New Orleans Police Reportedly Used Real-Time Facial Recognition Alerts Supplied by Project NOLA Despite Local Ordinance

According to reporting by The Washington Post, New Orleans police received real-time facial recognition alerts from a privately operated surveillance network run by Project NOLA, reportedly leading to dozens of arrests. This purported use of AI surveillance appears to conflict with a 2022 city ordinance that restricts facial recognition to specific post-incident investigations. Police are alleged to have not consistently disclosed the technology's use.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 2 Privacy & Security
• Primary risk subdomain: 2.1 Compromise of privacy by obtaining, leaking or correctly inferring sensitive information

The deployment of a real-time facial recognition network continuously scanned and tracked the locations and identities of thousands of citizens in public spaces without their consent or legal authorization.

Additional risk subdomains

• 1.3 Unequal performance across groups: The use of facial recognition technology poses a disproportionate risk of misidentification and wrongful arrest for people of color, women, and older individuals due to documented algorithmic biases.
• 5.1 Overreliance and unsafe use: NOPD officers relied on automated, unverified real-time alerts to make immediate stops and arrests, bypassing the mandated verification process by trained examiners.

Causal factors

• Entity: Human
• Intent: Intentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The incident was caused by the intentional decision of NOPD officers and Project NOLA to deploy and use the real-time facial recognition system in secret, bypassing municipal laws.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 2 High Risk

High Risk: The report describes a law enforcement application utilizing facial recognition, which is explicitly classified as high-risk under the EU AI Act due to its significant implications for safety, fundamental rights, and public interests.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: Project NOLA facial recognition system
• AI purpose: Face Recognition; Smart Surveillance
• Behaviour type: Assistant
• Alleged developer: Unclear facial recognition technology developer, Dahua Technology
• Alleged deployer: Project NOLA, New Orleans Police Department
• Alleged harmed parties: Residents subject to live surveillance in New Orleans, People misidentified or at risk of misidentification in New Orleans, General public of New Orleans, Arrested individuals in New Orleans

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Substantial. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Minor
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Substantial, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Substantial, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Financial

Reported: Yes, the reports mention that wrongful arrests based on facial recognition cost individuals thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Indirectly caused: Individuals arrested or detained due to the system's alerts likely incurred significant legal defense fees and potential lost wages.

Inferred additional harm: Estimated thousands of dollars in legal fees and economic disruption for the 34+ individuals arrested under the program.

Differential treatment

Reported: Yes, the reports highlight concerns about the technology being weaponized against marginalized communities and its lower reliability for people of color.

Directly caused: The system relied on a database of 30,000 suspected criminals compiled from mugshots, which disproportionately targets and impacts marginalized communities.

Inferred additional harm: Increased risk of misidentification and wrongful stops for people of color due to known algorithmic biases in facial recognition.

Civil rights

Reported: Yes, the reports explicitly state the system endangers civil liberties, poses a direct threat to fundamental rights, and raises Fourth Amendment concerns.

Directly caused: The secret, real-time tracking of individuals in public spaces without warrants or due process violated the civil rights of those scanned and arrested.

Inferred additional harm: A chilling effect on freedom of assembly and speech (First Amendment) as activists and community members fear being tracked on watchlists.

Privacy

Reported: Yes, the reports describe pervasive technological location tracking and a tremendous threat to privacy.

Directly caused: The system continuously scanned the faces of all passersby across 200+ cameras, tracking their movements, activities, and associations without consent.

Inferred additional harm: Retrospective tracking of individuals' movements over 30 days using stored footage, violating the privacy of thousands of citizens.

Psychological

Reported: Yes, the reports describe the psychological impact of wrongful arrests and the distress of pervasive public tracking.

Directly caused: The individuals arrested under this unauthorized system likely experienced significant distress, loss of dignity, and anxiety due to immediate police intervention based on unverified matches.

Inferred additional harm: Widespread anxiety and feeling of being constantly watched among residents and activists who became aware of the secret surveillance.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 1
• People reportedly harmed: 34
• People reportedly exposed: 30000

Potential causes

Management

• Lack of formal contracts: No official agreement between NOPD and Project NOLA obscured accountability.
• Prioritizing speed over safety: Management allowed unsanctioned app use to boost immediate arrests.
• Failure to monitor officers: NOPD leadership failed to track which officers installed the DSS app.

Technology

• Real-time automated alerts: Software sent instant matches to phones, prompting immediate arrests.
• Use of banned hardware: System relied on Chinese Dahua cameras and DSS app banned by Congress.
• Algorithmic bias: Software is less reliable for people of color, women, and older people.

Data Inputs

• Unverified watchlists: Watchlists of 30,000+ faces compiled from mugshots without accuracy standards.
• No data retention: Failure to retain alert records undermined legal evidence requirements.

Human Factors

• Bypassing slow official channels: Officers used the app because the state fusion center process was too slow.
• Unverified match reliance: Officers made stops based on unverified automated alerts without extra proof.

Process and Methods

• Omission in police reports: Officers hid the use of facial recognition in official arrest paperwork.
• Bypassing fusion center: Police skipped the mandated two-examiner verification process.
• No city council reporting: Mandatory reports on facial recognition use were never submitted to council.

Regulatory Environment

• Lack of federal regulations: No federal laws exist to govern AI use by local law enforcement.
• Private network loophole: Operating through a private nonprofit bypassed municipal surveillance bans.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The reports are highly detailed, from reputable sources like The Washington Post and the ACLU, providing consistent accounts of the system's operation, NOPD's involvement, and the subsequent pause. The core facts of the secret deployment and the bypassing of the ordinance are well-documented.
• Ambiguities identified: The exact number of arrests directly caused by the live alerts is slightly ambiguous, with Project NOLA claiming 34 and NOPD records showing fewer or being unverified.
• Alternative interpretations: Some city officials argued that receiving tips from a private entity (Project NOLA) did not constitute NOPD operating a surveillance system, though this is widely rejected by civil rights groups.

The New Orleans Police Department secretly deployed a real-time facial recognition network using banned Chinese-made cameras, bypassing local democratic oversight and city ordinances. This unauthorized mass surveillance of thousands of citizens represents a notable threat to societal stability, civil liberties, and privacy, warranting serious attention regarding regulatory compliance and police accountability.

• Overall national security impact: Substantial
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: United States
• Alleged perpetrator: New Orleans Police Department and Project NOLA

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The program has been paused pending legal review, representing an ongoing strategic and regulatory concern rather than an active crisis.
• Autonomy: Human-supervised. The system sent automated alerts to officers' phones, acting as an assistant, while human officers made the final decision to arrest.
• Novelty: Evolved capability. Represents an evolved deployment of existing facial recognition technology integrated covertly into a private-public camera network.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Negligible. No physical attacks, kinetic threats, or critical infrastructure manipulation reported in connection with this incident.
• Information security: Minor. The use of Chinese-made Dahua cameras, which are banned by the US federal government, poses minor potential intelligence and supply chain security risks.
• Sovereignty: Minor. Local law enforcement bypassed municipal democratic oversight and city ordinances, representing a localized breakdown of government accountability but not a threat to national sovereignty.
• Economic security: Negligible. No strategic technology theft, financial system attacks, or significant economic security impacts identified.
• Societal stability: Substantial. Unauthorized deployment of real-time mass surveillance scanning thousands of citizens violates civil liberties, erodes privacy protections, and bypasses democratic oversight.