Mapping Local Surveillance: How the Atlas of Surveillance Tracks Police Technology

Recent reports concerning Flock Safety, a rapidly expanding US-based surveillance firm, highlight the growing local opposition to automated license plate readers.

In South Carolina, officials are currently debating the installation of 25 new cameras, a conflict that underscores larger societal concerns regarding costs, oversight, and the acceptable limits of community surveillance. Similarly, the city of Los Angeles recently terminated its contract with Flock Safety; however, the company’s CEO maintains that this suspension should be temporary while law enforcement agencies update their usage protocols.

These policy shifts are largely driven by public apprehension regarding systems designed for mass surveillance, which carry inherent risks of misuse, including privacy infringements and biased policing practices.

To monitor these developments, researchers and journalists are increasingly utilizing the Atlas of Surveillance, a free resource developed through a partnership between the University of Nevada, Reno, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). This site has emerged as a primary database for mapping law enforcement technology—including drones, body cameras, and facial-recognition systems—offering a searchable platform that is often more reliable than alternative sources.

Through the Atlas of Surveillance tool, users can search by city, county, state, specific law enforcement agency, or vendor to identify the technologies currently in use. The tool provides detailed search results, often accompanied by links to news articles or public records.

“We frequently encounter situations where local councilmembers are unaware that a specific tool is being utilized,” explained Beryl Lipton, a senior investigative researcher at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Logging these technologies in the Atlas of Surveillance is intended to facilitate informed community dialogue, encouraging residents to question whether such tools are appropriate and to advocate for rigorous usage standards.”

Monitoring the Monitors

While various tools exist to track Flock cameras and similar surveillance systems, the EFF’s methodology is notably robust. It relies on verified crowdsourced data from dedicated volunteers, including staff and students from the University of Nevada, to compile accurate lists. These contributors analyze government documentation, press releases, news reports, and confirmed social media activity to document which surveillance technologies are being adopted and when.

In contrast, Deflock—another popular crowdsourced application for reporting Flock camera locations—uses an open-source model that can be susceptible to inaccuracies caused by users misidentifying surveillance devices. Furthermore, self-reporting is becoming more difficult as surveillance hardware is increasingly integrated into inconspicuous locations, such as cacti or speed signs.

Testing the Atlas tool in several locations, including Albany, Georgia—where five officers were recently arrested for misusing the city’s Flock system—revealed that the tool accurately documented when the city initially implemented the program.

“While a police department’s use of a specific tool may be known, we often lack information regarding their governing policies, such as data retention periods,” Lipton noted.

Lipton suggests that users complement the Atlas tool with the EFF’s Street-Level Surveillance hub, which provides more comprehensive documentation, including details on third-party vendors working with law enforcement.

While the Atlas database is a powerful resource, it is not infallible. In some searches, the tool successfully identified traffic cameras but lacked specific details regarding the adoption and subsequent removal of Flock license plate readers following public outcry. This suggests that the database may prioritize active programs or may lack certain historical records.

Resources like the Atlas of Surveillance provide citizens with much-needed visibility into the technologies used by their local police, information that is often difficult to uncover independently. Some municipalities may even use vague terminology when announcing new monitoring programs to avoid mentioning specific brands like Flock.

For those interested in contributing to the Atlas of Surveillance, the “Collaborate” option allows users to submit data points for consideration.

Source link