Signal
  • 14 new / 7d
  • 1 upcoming decisions
  • 118,623 mapped readers
  • Data updated 1d ago
Unsurveilled
Search

Verified Unsurveilled · Research pipeline

Candidates and under review

Jurisdictions whose published law or governance makes a full audit worth the cost. This is a research list, not a shortlist for an award.

Candidate does not mean nearly verified. It means one or two things about a jurisdiction looked strong enough to justify the work of checking the rest. Several of these will not qualify, and publishing the list before we know which is the honest way to do research in public.

  • Eugene, Oregon

    Under review

    Eugene ended its Flock contract in December 2025 and, in 2026, its council began work on a broader city surveillance policy. The outcome turns entirely on what that policy says once adopted — specifically, whether it rejects equivalent mass ALPR capability from any vendor, or only settles the Flock question. Under review pending the adopted text.

    0 met 12 unexamined Reviewed Aug 14, 2026

    3 open questions
    • Has Eugene adopted its city surveillance policy, and what does the final text say?
    • Does the adopted policy address ALPR capability generally, or only the terminated Flock contract?
    • Does Eugene access any regional or state ALPR database operated by another agency?

  • Yellow Springs, Ohio

    Research candidate

    Yellow Springs has a broad surveillance-technology ordinance that treats technologies including ALPRs and biometric surveillance as surveillance technology subject to an approval process, requires review of preexisting uses, requires annual reporting for approved systems, and makes conflicting contracts prohibited. That is the strongest governance framework among our current leads. The decisive open question is what is actually approved and in use.

    3 met 9 unexamined Reviewed Aug 14, 2026

    5 open questions
    • Which surveillance technologies are currently approved and in use in Yellow Springs?
    • Does any persistent ALPR or equivalent mass-tracking capability exist, whether operated locally or accessed regionally?
    • Have the required annual surveillance reports actually been published, and are they current?
    • Is there a published, current surveillance technology inventory?
    • What retention and sharing rules apply to approved systems?

  • Ypsilanti, Michigan

    Research candidate

    Ypsilanti adopted Ordinance No. 1401 in 2022, prohibiting the installation or use of electronic license-plate scanning devices in the city. That is unusually direct and makes Ypsilanti the strongest immediate candidate to audit against the Verified Unsurveilled standard. It is not a designation. Nine of the twelve criteria are currently unexamined.

    3 met 9 unexamined Reviewed Aug 14, 2026

    7 open questions
    • Does the Ypsilanti Police Department have access to any county, regional, state, or vendor ALPR database operated by another agency?
    • Does Ypsilanti have a general surveillance-technology approval ordinance, or only the ALPR prohibition?
    • Does the city or department use facial recognition or other biometric identification in any form?
    • Has the city purchased location data from any data broker?
    • Is a surveillance technology inventory published, and is it current?
    • Does the city publish an annual surveillance transparency report?
    • Have there been amendments, repeals, or exceptions to Ordinance No. 1401 since 2022?

Know a community that should be on this list?

The strongest leads are municipal code sections, not reputations. If your town has a surveillance ordinance, an ALPR prohibition, or an approval requirement for new surveillance technology, send the link.

Suggest a candidate