Rod McCullom Looks for the Evidence Behind Policing Technology

Since the summer of 2020, when a Minneapolis police officer murdered George Floyd, both the American public and the news media have scrutinized policing with greater intensity. But Chicago-based journalist Rod McCullom says many media outlets are neglecting the connections between science, data, technology, and law enforcement.

While a culture war still rages over the idea of defunding the police, in many cities, police spending has continued to climb. Over the last three decades, federal policies have also encouraged police departments to outfit themselves with military-grade equipment, which, according to some experts, makes it seem more acceptable to treat civilians as enemy combatants. At the same time, policing is becoming more tech-savvy, as tech companies turn cutting-edge advancements in robotics and artificial intelligence into law enforcement tools. These new technologies can reinforce racial biases in policing, erode trust between the police and communities, and increase government repression.

McCullom has combined his extensive journalistic background and interest in technology with his lived experience as a long-time Chicagoan to carve out a beat that he calls the “science of justice,” critically examining new technologies and their impact on the criminal justice system, including facial recognition, robot police dogs, and gunshot-detection systems. In a December 2023 story for Undark, McCullom turned his attention to Ring doorbell cameras, which local police departments have started passing out to households, with the expectation that residents will provide law enforcement officers with videos when requested. His investigation found that both the police and Ring—a company owned by Amazon—made overblown claims about how such surveillance increases household safety. Some of the little evidence that exists shows that these products may have no effect on crime at all, and many experts warn they form a private surveillance network with little oversight.

McCullom spoke to Darren Incorvaia about how this story stemmed from a walk around his neighborhood, what it means to report on the science of justice, and the benefits of defining a specialized beat. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

How did you come to this beat, reporting on the intersection of science, technology, and policing?

I’ve always been interested in technology and science, and, many years ago, thought that I would become a radiologist or scientist. But I always had this aptitude for writing and explaining science and technology.

I’ve been interested in the science of justice for many years dating back to the 1990s and 2000s when I worked as a news writer and field producer in television news in Chicago and New York City. There were a number of high-profile wrongful conviction cases in Chicago around that time. I’ve lived in Chicago much of my life and was here through several successive crime waves, reporting on gun violence, poverty, and infectious disease. Tom Zeller Jr., the editor in chief at Undark, approached me after my [MIT Knight Science Journalism] fellowship year about picking up the “Convictions” column on the science of crime and justice. Tom has been a fantastic mentor. So the beat grew and developed organically.

The science of justice, broadly, is not a very sexy science. But what many people, even the layperson, can get into is DNA technology, for instance, [which] is used to convict or exonerate defendants. I think that’s, of course, very important. [But] there’s so many other things that are interesting and important besides forensics. I love being able to report using an interdisciplinary lens, reporting on research and developments in criminology, forensics, biometrics, artificial intelligence, cognitive sciences, psychology, and much more.

A number of the articles that I’ve reported in this beat emerged organically [from my own experience]. I’ve always been interested in technology, trauma, and violence. Living and working in a city like Chicago, you’re exposed to those things, from just hearing gunfire late at night to what the statistics are on crime. I’ve always been fascinated with how science operates in the real world.

I did a piece for Undark several years ago on gunshot-detection technology. Where I lived at that time, there was a decent-sized park nearby, and it was adjacent to a high school. And I noticed that there were these devices that were being put up in the park and in different parts of the neighborhood. They were these stereo-looking devices that were on top of [streetlights] or different utility poles, and these were gunshot-detection speakers. It’s a system that uses AI to triangulate sounds. It’s very good in terms of detecting gunfire, but the evidence is scant in terms of preventing gunfire.

What led you to this story about Ring doorbell cameras?

I came to it because I walk often, and one thing I’ve noticed more and more, especially in my neighborhood, [is] the proliferation of video doorbells. Every several houses I hear, “Hi, you’re now being recorded.” It startled both me and the dog! I started noticing it more and deliberately wanting to take a look. I had questions on the recording range for audio conversations—could they pick up a conversation of someone walking by on a mobile phone? I was also concerned about data sharing and if the police could easily access these videos.

