Every generation faces a defining civil liberties challenge. In previous decades, Americans debated government wiretapping, secret intelligence programs, and warrantless searches. Today, the question is whether we will allow sophisticated surveillance technologies to become embedded in our communities before we fully understand how they can be used – or misused.
That is why local governments across our state should approach any new contracts with companies like Axon Enterprise with far greater scrutiny.
This is not an argument against technology. It is an argument for democracy.
As a civil liberties advocate, I work closely with communities most impacted by mass surveillance. Broad monitoring powers have repeatedly been deployed most aggressively against immigrants, Muslim communities, Black New Yorkers, LGBTQ+ people, political organizers, formerly incarcerated people, and other marginalized groups. Measures adopted during moments of crisis have a way of becoming permanent fixtures, expanding beyond their original purpose and reshaping the relationship between government and the public. Surveillance technology today is far more invasive than tools of the past, which is why New Yorkers should be particularly vigilant about protecting their liberties. Which brings us to Axon.
Axon is best known for its role in the expansion of body cameras and TASER devices, but it has now evolved far beyond that. Today it offers enforcement agencies integrated digital evidence platforms, AI tools, and surveillance technologies designed to pool unprecedented volumes of information about people. As local governments evaluate these products, they should recognize that they are not simply purchasing equipment, but investing in long-term technological infrastructure that will dramatically reshape how information is collected, analyzed, and shared.
Decisions of that consequence should be vigorously debated in public, not contracted quietly behind the scenes.
Adding to those concerns are Axon’s significant business relationships with ICE and other federal agencies, and the company’s leadership ties to officials who have shaped the Trump Administration’s federal immigration policy. Whether a particular local contract directly involves immigration enforcement is irrelevant. New Yorkers deserve to understand how these broader relationships may influence the company’s data-sharing capabilities and business priorities. Trump himself purchased between $1M – $5M worth of Axon stock weeks before ICE posted a $220M contract that only Axon could meet.
After everything that has happened the past few years, we clearly cannot trust ICE or their contracted partners to do the right thing with our information.
Supporters of expanded surveillance point to alleged safeguards, such as restrictions on data access or contracts that prohibit certain uses. Those policies may be important, but technology evolves far faster than government documents, assuming policies are even followed.
Artificial intelligence continues to transform what surveillance systems can accomplish. Software capable of integrating cameras, digital evidence, public records, and other information sources grows more powerful every year. Features that do not exist today may become standard tomorrow. Companies like Axon bundle their hardware with real-time AI tracking software like Fusus or their AI-drafted police report software. These tools are casually adopted as perks, but oncegovernments have invested millions of dollars into a particular technology system, it will be hard to untangle them. These tools will impact testimony, warrants, and charging decisions for real people.
That reality makes rigorous oversight essential before – not after – contracts are signed.
Oversight requires more than technical briefings between vendors and procurement officials. Communities deserve transparent public hearings, independent privacy assessments, meaningful opportunities for expert testimony, and ongoing audits after deployment. Residents should know what information is collected, how long it is stored, who can access it, how algorithms are evaluated for bias, and what safeguards exist against future mission creep.
Most importantly, directly impacted communities should help shape these decisions.
For decades, surveillance technologies have been introduced into neighborhoods already experiencing disproportionate policing and government scrutiny. Those same communities should not be treated as an afterthought when decisions are made about expanding digital monitoring capabilities. Public trust is strengthened when residents participate in policymaking, not when they learn about major surveillance contracts after the ink has dried.
New York has long prided itself on leading the nation in protecting civil rights. It should bring that same leadership to digital rights.
Whether the vendor is Axon or any other company, public officials should adopt a simple principle: extraordinary surveillance capabilities demand extraordinary transparency.
Technology will continue to advance. That is inevitable. The real question is whether our public institutions will advance alongside it by demanding stronger oversight, greater transparency, and meaningful public participation. We need elected officials of both parties, in executive and legislative roles, to step up and meet this moment.
The future of surveillance in New York should not be dictated by corporate marketing or procurement timelines. It should be shaped by the people whose rights and freedoms are most affected.
If we fail to ask difficult questions today, we may discover tomorrow that we surrendered far more than we ever intended.
Janos Marton is the Chief Advocacy Officer for Dream.Org and formerly of the ACLU. He lives on Staten Island.
