money out of politics, guaranteeing health care for all, universal background checks for all firearms sales, and paid family and medical leave would be just four examples off the top of my head of policies that have huge majority support but are not yet law.). 

But practically speaking, was the mayor correct? Is the opposition to ALPR technology a minority position upheld by a small group of vocal activists? Here's what Cari had to say about that: 

"I would say that our mayor may have been correct last year or in the very first couple months of this year that we were a vocal minority, but I don't think we are vocal minority anymore . . . we're watching people from all different political ideologies develop mistrust for this technology." 

The most recent poll data on the subject validates Cari's position. In September, the Marquette Law School poll asked this question to a random sample of Wisconsinites: "Flock Safety has a network of 120,000 cameras which allow the company and law enforcement to track the movement of vehicles. Do you think these cameras are an important tool for police investigations, or an unacceptable violation of Americans' privacy rights when driving for everyday activities?"  Sixty-three percent overall said that the Flock cameras were an unacceptable violation of privacy rights. A majority of Republicans (52 percent) did respond that Flock cameras were an important tool for police investigations, but that would hardly be considered a ringing mandate for the use of such technology. Moreover, it is hard to imagine how the popularity of Flock would increase at this point, given the success that critics have had at reminding people of the civil liberties principles at stake. 

Is it conceivable that Oshkosh is somehow an outlier in all of this? Is is possible that there really is a silent majority in Oshkosh who want the cameras?  I would seriously doubt that. Suffice it to say that there will be elections for city council and mayor in Oshkosh in April of 2027; I don't think candidates who come out uncritically in support of ALPR technology, or who try to obfuscate and triangulate on the issue, will be doing themselves any favors at the polls. 

You can see the full interview with Cari Ann Tetzlaff here: