
By Erica C. Barnett
As a new poll appeared to show strong support for police surveillance in Seattle neighborhoods, a group of police camera opponents said a visit to SPD’s surveillance headquarters raised more concerns about the security of Seattle’s surveillance footage and the potential for outside actors, such as ICE, to access and use the footage.
Mayor Katie Wilson paused expansion of the cameras, and turned off some cameras the city activated during the World Cup, until an outside consultant, NYU’s Policing Project, can complete a privacy and safety audit of the system. That review is supposed to be finalized next month.
The poll, released by Challenge Seattle—an alllance of 23 businesses started by former Gov. Chris Gregoire—and the Seattle Metro Chamber of Commerce, indicates overwhelming support for police camera surveillance across virtually every demographic group. But there are a couple of reasons to suspect that organic support for SPD cameras may be lower than the 75 percent topline Challenge Seattle and the Chamber are touting.
First, each of the three questions pollsters Fulcrum Strategy Group asked includes several positive claims about cameras, followed by a very brief description of opponents’ position.
For example, the question that yielded a 75 percent support rate was worded this way:
The Seattle Police Department sometimes uses cameras in designated public spaces after a 911 call to assist in an active investigation. These cameras do not use facial recognition technology or AI and are monitored by civilian employees, not police officers. Supporters of this policy say that it has helped catch suspects who have committed violent crimes and helps reduce crime rates. Opponents say that this kind of surveillance infringes on civil liberties and invades privacy. Knowing this, do you support or oppose allowing the use of cameras after a 911 call to assist in an active investigation?
Even with such a biased description of the cameras and SPD’s Real Time Crime Center (RTCC)—supporters who claim the cameras reduce crime are observing that crime went down over the past year and crediting cameras as the cause—just 45 percent of respondents said they strongly support the cameras, while another 30 percent said they “somewhat” supported them after “knowing” the information included in the question. The poll says 55 percent of people who self-identify as progressives also support the cameras, though the data they released doesn’t break down how much of that support is in the tentative “somewhat” category.
More telling, perhaps, is that another recent poll conducted by the same consultant, this one sponsored by the Chamber alone, found that support for cameras—as well as policies that restrict where people accused of misdemeanor drug crimes can go—was about the same in May as it was one year earlier.
In both 2025 and 2026, 51 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “Recent laws like adding street cameras to help track crime and restricting people from returning to places where they’ve committed crimes are making Seattle safer and reducing crime.” Just 16 percent of those “strongly” agreed with this more neutrally worded statement. Meanwhile, 48 percent disagreed, up from 46 percent last year. With a 3.9 percent margin of error, that’s an even split.
Opponents of surveillance cameras have argued that if people knew more about how their information could be used—and SPD’s lack of direct authority over camera footage owned by its vendor, Axon—they would be less likely to support expanding the cameras into more and more parts of the city. On Monday, a group of advocates from the Community Not Cameras coalition toured the RTCC and, according to Transit Riders Union member Noah Williams, reached some “very scary” conclusions about who can access the footage and how well it’s protected from outside interference.
“When the SPD and the mayor’s office and city staff tell you that the footage lives on our servers until it is called up, that is true,” Williams said at a press conference immediately after the coalition RTCC visit. The problem, he continued, is that access to the system is managed by a cloud vendor controlled by Axon, a private company, which can access footage directly, stream it on their own cloud-based platform, and push software and configuration changes without telling SPD.
“And if they can do it, so can anyone who hacks them, and so can the federal government,” Williams said. “And the city will have no idea.” The system operates on a public-facing website that does not require a virtual private network (VPN) to access, Williams said, making it easier for hackers to “start trying to find vulnerabilities” in the system.
Phil Mocek, a privacy advocate with the coalition, said the visit made him more convinced that SPD has a “Swiss cheese” system with many open pathways for Axon—or Flock, should the two companies ever merge—to access footage and information from the RTCC’s surveillance cameras as well as automated license plate reader software. SPD halted its use of Axon’s ALPR system earlier this year, when legislators passed new restrictions on ALPR use, but coalition members who went on yesterday’s tour said they learned that the software can only be disabled by Axon.
After the RTCC visit, several of the anti-surveillance activists said Lee Hunt, one of the executive staffers to former police chief Shon Barnes who plans to leave the department next month, “blew up” at the group and “stormed out of the room” twice in response to their questions.
A spokesman for SPD confirmed that Axon is able to push updates to its software, but said “all new functions are supposed to remain ‘off’ by default.”
The spokesman said camera footage is “stored locally” and cited a policy that says Axon “shall notify SPD if the Contractor receives a warrant or subpoena seeking SPD data for any purpose, including purposes related to immigration status, reproductive healthcare, or gender affirming medical services, unless prohibited by operation of law in which case, the Contractor will notify SPD about the warrant or subpoena and action taken when that prohibition is lifted; and, the Contractor shall retain or use in-house legal counsel to object to any warrant or subpoena on the grounds that Contractor does not have possession, custody or control over SPD evidence.”






