Laily UPN
For over two years, the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) operated a secret, pervasive surveillance program that arguably stands as the most significant expansion of invasive technology in American policing history. Despite a public outcry, a city-wide ban, and explicit promises from the police chief to cease operations, a troubling new investigation suggests that the program—facilitated by a private entity known as Project NOLA—continues to operate in the shadows.
This is not merely a story of technological overreach; it is a case study in how democratic guardrails are circumvented when law enforcement agencies outsource surveillance to private, unaccountable actors. As civil liberties advocates warn, the continued existence of this system threatens to normalize a "surveillance state" architecture that is fundamentally at odds with the values of privacy and freedom in a democratic society.
The Core of the Controversy: A Violation of Law and Trust
The controversy centers on the use of live facial recognition technology (FRT). While many U.S. police agencies use facial recognition to identify suspects from static images—a practice that is already subject to rigorous debate—the New Orleans program was fundamentally different. Through its partnership with Project NOLA, a private organization, the NOPD gained access to a system that could identify individuals in real-time, effectively turning the city’s camera network into a permanent, automated police lineup.
This deployment directly violated a New Orleans city ordinance that explicitly banned the use of facial recognition as a "surveillance tool." While the law permitted limited, narrow use in specific criminal investigations, it imposed strict guardrails to prevent the mass tracking of the public. By secretively integrating Project NOLA’s capabilities into their daily workflow, the NOPD effectively bypassed the democratic process, rendering the city’s legislative efforts toothless.
A Chronology of Deception
The timeline of this scandal reveals a pattern of administrative obfuscation and broken promises:
- 2023-2024: The NOPD utilizes Project NOLA’s facial recognition system in secret, contributing to dozens of arrests without ever disclosing the use of the technology to defendants or the public.
- May 2025: A Washington Post investigation exposes the existence of the program. The revelations spark city-wide outrage and lead to intense scrutiny from the New Orleans City Council.
- May 2025 (Post-Exposure): NOPD Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick publicly declares that the department will comply with city ordinances, stating, "We’re going to do what the ordinance says and the policies say, and if we find that we’re outside of those things, we’re going to stop it, correct it and get within the boundaries of the ordinance."
- November 2025: Despite the "pause," internal emails obtained by privacy researcher Matthew Wollenweber reveal that the collaboration between NOPD and Project NOLA is not only active but being actively managed by leadership.
- January–March 2026: Wollenweber files formal complaints against officers involved in the continued use of the system. The NOPD officially denies that the usage constitutes "facial recognition," effectively gaslighting the public and dismissing the complaints.
The "Private" Loophole: Outsourcing Democracy
One of the most alarming aspects of this program is the role of Project NOLA. By utilizing a private organization to run the surveillance infrastructure, the police department attempts to create a layer of "plausible deniability." This allows the NOPD to sidestep public records laws and internal oversight mechanisms that would apply to a state-owned system.
Project NOLA is not a neutral technology vendor; it acts as a private surveillance clearinghouse. By funneling photos through this private organization, the police are essentially outsourcing the "dirty work" of surveillance to a third party that does not answer to the electorate. This model of "surveillance laundering" is dangerous because it provides an end-run around the Fourth Amendment and local privacy laws. If police can simply buy access to a surveillance network they are legally forbidden from building, the entire framework of public accountability collapses.
Supporting Data: Evidence of Continued Use
The evidence of ongoing use is not merely circumstantial. Thousands of pages of documents, obtained through arduous public records requests, paint a clear picture of a department operating in defiance of the law.
In a pivotal email dated November 5, 2025, Project NOLA’s leadership informed a detective that the department’s account had been "reactivated." The email also referenced a visit by Chief Kirkpatrick to the organization’s office, suggesting that the "pause" in the program was, at best, a performative gesture for the public, and at worst, a coordinated effort to shield the program from scrutiny.
When confronted with this evidence, the NOPD has adopted a strategy of semantic games. By arguing that sending photos to a private database to obtain a match does not technically count as "using facial recognition technology," the department is attempting to redefine reality. This refusal to admit wrongdoing or comply with basic transparency requests has created a wall of silence that makes independent oversight nearly impossible.
The Implications: A Slippery Slope to Totalitarianism
The implications of this technology remaining in operation are profound. Live facial recognition is a tool of mass control, historically utilized by authoritarian regimes in China and Russia to track political dissidents, ethnic minorities, and anyone perceived as a threat to the state.
In an American context, the normalization of this technology threatens to chill the exercise of fundamental rights. If citizens know that their every move is being tagged, tracked, and logged by a facial recognition algorithm, the nature of public space changes. The fear of being misidentified by an "unreliable" computer error—which has historically shown higher error rates for people of color and women—creates a reality where a simple walk through the city could lead to a fraught, life-altering encounter with law enforcement.
Furthermore, if this infrastructure is legitimized, it will inevitably be repurposed. What begins as a tool for identifying violent criminals will, in short order, be used to track protestors, immigrants, and those attending sensitive political or religious gatherings. We have seen this cycle play out with other surveillance technologies; once the box is opened, it is rarely closed.
Historical Context: The Lesson of Tampa
The current situation in New Orleans mirrors the failed attempts to implement similar systems in the early 2000s. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Tampa Police Department deployed live facial recognition in public areas. The results were disastrous: the system failed to identify a single suspect and produced a barrage of false positives.
The ensuing public backlash was so severe that it effectively halted the adoption of live facial recognition in the United States for over two decades. That "wise restraint" has been the standard for American policing—until now. Project NOLA represents the first significant attempt to break this consensus.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the Public Square
The New Orleans scandal is a warning. If the NOPD is allowed to continue its current trajectory, the precedent will be set for every other city in the nation to follow suit. The normalization of live, secret surveillance is not a foregone conclusion, but it requires immediate intervention.
It is time for the New Orleans City Council and federal oversight bodies to demand full transparency, the destruction of illegally obtained data, and a permanent, verifiable end to the partnership with Project NOLA. The safety of a community cannot be built on the back of a system that treats every citizen as a perpetual suspect. To preserve our democratic values, we must ensure that the "all-seeing eye" of the surveillance state remains firmly outside the bounds of American public life.
Neng Nana
Nana Muazin
