Montreal Police Remove AI-Powered Surveillance Camera Following Public Scrutiny

Montreal police have removed a high-powered surveillance camera after public attention and media reporting brought renewed focus to the growing use of artificial intelligence technologies in law enforcement and the privacy concerns surrounding them.

The camera, mounted on a lamp post along Henri-Bourassa Boulevard in the Rivière-des-Prairies district, was identified earlier this week by a Radio-Canada reporter. Within days of the device being publicly reported, it was taken down, prompting questions about transparency, oversight and the expanding role of surveillance technology in criminal investigations.

The Service de police de la Ville de Montréal later confirmed that the device was a Cloudrunner CR-H2 system manufactured by Montreal-based security technology company Genetec. The camera is capable of scanning and identifying vehicles while collecting information beyond standard licence plate data. According to the manufacturer, the system can record vehicle characteristics such as colour, make and model, allowing investigators to search for specific vehicles involved in criminal investigations.

Montreal police stated that the camera was being used as part of targeted investigations into armed violence, vehicle theft and crimes affecting local businesses. Police officials emphasized that access to collected information is restricted to investigators assigned to specific cases and that the technology is deployed under established legal frameworks governing police investigations.

Authorities said the camera was removed to protect ongoing investigative operations and maintained that police agencies often keep details about investigative tools confidential to prevent compromising criminal investigations.

The incident has nevertheless sparked debate among privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations, which argue that the public deserves greater transparency when police adopt new forms of surveillance technology.

Dominique Peschard of the Quebec-based Ligue des droits et libertés said law enforcement agencies should inform citizens about the general use of surveillance tools without revealing sensitive operational details. He argued that advances in technology have significantly expanded police capabilities, increasing the need for oversight and accountability to ensure that fundamental rights are protected.

The Cloudrunner system is part of a broader technological modernization effort underway within the Montreal police service. Authorities have confirmed that investigators are also using artificial intelligence software developed by Rank One Computing to assist with the analysis of large volumes of video footage.

Police officials have stressed that the software is being used to identify relevant video segments rather than to conduct facial recognition searches. According to the force, the technology helps investigators locate specific objects, vehicles or events within extensive video collections gathered from public security cameras and surveillance footage obtained through legal means.

The software operates on a closed network that is isolated from external databases, according to police officials. However, internal documents obtained through access-to-information requests indicate that police have recognized potential privacy risks associated with the technology.

A privacy impact assessment prepared by the police service acknowledged concerns that advanced analytical tools could potentially place innocent individuals under scrutiny or create risks of discrimination if not properly managed. The assessment noted that safeguards were intended to reduce such risks by focusing searches on objects and visual elements rather than personal characteristics.

Questions about oversight intensified after Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher initially indicated he was unaware of the camera’s presence when asked about it publicly. Later, Dagher clarified that his earlier response came during a period when he was focused on separate issues involving allegations of racism within a police station.

The chief later confirmed that the camera belonged to the police service and was being used as part of criminal investigations. Privacy advocates argued that senior leadership should maintain clear awareness of emerging technologies being deployed within their organizations, especially when such tools have implications for public trust and civil liberties.

Public records show that Montreal awarded a contract worth more than $17,000 last year to acquire four Cloudrunner units under a one-year subscription arrangement. While only one device was publicly identified and subsequently removed, police officials acknowledged that additional cameras could be deployed in future investigations depending on operational needs.

The discussion surrounding surveillance technology is not unique to Montreal. Across North America, law enforcement agencies are increasingly adopting systems capable of tracking vehicles, analyzing video footage and identifying patterns that may assist criminal investigations. Supporters argue that such tools can help solve crimes more quickly and improve public safety, particularly in cases involving organized crime, vehicle theft and violent offences.

Critics, however, warn that expanding surveillance networks may gradually erode privacy protections if adequate safeguards are not established. They argue that collecting and storing large amounts of information about individuals moving through public spaces can create long-term concerns regarding data retention, access and potential misuse.

Genetec officials defended the technology, saying privacy protections are built into the system and that every interaction with collected data is logged and traceable. Company representatives noted that communities must balance privacy expectations with the desire for enhanced public safety and crime prevention.

The City of Montreal stated that it was not responsible for installing the camera and referred questions regarding its deployment to the police service.

The controversy comes as public officials continue to debate the role of surveillance technology in urban safety strategies. Municipal leaders have previously discussed initiatives that would allow police to map privately owned security cameras with voluntary participation from residents, further highlighting the growing intersection between technology, security and privacy.

Legal experts specializing in data protection say the challenge moving forward will be ensuring that powerful investigative tools remain subject to clear rules, independent oversight and public accountability. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into policing, the debate over where to draw the line between security and privacy is likely to remain at the centre of public discussion.

The removal of the camera may have ended immediate questions about one specific device, but it has also intensified a broader conversation about how advanced surveillance technologies should be used, regulated and monitored in Canadian cities.

Courtesy: CBC