Arizona

Every county in Arizona has a dated source baseline here: an OpenStreetMap device snapshot and the EFF Atlas of Surveillance entries for its agencies. No Arizona county has had its local records read yet, so nothing on these pages is an Orwell Index finding. What you see is two published datasets, dated and attributed, and the gap between them is part of what they show.

Most of what volunteers mapped in Arizona reads plate numbers

Contributors have mapped 3,252 devices across the fifteen counties. Of those, 2,624 are tagged as automated license plate readers, and 2,426 carry Flock Safety as the manufacturer. One vendor and one kind of device account for most of the state’s mapped surveillance.

That concentration is not evenly spread. Maricopa County alone holds 1,658 of the mapped devices, 1,347 of them tagged Flock. Pinal County’s map is 390 Flock devices out of 406. Apache County’s twenty-one mapped devices are twenty-one Flock plate readers and nothing else.

These counts describe what volunteers have chosen to map, not what is installed. A county with a low number may have an active mapping community and few cameras, or many cameras and nobody mapping them. Until we read the local records, we cannot tell you which.

The border counties carry different hardware, and the map does not say who runs it

Cochise, Santa Cruz and Yuma counties have mapped points that look nothing like the rest of the state. They are tagged with General Dynamics, Elbit Systems and Anduril as manufacturers, and many of them are typed as camera and radar together rather than as plate readers.

On the points we checked, the operator field is empty. The map records equipment and the company that built it, and it does not record which agency runs it. That gap is worth naming rather than filling in: naming an operator from the manufacturer would be a guess, and a guess about who is watching a border community is not something to publish.

One county appears in neither dataset

Greenlee County has no devices mapped in OpenStreetMap and no row in the EFF Atlas of Surveillance. We checked both directly rather than reading a zero off a failed query. The map query returned a clean empty result for the county, and the same query shape returned forty-eight devices for neighbouring Graham County minutes later, which is how we know the question was asked properly.

Two empty datasets are not a finding that Greenlee County has no surveillance. They mean nobody has mapped any and the EFF has not recorded any. The county’s own records have not been read.

What comes next

Local records research has not started in any Arizona county. Until it does, these pages carry two outside datasets and say so on every page. The meetings, contracts, policies and purchase records that would show who approved what, and when, are still unread.