Who Watches the Watchers? Seattle's Surveillance Ordinance, Explained

When people hear "surveillance," they picture spy movies. In a city, it's usually more ordinary: traffic cameras, license plate readers, software that analyzes video, tools that track devices.

Ordinary doesn't mean harmless. The question is never just can the city use a technology. It's who decides, and who's watching how it's used.

Seattle answered that question earlier than most cities. As someone who serves as Vice-Chair of the City's Community Technology Advisory Board, I think every resident should understand how it works.

The basics

Seattle's Surveillance Ordinance, Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 14.18, is designed to give the City Council and the public more transparency when the City acquires technology that meets its definition of surveillance (Seattle IT).

And the definition is thoughtful. Surveillance means technologies that "observe or analyze the movements, behavior, or actions of identifiable individuals in a manner that is reasonably likely to raise concerns about civil liberties, freedom of speech or association, racial equity or social justice." Everyday office tools and some specific technologies, such as police body cameras, are excluded (Seattle IT).

Notice what's in that definition: racial equity and social justice. That's not common in tech law. It was written in on purpose.

How a technology gets reviewed

Per Seattle IT, every technology that meets the definition goes through a set process:

1. A Surveillance Impact Report (SIR). The department that wants the technology writes an in-depth report on what it does and its privacy implications, especially for equity and community impact.
2. Public comment. At least one public meeting, with comments collected and sent to Council.
3. Community review. The Community Surveillance Working Group reviews the final draft and writes a privacy and civil liberties impact assessment.
4. The City's response. The Chief Technology Officer responds to the working group's assessment.
5. A Council vote. The City Council reviews it and decides whether the technology can be used.
6. Ongoing reporting. Regular reports on how the technology is used and its community equity impact.

The community working group

This is the part I find most important. The ordinance creates a seven-member Community Surveillance Working Group. At least five members must represent equity-focused organizations serving or protecting the rights of communities historically subject to disproportionate surveillance, including communities of color, immigrant communities, religious minorities and groups concerned with privacy and protest, according to the City's 2024 equity impact report.

That's participatory design written into law. The people most likely to be affected get a formal voice before the decision, not after.

What's been happening

A few things worth knowing:

Most of the work has been reviewing tech already in use. When the ordinance started, the City had to review technologies it was already using. In August 2024, the Seattle Police Department sent Council a proposal for CCTV cameras and a Real-Time Crime Center, the first time a new, not-yet-deployed technology went through the full process (2024 equity impact report).

It's a filter, not a rubber stamp. In April 2025 working group minutes, City staff reported that of 44 technologies reviewed in the prior year, only 3 met the surveillance criteria (CSWG minutes, April 15, 2025). The same minutes note that the City had completed reviews of 28 surveillance technologies since the ordinance took effect.

The ordinance itself may get updated. Those minutes also note that the City's 2025 to 2027 IT strategic plan identified the ordinance as potentially "dated" and "limiting," and that any updates were still in early, deliberative stages. If changes come, community voices need to be in that room.

The honest tension

I'll be straight with you about the hard part, because these debates are real.

Supporters of tools like CCTV argue they help solve and deter crime. Civil liberties advocates worry about mission creep, data being kept too long or shared too widely, and disproportionate impact on communities that have historically been over-policed.

Both sides care about safety. The ordinance doesn't settle that debate. What it does is force the debate into the open, with documentation, community input and an elected body accountable for the decision. That's what good governance looks like, even when it's messy.

Technical questions I always ask

When I read a Surveillance Impact Report, here's what I look for. You can ask these too, at any public meeting:

• Retention: How long is data kept, and what happens after? Is deletion automatic?
• Access: Who can see the data? Is every access logged? Who audits the logs?
• Sharing: Can it be shared with other agencies, including federal ones? Under what conditions?
• Purpose limits: Is use limited to a specific purpose in writing? What stops it from being used for something else later?
• Accuracy: If the tech identifies people or objects, what are its error rates, and do they differ by group?
• Vendor terms: Does the vendor get to keep or use the data? Where is it stored?

How you can get involved

• Comment on technologies under review. The City posts which technologies are in public comment on its surveillance technology page.
• Apply to serve. The City accepts applications for the Community Surveillance Working Group through its boards and commissions application.
• Show up to CTAB. The Community Technology Advisory Board's meetings are public, and we want to hear from residents.
• Ask your Councilmember how they weigh civil liberties when they vote on these technologies.

Seattle built something here that many cities still don't have. Keeping it strong is a community job.

Pour me another: What surveillance technology do you think deserves the most public scrutiny? Tell me through the contact form.

Sip slow, stay curious.D