Around that same time [that I noticed the Ring cameras], in the summer [of 2023] I received an email on some new research that was based at MIT Media Lab. This was supposed to be the first time the complete Ring video doorbell network in the continental United States was mapped. I learned that there is actually very little evidence that shows that video doorbell cameras are a compelling deterrent in terms of preventing people from robbing homes. The story took off from there.

You frame the story about Ring around two shootings that took place in Akron, Ohio, and were captured on doorbell cameras. Why Akron?

I started doing Google searches and [set up] a Google Alert for Ring cameras, and I got an alert for Akron. I like to look for a news hook on a study. I will often [ask myself], “Where is this happening? And how can I make this interesting?” When you have a human story or human angle, it just makes something more dynamic and more relatable. I chose Akron because it was in the news and happening now. It’s also one of the cities that entered into a police partnership with Ring, and offered free camera giveaways to residents in certain low-income neighborhoods.

Akron is one of those cities that we don’t hear enough about in the national news. Oftentimes when we do it’s [about] despair, pathology. In the 1910s or 1920s it was the fastest growing city in the country. This was the center of rubber and tire manufacturing and nicknamed the “rubber capital of the world.” Its fortunes soared with World War II and the postwar economic boom but then have fallen due to deindustrialization and the lack of investment seen across the Midwest and so-called Rust Belt. I wanted to show how a town like Akron is trying to look for innovative ways to deal with their problems of crime. I’ve never been to Akron, but I always like to look for stories and interesting places that might not get major coverage.

What strategies did you use for collecting and organizing all the information in this story?

I’m old school. [In my career] I started off in investigations and FOIA requests. So I don’t have an aversion to that. But normally, I don’t have to go that route. My process is actually pretty simple. I email different sources, I conduct interviews, I record them, [and] sometimes I transcribe them myself, by listening and stopping and listening and stopping. When I’m talking with someone I’m taking notes, like about a new paper that’s coming out or an interesting anecdote about how they stumbled into this work. So if I do have an interview transcribed by a service like rev.com, which I use often, I can go back through the transcription and match it with my notes. I don’t use a lot of apps, just the basics.

For this story, my first interview was with Dan Calacci, the computer science researcher who worked on the MIT Media Lab paper on the national usage map of Ring video doorbells. I’ve been doing this work for some years and have learned to try to be very intentional. I go into interviews with a specific game plan—questions or themes—and a time cut-off. That is usually 15 minutes to a half an hour. Dan was a great interview and he offered some good suggestions. Then I began searching online for a researcher who focused on package theft and found [Ben] Stickle.

Let’s talk about Ben Stickle. He’s from a smaller state university in Tennessee, rather than a big, well-known university. How did you find him?

I did a Google search on estimates of porch piracy. Dr. Stickle was used on camera [where he was] discussing porch piracy with a television news station in Tennessee, where he is based. He had a very engaging manner and explained that he is one of the new researchers to study this emerging crime. I saw on Google Scholar that he’s working on [prevalence and prevention of] package theft and metal theft. I reached out to him, and he reached right back out to me in five minutes.

I try to go out of my way to find different types of experts. Sometimes when I see science stories, it’s the same names talking about the same sorts of things. If you’re in a crunch, and you have a deadline today, you’re oftentimes going to take a quote from the first person who will reply to you. I’m lucky I’m not on breaking news anymore, so I do have the luxury to have a month, maybe two months to turn around pieces. I’ll try to get emerging researchers, maybe some researchers from HBCUs [historically Black colleges and universities] if I can, bring more women in, or others with different backgrounds. Because I think everybody can bring something different to your story.

The company at the center of your story, Ring, never responded to your questions. How did that affect your story?

