A new report aims to equip journalists with the tools to critically examine the rapidly expanding market for police surveillance technology. Released today, , the “Selling Safety” report, a collaborative effort from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Just Journalism (CJJ), and IPVM, dissects the marketing tactics employed by vendors and highlights the often-overlooked costs – both financial and to civil liberties – of these technologies.
The core issue, according to the report, is a pervasive lack of independent verification surrounding claims of effectiveness. Police technology companies frequently present their products as modernizing solutions, promising enhanced public safety and even the elimination of human bias through algorithmic objectivity. However, “Selling Safety” argues that this narrative often obscures a lack of rigorous testing and a profit-driven incentive to exaggerate capabilities. This creates a situation where law enforcement agencies may adopt expensive and invasive technologies based on marketing hype rather than demonstrable results.
“The industry that provides technology to law enforcement is one of the most unregulated, unexamined, and consequential in the United States,” said EFF Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia. “Most Americans would rightfully be horrified to know how many decisions about policing are made: not by public employees, but by multi-billion-dollar surveillance tech companies who have an insatiable profit motive to market their technology as the silver bullet that will stop crime. Lawmakers often are too eager to seem ‘tough on crime’ and journalists too often see an easy story in publishing law enforcement press releases about new technology.”
Dissecting the Sales Pitch
The report doesn’t simply identify the problem. it provides journalists with a framework for investigating these technologies more thoroughly. It breaks down common marketing tactics used by vendors, such as emphasizing potential benefits while downplaying potential harms, and offering limited transparency regarding data collection, and usage. A key focus is on understanding the financial incentives at play. Vendors often benefit from long-term contracts and recurring revenue streams, creating a potential conflict of interest when evaluating the true cost-effectiveness of their products.
The report emphasizes the importance of moving beyond press releases and vendor demonstrations. Journalists are encouraged to ask probing questions about the data used to validate claims, the independent testing conducted (or not conducted), and the potential for bias in algorithms. Understanding the underlying technology is also crucial. Many surveillance tools rely on complex algorithms and data analytics, and a basic understanding of these concepts is essential for accurately reporting on their capabilities and limitations.
Beyond the Hype: Real-World Implications
The implications of uncritical acceptance of police surveillance technology extend beyond financial costs. The report highlights the potential for these tools to infringe on privacy rights, disproportionately impact marginalized communities, and chill free speech. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), for example, are cited as a tool of mass surveillance that can be weaponized against immigrants and political dissidents. The report notes that as ICE and other federal agencies expand their surveillance capabilities, local communities are increasingly pushing back against these technologies.
Hannah Riley Fernandez, CJJ’s Director of Programming, underscored the urgency of this work. “Surveillance and other police technologies are spreading faster than public understanding or oversight, leaving journalists to do critical accountability work in real time. We hope this report helps make that work easier.”
The Need for Accountability
IPVM’s Director of Government Research, Conor Healy, added that marketing materials should not be accepted as evidence. “The surveillance technology industry has a documented pattern of making unsubstantiated claims about technology. Marketing is not a substitute for evidence. Journalists who go beyond press releases to critically examine vendor claims will often find solutions are not as magical as they may seem. In doing so, they perform essential accountability work that protects both taxpayer dollars and civil liberties.”
The report’s release comes at a time when police departments across the nation are rapidly adopting new technologies, often with limited public scrutiny. This trend raises concerns about the potential for a surveillance state to emerge without adequate safeguards to protect civil liberties. “Selling Safety” provides a much-needed resource for journalists seeking to hold these technologies – and the companies that sell them – accountable.
The EFF also provides additional resources for understanding and mapping police surveillance technologies through its Street-Level Surveillance hub and Atlas of Surveillance, offering further tools for investigation and public awareness. These resources aim to empower communities to understand the surveillance landscape in their areas and advocate for responsible technology policies.
The full “Selling Safety” report is available at https://www.eff.org/document/selling-safety-journalists-guide-covering-police-technology. The EFF’s Street-Level Surveillance hub can be found at https://sls.eff.org/, and the Atlas of Surveillance at https://www.atlasofsurveillance.org/.
