The Emergence of the "Selling Safety" Initiative
The release of the report comes at a pivotal moment for American municipal governance and public safety. For decades, the procurement of police technology was a relatively niche area of local government, often obscured by technical jargon and non-disclosure agreements. However, the industry has transformed into a multi-billion-dollar sector, with private companies aggressively marketing sophisticated surveillance apparatuses to even the smallest police departments.
The "Selling Safety" guide was born from a recognized gap in the media landscape. The report’s authors argue that while technology companies employ high-powered marketing firms to sell their products as objective and modernizing tools, local journalists—often operating in newsrooms with dwindling resources—frequently lack the technical background or time to investigate these claims. Consequently, many news stories regarding new police tools are criticized for essentially mirroring law enforcement press releases, failing to ask critical questions about data retention, racial bias, or the long-term financial burden on taxpayers.
Deconstructing the Marketing of Surveillance
At the heart of the report is an analysis of how policing technology is sold to the public. According to the EFF and its partners, the industry relies on "manufacturing the appearance of effectiveness" rather than providing rigorous, independent evidence of crime reduction. The marketing often follows a predictable pattern: promising to eliminate human bias through "algorithmic objectivity" and suggesting that technology can replace traditional, more expensive forms of policing.
Matthew Guariglia, a Senior Policy Analyst at the EFF, noted that the industry providing technology to law enforcement remains one of the most unregulated and consequential in the United States. He emphasized that decisions regarding public safety are increasingly influenced by multi-billion-dollar corporations driven by profit motives. The report highlights how these companies often foster "chummy" relationships with police departments, sometimes offering equipment for free or at a steep discount initially, only to lock the municipality into expensive, long-term service contracts once the infrastructure is embedded.
A Chronology of the Surveillance Tech Boom
To understand the necessity of the "Selling Safety" report, one must look at the historical trajectory of law enforcement technology over the last two decades.
- 2001–2010: The Post-9/11 Expansion. Following the September 11 attacks, federal funding for domestic surveillance increased exponentially. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began providing grants to local law enforcement for "counter-terrorism" equipment, which was quickly repurposed for everyday policing.
- 2011–2015: The Rise of Biometrics and Body Cameras. High-profile incidents of police misconduct led to a national push for body-worn cameras. While framed as a tool for accountability, these devices also created a massive new market for data storage and facial recognition integration.
- 2016–2020: The AI and Predictive Era. Companies began marketing "predictive policing" algorithms, claiming software could identify "hot spots" or individuals likely to commit crimes. During the 2020 racial justice protests, many departments accelerated the adoption of social media monitoring and mass surveillance tools to track demonstrations.
- 2021–Present: The Proliferation of Integrated Networks. Modern policing now focuses on "Real-Time Crime Centers" (RTCCs), which integrate private doorbell cameras, ALPRs, and gunshot detection systems into a single surveillance dashboard.
Supporting Data: The Cost and Efficacy Gap
The report encourages journalists to look past the "slick marketing" and demand raw data. For instance, gunshot detection systems like ShotSpotter (now SoundThinking) have faced intense scrutiny in cities like Chicago and Seattle. Independent studies have frequently found that such systems can have high rates of "dead-end" alerts—incidents where police are dispatched to a location but find no evidence of a crime or a victim. Despite this, the technology is often marketed as a critical life-saving tool in press conferences.
Financially, the stakes are equally high. The guide points out that the initial cost of a technology is often just the beginning. Maintenance fees, data storage costs, and the eventual need for hardware upgrades can drain municipal budgets for years. In many cases, these funds are diverted from social services or community-based violence interruption programs that have a more proven track record of improving public safety.
Perspectives from Industry Experts and Advocates
The collaborative nature of the report brings together three distinct areas of expertise. The EFF provides a legal and civil liberties perspective, the Center for Just Journalism offers insights into media ethics and narrative construction, and IPVM contributes deep technical knowledge of the security industry.
Conor Healy, IPVM’s Director of Government Research, pointed out that the surveillance technology industry has a "documented pattern of making unsubstantiated claims." He argued that journalists who move beyond the press release to examine vendor claims often find that the "solutions" are not as effective as advertised. By performing this accountability work, journalists protect both the public’s constitutional rights and the integrity of the tax dollars being spent.
Hannah Riley Fernandez, Director of Programming at the CJJ, noted that surveillance tech is spreading faster than public understanding or legislative oversight. She framed the report as a tool for journalists to perform "critical accountability work in real time." The goal is to ensure that when a new tool is introduced, the conversation includes voices from the community, privacy experts, and independent technologists, rather than just law enforcement officials and corporate spokespeople.
Analyzing the Broader Impact on Civil Liberties
The implications of unchecked surveillance technology extend far beyond the police blotter. The "Selling Safety" report warns of the "normalization of surveillance," where invasive tools become a permanent fixture of urban life without a single vote from the public.
One of the primary concerns highlighted is the impact on marginalized communities. Algorithmic tools are often trained on historical policing data, which can reflect and amplify existing racial biases. When journalists report on these tools as "objective," they may inadvertently validate systems that disproportionately target specific neighborhoods or demographics.
Furthermore, the privacy concerns are profound. Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), for example, create a massive database of the movements of innocent citizens. This data is often shared across state lines and between different agencies with little to no oversight. The report suggests that journalists should investigate who has access to this data, how long it is stored, and what safeguards—if any—are in place to prevent misuse.
Tools for Accountability: Beyond the Report
In addition to the "Selling Safety" guide, the EFF maintains several resources designed to assist in this investigative work. The "Street-Level Surveillance" hub provides technical explainers on how specific tools—like Stingrays (cell-site simulators) or drones—actually function. Meanwhile, the "Atlas of Surveillance" project, a collaboration with the University of Nevada, Reno, offers a searchable database and map of which technologies are being used by which departments across the country.
These resources are intended to help reporters find "local accountability stories." By knowing what technology a neighbor city uses or what a specific vendor has promised in other jurisdictions, a journalist can ask more pointed questions of their own local officials.
Conclusion: A New Standard for Public Safety Reporting
As technology continues to evolve, the line between public safety and private surveillance will continue to blur. The "Selling Safety" report argues that the role of the press is not to be a cheerleader for innovation, but to be a skeptic of power. By deconstructing the "police-tech sausage," as Guariglia phrased it, the guide aims to foster a more informed public debate about what kind of society Americans want to live in.
The ultimate goal of the "Selling Safety" guide is to shift the media narrative from "What can this technology do?" to "Should this technology be used, at what cost, and under what oversight?" In doing so, the coalition of EFF, CJJ, and IPVM hopes to ensure that the pursuit of safety does not come at the expense of the very liberties and transparency that define a democratic society. As these tools become more pervasive, the need for rigorous, fact-based, and independent journalism has never been more critical.