I emailed Ring three or four questions on the effectiveness of the video doorbells and independent research. A spokesperson chatted with me off the record but none of the questions were answered. They told me that they were going to send me some information, connect me with some people, and have a statement on the record. I never heard back from them. I won’t say I’m okay with that, but I’ve come to understand that. Ring is a part of Amazon, and they’re very concerned about how their brand is being portrayed. I guess they’re assuming I’m going to ask them all the hard questions.

Have I learned how to go around that? Yes, I have. I was able to find some of the answers in two previously published, but older, papers. I learned to have a deeper appreciation for people who are researchers. And the researchers aren’t necessarily going to be at a university. There’s oftentimes some [at a] neighborhood environmentalist group or community organization who might have their own data. I’ve come to appreciate the power of researchers who might not necessarily have a faculty position at a university.

You’ve built a specialized beat out of your interest in policing and justice. Do you have any advice for how other science journalists can define a beat of their own?

I can’t emphasize this enough, especially for younger science journalists: Find a beat or specialty area early on that fascinates you. If you want to laser focus on two or three different areas, that’s fine. That means you will become that [much] more valuable. I think it’s a great thing to be recognized as being somewhat of an expert in your subfield. [Then] it’s important to stay up-to-date on the research in that field. That might mean going to Google Scholar, signing up for updates or alerts when there’s new citations. And it might be worth taking a trip to [nearby] universities. There’s going to be some people there who are junior researchers or new faculty and have time to talk to you for an afternoon. There might be a doctoral student who’s conducting some fascinating research on something that no one else has done—maybe this is a person you want to follow. It’s important to understand how to use technology, but what’s even more important are relationships.

How can journalists write better stories about policing and justice?

Police departments and law enforcement have an agenda, just like everybody has an agenda. Local news stations and local and regional newspapers oftentimes want to maintain their access to police sources. So they won’t question the police department’s statistics too much. If the department says that Ring cameras can deter 50 percent of burglaries, they’re just going to repeat that. I understand that many law enforcement agencies might not want to talk with me because I ask too many questions about effectiveness and transparency. I’m okay with that because I don’t build my reporting from police department handouts or press releases.

Official sources are interesting, and they’re going to get you the official perspective. But sometimes, it can come across as advertising, not being skeptical, not looking for outside opinion. It’s always important to be sensitive and respectful to the communities that are over-policed and experience high rates of crime and violence. Try to look for sources from these communities.

It’s also important to cast a wider net when developing story ideas and reporting, and consider the science of justice as interdisciplinary. There is a lot of “CSI” type reporting on DNA or forensics, for example, which are popular topics. But you have to consider everything from biology and biochemistry, to cognitive sciences, to the science of violence and trauma. I’m one of the contributors to A Tactical Guide to Science Journalism. It goes into beat reporting and how to understand data. Any newer science writer might want to get a copy of this book.

Many science writers or science editors come from a middle-class, white, or affluent background. They have been taught to believe whatever the police department says. It makes a difference in terms of who the reporter is, and what their lived experience is.

I’m not going to try to indict journalism or science journalism. But I think these are issues that we have to be very serious about. When I was coming up, many journalism internships were not paid. So [back then] you have an internship at The New York Times, but there’s no pay. Well, who can live in New York City for a summer without any money? Now we see there’s more opportunities. There’s many outlets and fellowships now for emerging talent. I think that’s important. But it is always important to consider where we’re coming from, and the science-news beat is no exception.

Darren Incorvaia is a journalist who writes about the natural world. He earned a PhD in ecology, evolution, and behavior from Michigan State University in 2021, with a dissertation on bumblebee behavior. He has since written freelance stories for Discover Magazine, Science News, Scientific American, and The New York Times, mostly about exciting new discoveries in the animal kingdom. Darren was a 2023 TON early-career fellow sponsored by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund. Follow him on Twitter / X @MegaDarren.