Police Surveillance Tech: A Journalist’s Guide to Costs & Accountability

San Francisco – A new guide aims to equip journalists with the tools to critically examine the rapidly expanding world of police surveillance technology. Released on February 17, 2026, the “Selling Safety” report, a collaborative effort by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Just Journalism (CJJ), and IPVM, comes at a time when law enforcement agencies are increasingly adopting – and often over-relying on – digital tools promising enhanced safety and efficiency. But behind the marketing hype, the report argues, lies a complex and often opaque industry with significant implications for privacy, civil liberties, and public trust.

The proliferation of police technology, ranging from automated license plate readers (ALPRs) to facial recognition software and predictive policing algorithms, is occurring at a pace that often outstrips public understanding and oversight. This creates a critical require for informed reporting that goes beyond simply relaying law enforcement claims of success. The report highlights how vendors frequently provide agencies with pre-written press releases and talking points, effectively shaping media narratives and potentially obscuring the true costs and limitations of these technologies. As the industry grows – reaching a multi-billion dollar valuation – the need for independent scrutiny becomes ever more pressing.

“The industry that provides technology to law enforcement is one of the most unregulated, unexamined, and consequential in the United States,” stated Matthew Guariglia, EFF Senior Policy Analyst. “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.” This dynamic, the report suggests, can lead to a situation where “tough on crime” rhetoric and easily digestible press releases overshadow rigorous evaluation and accountability.

The core message of “Selling Safety” is that police technology is not a neutral solution. It’s a product sold by companies with a vested interest in its adoption, and its effectiveness is often overstated. Journalists, the report emphasizes, have a crucial role to play in uncovering the truth behind the marketing claims and holding both vendors and law enforcement agencies accountable.

Understanding the Landscape of Police Technology

The report defines “police technology” broadly, encompassing digital tools and devices designed to aid in crime prevention and investigation. This includes not only physical surveillance equipment like cameras and ALPRs, but also technologies that access personal data from phones, smart home devices, and online platforms. Crucially, the report points out that many products combine data collection with sophisticated analysis, such as facial recognition or predictive algorithms. These analytical tools, while presented as objective, are often built on biased data and can perpetuate existing inequalities within the criminal justice system. The “Selling Safety” report provides a detailed breakdown of these technologies and the marketing tactics used to promote them.

The financial implications of adopting these technologies are also significant. While some purchases are funded through federal grants and private donations, police technology is increasingly becoming a substantial portion of local and state budgets. This raises questions about resource allocation and whether these investments are truly delivering on their promised benefits. The report encourages journalists to investigate the financial aspects of these purchases, including the costs of implementation, maintenance, and potential legal challenges.

The Role of Journalism in Holding Police Tech Accountable

“Surveillance and other police technologies are spreading faster than public understanding or oversight, leaving journalists to do critical accountability work in real time,” explained Hannah Riley Fernandez, CJJ’s Director of Programming. The report offers practical guidance for journalists seeking to cover this complex topic, emphasizing the importance of asking critical questions, understanding the incentives at play, and finding local accountability stories.

One key recommendation is to move beyond simply reporting on law enforcement press releases. Journalists should independently verify claims of effectiveness, investigate potential biases in algorithms, and examine the privacy implications of data collection. The report also advises journalists to be aware of the “chumminess” between police departments and technology vendors, and to avoid becoming a mere distribution channel for industry marketing materials.

Conor Healy, IPVM’s Director of Government Research, underscored this point, stating, “Marketing is not a substitute for evidence. Journalists who go beyond press releases to critically examine vendor claims will often identify 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.”

Key Questions for Journalists to Ask

The “Selling Safety” report outlines a series of questions journalists should consider when covering police technology. These include:

• What problem is this technology intended to solve? Is the problem clearly defined, and is there evidence that the technology will effectively address it?
• What data is being collected, and how is it being used? What are the privacy implications of this data collection?
• What are the potential biases in the technology? Could the technology disproportionately impact certain communities or groups?
• How much does the technology cost, and what are the ongoing maintenance costs? Is the investment justified by the potential benefits?
• What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability? How can the public access information about the technology and its utilize?

These questions are designed to help journalists move beyond superficial coverage and delve into the complex issues surrounding police technology.

Resources for Investigative Reporting

The EFF, CJJ, and IPVM offer a range of resources to support journalists investigating police surveillance technology. The EFF maintains a Street-Level Surveillance hub, providing information on various technologies and their potential impacts on civil liberties. They also offer an Atlas of Surveillance, which maps surveillance technologies in communities across the United States. IPVM provides in-depth research and analysis of the surveillance technology industry, often uncovering hidden connections and questionable practices. The Center for Just Journalism offers training and resources for journalists seeking to cover criminal justice issues with greater depth and nuance.

These resources can be invaluable for journalists seeking to understand the complexities of police technology and to report accurately and responsibly on its use. The report emphasizes that thorough investigation and critical analysis are essential to ensuring that these technologies are deployed in a way that protects both public safety and fundamental rights.

The Broader Context: Surveillance and Civil Liberties

The increasing use of police technology is part of a broader trend toward increased surveillance in society. From facial recognition in public spaces to data collection by social media companies, individuals are increasingly being monitored and tracked. This raises fundamental questions about privacy, freedom, and the balance between security and liberty. The “Selling Safety” report highlights the importance of understanding this broader context when evaluating the use of police technology.

The debate over surveillance technology is not simply about whether or not these tools are effective. It’s also about the kind of society we want to live in. Do we want a society where individuals are constantly monitored and tracked, or do we want a society that values privacy and freedom? The answers to these questions will shape the future of policing and the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

As police departments continue to explore and adopt new surveillance technologies, the need for informed and critical reporting will only grow. The “Selling Safety” report provides a valuable resource for journalists seeking to navigate this complex landscape and to hold those in power accountable. The next step for journalists is to utilize these resources and to continue to investigate the impact of police technology on communities across the country.

Key Takeaways:

• Police technology is often marketed with exaggerated claims of effectiveness.
• Journalists have a crucial role to play in independently verifying these claims.
• Privacy and civil liberties are at risk from the widespread adoption of surveillance technologies.
• Resources are available to help journalists investigate and report on this complex topic.

What are your thoughts on the increasing use of surveillance technology by law enforcement? Share your comments below, and please share this article with your network.