Rewiring Chicago’s Technology Ties Following the ShotSpotter Saga
By Robert Vargas, Chicago Sun-Times | November 25, 2025
In the wake of Chicago’s controversial engagement with ShotSpotter technology, a powerful call has emerged for the city to reconsider how it partners with tech firms—especially those providing surveillance and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. This reexamination is both timely and critical as discussions unfold against a backdrop of wider concerns about privacy, data control, accountability, and the rise of authoritarian tendencies at higher levels of government.
The ShotSpotter Controversy: A Catalyst for Debate
ShotSpotter, a gunshot-detection system deployed by the Chicago Police Department (CPD), has long been a subject of debate. Supporters see it as a potentially valuable crime-fighting tool that could enhance police response times to shootings. Critics, however, question its efficacy and cost, asserting that the system often produces false alerts and may not meaningfully improve policing outcomes.
The public conversation around ShotSpotter intensified in 2023 when freelance journalist Matthew Chapman submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking data that CPD had provided to economists studying the system’s impact. Unexpectedly, CPD denied the request and forwarded a letter from ShotSpotter’s parent company, SoundThinking. The letter claimed CPD should not have shared the data as it was proprietary, asserting that many years’ worth of alert data should not have been released to the public.
However, this FOIA denial inadvertently sparked broader research and analysis. The granular ShotSpotter alert data that had been mistakenly shared enabled researchers to critically examine the system’s claims, revealing both its strengths and shortcomings. This rare moment of transparency underlined not only the system’s limitations but also the importance of data access in meaningful public policy debates.
Ownership and Control of Surveillance Data
A key issue surfaced from the ShotSpotter saga relates to data ownership and control. The city’s contract with ShotSpotter, which expired in September 2024, delineated a split ownership model: “City Data is the property of the City and Gunfire Data is the property of the Contractor.” The contract further emphasized that the vendor and its licensors retain all intellectual property rights over gunfire data.
This arrangement means that data generated about gunfire incidents in Chicago neighborhoods remains predominantly under private control, limiting the city’s ability to independently analyze, share, or scrutinize this information. Such terms are increasingly common as technology companies introduce AI-driven analytics for government applications in predictive policing, facial recognition, social-media monitoring, and license-plate readers. While profitable for companies, these deals often privatize gains and shift risks onto local governments and taxpayers.
Broader Implications in a Fraught Political Landscape
The stakes of this privatization and data opacity become particularly alarming amid reports that technologies intended for local policing may be repurposed for political repression. Actions by federal agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Chicago have demonstrated how surveillance tools can be mobilized against perceived political enemies.
Against a backdrop of rising authoritarianism at the national level, Chicago must rethink its relationships with technology providers to ensure protections for its residents. Without access to data and the capacity for independent evaluation, the city cannot judge whether these technologies improve public safety or erode civil liberties, and community harms may go unaddressed.
Recommendations for Reforming Chicago’s Tech Procurement
Robert Vargas, professor of sociology and director of the Justice Project at the University of Chicago, argues that Chicago’s procurement system is outdated, designed more for physical goods like trucks and traffic lights than the complexities of AI and surveillance technology. To avoid costly mistakes and ensure accountability, the city needs a “smart procurement” process treating data and algorithms as public governance issues—not as private property.
Key recommendations include:
-
Public Ownership of Data: Contracts must stipulate that all data collected within the city belongs to Chicago and its residents. This ownership would guarantee the city’s right to analyze and publicly release data, enabling researchers and watchdogs to assess effectiveness and fairness.
-
Algorithmic Impact Assessments: Before purchasing surveillance or AI tools, the city should conduct assessments analogous to environmental reviews. These assessments would clarify the problem the technology aims to solve, identify potential biases, clarify data handling procedures, and outline safeguards. Importantly, these assessments should be publicly available prior to contract approval.
-
Shared Liability: Contracts should end the practice of shielding tech companies from liability while leaving taxpayers responsible for any negative consequences. As expensive police misconduct settlements already burden Chicago’s budget, the introduction of unregulated AI tools heightens the risk of costly failures. Technology firms profiting from public contracts must share in any liabilities arising from their products.
Toward Transparent and Accountable Use of AI Technologies
The ShotSpotter experience offered a glimpse into what informed public debate might look like when data is available for scrutiny—but only due to a data-sharing error. This incident exposed structural flaws in how public agencies engage with private tech firms.
As AI-driven technologies become increasingly embedded in public institutions—from police departments to schools and courts—Chicago has a unique opportunity to lead nationally by revising procurement rules. The goal: make transparency and public accountability the default rather than the exception.
For Chicagoans to fully engage with and trust the surveillance and AI technologies that touch their lives, the city must insist on openness, community involvement, and protections against misuse. Only then can the promise of technology be harnessed without sacrificing democracy, privacy, or justice.
Robert Vargas is a professor of sociology and director of the Justice Project at the University of Chicago. He writes commentary on law, technology, and social justice.
For feedback and letters to the editor, please email letters@suntimes.com.
