Kansas City officials are moving forward with plans to install facial recognition software on public buses, a move that will expand corporate surveillance into public transit and disproportionately impact the city's working class and marginalized communities. The technology, provided by SafeSpace Global, is designed to identify individuals on "banned rider" lists or "law enforcement watch lists," effectively turning public transportation into a tool for state and corporate control.
The Profit Motive Behind Surveillance
SafeSpace Global, a Knoxville, Tennessee-based company, stands to profit from this expansion of surveillance infrastructure. The company previously deployed its live facial recognition technology in nursing homes, correctional institutions, and schools, with Kansas City's buses marking its "inaugural venture in transportation." Scott Boruff, CEO of SafeSpace Global, stated the company is ready to begin installations once funding is secured, anticipating a program "a little bit bigger" than initially planned, potentially covering 30 buses instead of nine. This expansion of corporate reach into public infrastructure represents a new frontier for surplus extraction through the sale of control technologies.
The State's Role in Expanding Control
Despite the state of Missouri declining to fund the project due to concerns over the facial recognition component, the Kansas City Transportation Authority is pushing ahead, utilizing local and federal money. Tyler Means, chief mobility and strategy officer at the Kansas City Transportation Authority, acknowledged the financial setback but expressed confidence the program would launch this year. This demonstrates the state apparatus's commitment to deploying surveillance technology, even when facing internal resistance and financial hurdles, solidifying its role in protecting and expanding systems of control. The proposed system will check images captured by bus cameras against active alerts for missing persons, banned riders, or individuals on law enforcement watch lists. While proponents claim facial data will not be retained if no match is found, the transportation authority plans to archive regular video footage for up to five years. Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst for the Project on Speech, Privacy and Technology at the American Civil Liberties Union, warned that limiting the scope of such AI surveillance is "nearly impossible," suggesting its use will "expand over time."
Past implementations of facial recognition technology reveal its inherent biases and potential for wrongful targeting, particularly against working-class communities and people of color. In Detroit, a partnership between police and local businesses in the tenth year saw high-definition cameras relaying live feeds to the police department. A New York Times investigation later found this footage was paired with facial recognition software for arrests, leading to successful lawsuits from accused individuals who were "wrongly targeted due to faulty technology that misidentified Black suspects." The state's drive to implement such technology often bypasses public consent and legal frameworks. New Orleans police, for instance, secretly used facial recognition surveillance cameras run by a private company, despite a city ordinance prohibiting the technology. A report by Stanley for the ACLU last month, based on emails obtained by an activist through an records request, found the program was still operating in some capacity, even after it was believed to have been paused.
Resistance to Corporate-State Surveillance
Calls for "careful," "transparent," and "accountable" use of facial recognition, often framed as liberal solutions, fail to address the fundamental issues of state and corporate surveillance. Ryana Parks-Shaw, a City Council member, stated, “I believe that any use of this kind of technology must be approached carefully, transparently and with clear guardrails.” However, such reforms do not challenge the underlying power dynamics that enable the deployment of surveillance tools by private companies in partnership with state entities, nor do they prevent the expansion of such systems once established. Tyler Means of the Kansas City Transportation Authority dismissed privacy concerns, stating, “Privacy is always a tricky thing,” and suggesting that "in time it’ll smooth over and people will realize, ‘Well, it didn’t really feel any different.’” This perspective normalizes the erosion of privacy and public space, framing it as an inevitable consequence of "new technology" rather than a deliberate policy choice serving specific interests. James Craig, former Detroit police chief, also advocates for the technology, provided it is "used correctly," reinforcing the idea that the problem lies in implementation, not the technology itself or its purpose in maintaining social control.
Opposition to this surveillance push has been voiced by civil liberties advocates. Will Owen, communications director for the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, asserted that “City residents should not be guinea pigs for transit systems to test Silicon Valley’s latest unproven, biased surveillance tech.” Historically, immediate opposition led to the abandonment of a facial recognition program in Tampa, Florida, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, demonstrating that organized resistance can challenge the expansion of such state-corporate surveillance. The delay in Kansas City's rollout, partly due to technical and financial issues, also saw City Council member Parks-Shaw express that they "need to take their time and do it right," indicating a cautious approach in the face of public scrutiny. In the interim, the city plans to deploy "up to 40 more officers patrolling stops and transit centers" for the World Cup matches this week, revealing the state's fallback to direct enforcement when technological control is delayed.