Toronto’s elite neighbourhoods weaponise AI surveillance amid systemic neglect of marginalised communities’ safety needs

Indigenous frameworks prioritise collective safety over punitive surveillance, viewing property crime as a symptom of systemic inequities like colonial displacement and resource extraction. Traditional knowledge systems in many cultures (e.g., Haudenosaunee ‘Peacemaking Circles’) address harm through restorative processes rather than exclusionary tech solutions. The Rosedale debate reflects a clash between settler-colonial logics of control and Indigenous paradigms of relational accountability.

Rosedale’s surveillance push mirrors historical patterns of elite self-protection, from medieval walled cities to 19th-century gated communities in North America, which reinforced racial and class hierarchies. Toronto’s property crime surge coincides with decades of neoliberal disinvestment in social housing and mental health services, displacing insecurity rather than addressing it. The Flock system’s licence plate readers echo 20th-century ‘redlining’ practices, where surveillance was used to exclude marginalised groups from ‘desirable’ spaces.

In India, middle-class gated communities use private security and CCTV to replicate colonial-era spatial segregation, often with violent consequences for marginalised castes and Muslims. Japanese ‘machizukuri’ (community-building) approaches prioritise collaborative safety over surveillance, focusing on urban design and social cohesion. South African townships have resisted private security monopolies by developing community patrols that integrate with public services, challenging the privatisation of safety.

Studies show AI surveillance systems like Flock Safety have high false-positive rates (up to 90% in some cases) and disproportionately target Black and Latino drivers, exacerbating racial profiling. Research on ‘broken windows’ policing—often cited to justify surveillance—demonstrates its inefficacy in reducing crime and its role in entrenching systemic bias. Evidence from cities like Oakland and Amsterdam indicates that community-led safety programmes reduce property crime more effectively than surveillance tech.

Artists like Hito Steyerl critique surveillance as a form of ‘poor image’ extraction, where marginalised communities are reduced to data points for elite consumption. Indigenous artists such as Kent Monkman depict how colonial surveillance systems like the pass system in Canada enforced spatial control over Indigenous peoples. Spiritual traditions across cultures (e.g., Ubuntu in Southern Africa) frame safety as a collective responsibility, contrasting with the atomised, surveilled individual of neoliberalism.

If unchecked, Rosedale’s model could spread to other affluent neighbourhoods, creating a patchwork of privatised surveillance zones that deepen urban segregation and erode public trust in policing. Scenario modelling suggests that within a decade, AI-driven ‘predictive policing’ could merge with Flock’s licence plate data to create a city-wide surveillance network, normalising exclusionary tech governance. Conversely, a future where community safety budgets are reallocated to social services and participatory policing could reduce property crime by 30% within five years, based on pilot programmes in cities like Medellín.

Black and Indigenous residents in Toronto’s marginalised neighbourhoods report feeling both underserved by public safety systems and over-policed by surveillance tech, creating a double bind of insecurity. Low-income renters in Rosedale’s shadow (e.g., in nearby Jane and Finch) face higher rates of property crime but lack the political capital to challenge elite-driven solutions. The debate excludes the voices of unhoused individuals, whose presence is often criminalised in affluent areas, further entrenching cycles of displacement and surveillance.