By Ron Calhoun
As Cleveland weighs whether to expand or renew public safety surveillance technology, the debate has moved beyond whether cameras can help solve crimes. Residents, advocates, and security researchers are asking a harder question: What safeguards should exist before the city builds a larger public safety network?
The issue began with Ordinance 1367-2025, which would authorize Cleveland’s public safety director to contract with Flock Group Inc., doing business as Flock Safety, to install and support an integrated safety technology system for up to three years. But in March, Cleveland City Council tabled the proposed expansion amid local and national concerns about privacy, immigration enforcement and data access.
Then in April, the city’s Board of Control approved a one-year, $853,340 renewal with SoundThinking, the company behind ShotSpotter, without sending it back through City Council. The city argued it did not need council approval because the deal involved software licenses and maintenance.
Together, those developments raise broader questions about how public safety technology should be approved, tested, secured, audited and explained to the public.
The trust gap
Supporters describe surveillance technology as a force multiplier for an understaffed police department. City officials have pointed to reported drops in some crime categories, including a 25% decline in serious downtown crime and a 20% to 22% decline in grand theft motor vehicle incidents. The data can be reviewed on the city of Cleveland’s Open Data portal.
But critics say those numbers do not answer the central question: whether the technology caused the decline, helped document crimes after they occurred, or simply became one factor among many. That distinction matters.
Critics say faster response times do not necessarily show that the technology prevents crime.
Cleveland State University’s review of ShotSpotter helped police respond more quickly to gunfire but did not reduce crime, according to Ideastream Public Media’s coverage of the renewal debate.
Critics say the finding does not mean the system has no value, but it raises questions about what value the city is paying for.
The community divide
A review of public comments on a March 2026 News 5 Cleveland Facebook post found residents split between those who see Flock as a practical law enforcement tool and those who see it as mass surveillance.
Commenters supporting the technology cited stolen vehicle recovery. Critics raised questions about tracking, data storage, hacking, cost, and whether residents have any meaningful say once a camera network is installed.
Those are governance questions, not just policing questions: Who owns the data? Who can search it? How long is it kept? What happens if the technology is used for purposes residents never approved?
Technical integrity is a public safety issue
The surveillance debate is also a cybersecurity debate. The National Vulnerability Database list several Flock-related records, including describing concerns involving administrative access and physical device protections.
Those records do not prove that Cleveland’s deployed equipment is currently vulnerable, but they do create due diligence questions that should be answered before any expansion.
The records should be reviewed by city technology officials or an independent security expert before being used to assess local risk.
A stronger Cleveland policy could require independent security audits, patch deadlines, device inventories, access logs, and contract penalties if a vendor fails to protect the system.
Data limits can be written into law
Cleveland Heights has already shown one path forward. In April, the City Council passed emergency legislation limiting most collected camera data to 30 days and prohibiting the use of license plate reader data for civil immigration enforcement without a court order.
Cleveland could adopt similar rules: a default 30-day retention limit, written search justifications, public audit logs and council approval for data-sharing agreements.
Oversight must cover renewals, not just new purchases
The ShotSpotter renewal showed how surveillance systems can grow quietly through software agreements and maintenance contracts if public scrutiny applies only to the original purchase.
A Cleveland solution could require council review for major renewals, integrations, and data-sharing agreements above a clear dollar threshold.
Cameras alone are not a safety plan
Cleveland could look to Denver’s Support Team Assisted Response program, known as STAR, which sends mental health specialists and paramedics to low-risk 911 calls. The program produced a 34% drop in reported less-serious crimes during its pilot, according to Stanford researchers.
Cameras may help identify a vehicle after a shooting. They cannot stabilize housing, treat a mental health crisis, or repair trust between residents and government.
Cleveland’s surveillance debate is ultimately about whether public safety technology can meet three tests: evidence, technical integrity, and democratic accountability. The debate is likely to remain focused as much on public trust as on cameras.
