Unmasking Police Surveillance Technology: A Guide for Journalists
Introduction
In an age where police surveillance technology is increasingly integrated into public safety strategies, understanding the implications of these tools has never been more critical. A new report, “Selling Safety,” seeks to empower journalists to dig deeper into the oftentimes exaggerated claims surrounding these technologies, equipping them with the tools needed for responsible reporting.
The Illusion of Safety
Many police departments have embraced surveillance technology as a purported “silver bullet” solution to modern policing challenges, promoting it as a means to enhance safety and modernize operations. However, this narrative often glosses over a more complex reality. The marketing around such technologies is often slick and polished, designed to project an image of infallibility while sidelining discussions on effectiveness, cost, and privacy concerns.
Journalists are faced with the challenge of countering this narrative by presenting a balanced view based on facts rather than sales pitches. The “Selling Safety” report embodies this mission, guiding reporters through the labyrinth of corporate claims, revealing the potential pitfalls in accepting them at face value.
Understanding the Landscape
The vision laid out by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Just Journalism (CJJ), and IPVM encapsulated in this report emphasizes that the surveillance industry remains largely unregulated and under-scrutinized. For many Americans, the lack of visibility into how these technologies are deployed in policing can be shocking. Decisions about law enforcement are increasingly influenced by multi-billion-dollar companies driven by profit, not public welfare.
Matthew Guariglia, a Senior Policy Analyst at EFF, notes the urgency of recognizing this dynamic. “Most Americans would rightfully be horrified to know how many decisions about policing are made not by public employees, but by tech companies,” he says. This echoes the sentiment that audiences deserve a transparent dialogue regarding surveillance technologies and their real impacts on community safety and civil liberties.
The Role of Journalists
This report arms journalists with an array of strategies to effectively question the status quo and hold law enforcement accountable. It dissects the marketing tactics used by tech companies, such as the creation of “manufactured effectiveness” statistics, which can often lead to misleading conclusions about the value these tools provide.
The document emphasizes the importance of critical thinking when assessing vendors’ claims. For instance, the distinction between marketing and evidence is crucial; a catchy tagline or impressive ad visuals should never replace substantive, verifiable information.
Accountability in Real Time
As surveillance technologies proliferate, they often outpace public understanding and oversight, establishing a dire need for journalists to conduct real-time accountability work. Hannah Riley Fernandez, CJJ’s Director of Programming, highlights the importance of this role, explaining that tackling these issues through robust reporting is essential for maintaining a check on the deployment of surveillance technologies.
With a chorus of flashy marketing promises, the need for scrutiny and investigation has never been more pressing. Journalists who operate on the frontline—investigating and presenting the realities behind these technologies—are critical to protecting both taxpayer interests and civil liberties.
Resources for Effective Reporting
The “Selling Safety” report offers not just a critique but a suite of resources for understanding various police technologies. The EFF also provides valuable tools for mapping these technologies across the United States through their Street-Level Surveillance hub and the Atlas of Surveillance.
These resources help journalists navigate the often murky waters of surveillance technology and its implications for communities. Through informed reporting, journalists can shine a light on how these technologies truly function—and hold jurisdictions accountable for their decisions.
Conclusion
The landscape of police surveillance technology is complex and fraught with challenges. As journalists embark on the important task of covering this topic, tools and resources like those provided in the “Selling Safety” report can empower them to navigate corporate claims and craft stories that illuminate the true costs and benefits of police surveillance. In doing so, they reinforce the role of the press as a critical watchdog in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
