How should society respond to police surveillance technologies? This question has been at the center of national debates around facial recognition, predictive policing, and digital tracking technologies. It is a debate that has divided activists, law enforcement officials, and academics and will be a central question for years to come as police surveillance technology grows in scale and scope. Do you trust police to use the technology without regulation? Do you ban surveillance technology as a manifestation of discriminatory carceral power that cannot be reformed? Can you regulate police surveillance with a combination of technocratic rules, policies, audits, and legal reforms? This Article explores the taxonomy of past approaches to policing technologies and—finding them all lacking—offers the “tyrant test” as an alternative.

中文翻译：

---

监视和暴君测试

社会应如何应对警察监控技术？这个问题一直是围绕面部识别、预测性警务和数字跟踪技术的全国辩论的中心。这是一场让活动人士、执法官员和学者产生分歧的辩论，随着警察监控技术在规模和范围上的扩大，这将成为未来几年的核心问题。你相信警察会在没有监管的情况下使用这项技术吗？您是否禁止监视技术作为无法改革的歧视性监狱权力的体现？你能结合技术官僚规则、政策、审计和法律改革来规范警察监视吗？本文探讨了过去治安技术方法的分类，并发现它们都缺乏 - 提供“暴君测试”作为替代方案。