← Back to Home

How We Score Cities

Each city receives a surveillance report card grade from F to A+. The grade is based on a simple, weighted average of several transparency and harm-reduction criteria. Each criterion is scored between 0 and 1, then combined into a 0–100 score and finally mapped to a letter grade.

Criteria

Weights and thresholds

Each criterion has a weight that reflects its importance. By default we give extra weight to camera density and data retention, because they directly affect how much data is collected and for how long. All of the weights together add up to 1 so the final score is easy to interpret.

Camera density: 0.20, Data retention: 0.20, Auditable search logs: 0.15, Disclosing camera count: 0.10, Transparency portal: 0.10, Disclosing camera locations: 0.10, Data-sharing org count: 0.10, Disclosing data-sharing partners: 0.05.

We convert the weighted 0–1 score into a 0–100 number and then into a letter grade using this scale:

When we do not know

Many cities publish nothing about their cameras. When we have looked for a figure and not found it, the report card shows Unknown, and that criterion scores zero, the same as the worst answer. A city that keeps its program out of public view is graded on what the public can see.

Every Unknown has a ? next to it. Hover or tap it to see which sources we checked for that city and when, including the ones that turned up nothing. Each city page also lists those sources in full. If you know where a city publishes something we marked Unknown, tell us and we will update the card.

Example: Denver

Using this method, Denver currently receives an overall score of 65 out of 100, which maps to a grade of C.

This example uses our best understanding of Denver's current Flock usage, data retention, and transparency practices. As new information becomes available, we may update the underlying data and the grade.