How Toledo’s Use of Fusus Surveillance Raises Serious Concerns About Privacy and Discrimination
In an age where technology increasingly influences law enforcement tactics, Toledo’s adoption of the Fusus surveillance system is stirring controversy. Promoted as a tool to enhance public safety, this advanced monitoring network has raised concerns about privacy violations and discriminatory policing. Critics argue that its implementation disproportionately targets low-income communities, particularly residents of subsidized housing. While some officials see it as a crime deterrent, legal experts and advocacy groups believe it reinforces racial and economic inequalities.
Fusus connects police to live video feeds from a network of public and private cameras. The system is active in more than 150 jurisdictions across the United States, but Toledo’s use of it has come under heavy scrutiny. Records indicate officers spent 18,751 hours monitoring cameras in public housing—twice as much as in other areas of the city. Given that only 20% of reported crimes occur near subsidized housing, this level of surveillance appears imbalanced. Rather than focusing on real-time threats, authorities seem to be systematically watching these neighborhoods without justifiable cause.
Many civil rights groups and legal professionals have voiced their concerns. Kristie Ortiz of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality labeled the practice as outright discrimination. Beryl Lipton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation echoed this sentiment, condemning the targeting of low-income communities as inequitable and unjust. Residents affected by this monitoring express similar frustrations. Jihad Henley, a tenant at Greenbelt Place Apartments, fears racial profiling. “Me being the person I am and my skin color, I might be a statistic,” he shared. Elijah Fitch, another resident, questioned the efficiency of the system, stating, “They gon’ take their sweet time to get out here anyway.”
While some support the cameras for providing a sense of security, even supporters acknowledge that law enforcement should use the system responsibly. Tyrone Williams of Weiler Homes believes the cameras can improve safety but stresses that officers must apply them fairly and effectively instead of constantly monitoring residents without reason.
A major issue surrounding Toledo’s surveillance strategy is the lack of oversight. When the Toledo Police Department (TPD) introduced Fusus in 2023, officials stated it would only be used for emergencies. However, audits show that officers frequently monitor live feeds even when no crimes are occurring. The absence of clear policies regulating police surveillance further fuels public concern. The only existing guideline—a basic directive advising officers not to use Fusus for personal reasons—has been criticized by civil rights groups as insufficient. The ACLU warns that unchecked surveillance powers increase the risk of abuse.
Adding to the controversy, Toledo invested significant public funds into expanding its surveillance network. More than half a million dollars from federal COVID-19 relief funds were allocated to its growth, along with a $250,000 federal grant from the Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority to integrate housing cameras into the system. Supporters claim these investments enhance officer safety, but critics argue that they lack transparency and accountability.
Beyond privacy and discrimination concerns, Fusus has other troubling capabilities. The system can track individuals in real time, use AI-powered object detection, and potentially share data with federal agencies such as ICE. These features have alarmed privacy advocates, who fear that Toledo’s surveillance model may set a dangerous precedent for other cities.
Ultimately, this debate extends beyond technology. It is about ensuring that all citizens, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, are treated fairly under the law. Public safety is critical, but when low-income communities face disproportionate surveillance, it raises serious ethical and legal questions. Toledo’s leaders must address these concerns and establish stronger oversight to prevent further erosion of public trust.
