A memo for the city — and for ourselves

The questions worth asking.

This isn't a case for or against anything. It's a list of the things any of us — resident, council member, or police officer — should want answered before Detroit adopts new surveillance technology. Some of these cut in directions you might not expect. Bring them to a meeting, send them to an official, or just think them through.

The basics

The simplest things, which still aren't public.

Which company would the city buy from, and why that one?
What is the total cost — purchase, subscription, training, and storage — over the life of the contract?
Where does the money come from: the general fund, a federal grant, or asset forfeiture?
What problem, exactly, is this meant to solve — and how will we know if it worked?

The data

Once information is collected, it tends to travel.

How long is footage or data kept, and who decides when it's deleted?
Who can access it inside the department — and can outside or federal agencies search it?
Will any of it be analyzed by AI or facial recognition?
Can the public see an audit of who searched the data and why?

The law and the process

Detroit already wrote rules for this. Are we following them?

Has the city posted the public safety review (STSR) at least 14 days before any vote, as CIOGS requires?
Which body actually decides — the Board of Police Commissioners, City Council, or both?
Was there a real public hearing, with time for residents to respond?
What are the written limits — and what stops them from being loosened later?

Does it work?

A fair question to ask of any public spending.

What independent evidence — not vendor studies — shows this reduces crime?
How does the cost compare to other things that improve safety?
If a similar tool here (like Project Green Light) was rated ineffective, what's different this time?

When it's wrong

No system is perfect. The question is what happens at the edges.

What is the error rate, and who reviews mistakes?
Who is accountable when the technology misidentifies or wrongly flags someone?
What protections exist specifically for children and for communities already heavily policed?

The people who do the work

This one cuts in a direction people don't always expect — toward police jobs themselves.

Officials call these tools a “force multiplier” — a way to do more with fewer people. Over time, does that mean fewer police jobs?
If software and drones take over dispatch, first response, and report-writing, what happens to the officers who do that work today — and to the neighborhood knowledge they carry?
Is the long-term goal to support officers, or to replace them? What does the department actually project for staffing?
Who gains financially from automating public-safety work — the city, residents, or the vendors selling the systems?

The bigger picture

Every choice is also a choice about what we didn't fund.

If this money were spent on youth programs, mental health, or jobs instead, what might it buy?
What kind of relationship between residents and government does this build — closer, or more distant?
Ten years from now, will we be glad we did this — or glad we asked first?

Want to put these to the city directly? You can request the underlying records yourself — see Demand the records — or bring them to a meeting listed under Take Action.