A facial recognition tool developed in Los Angeles is drawing attention amid growing demands for police accountability. The site, F**kLAPD.com, allows users to upload a photo of a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer and match it against a database of more than 9,000 official headshots.
Although the current LAPD workforce includes around 8,600 sworn officers and continues to shrink, the database extends beyond active personnel to include retired officers as well.
The tool gained traction after immigration raids in Los Angeles, where demonstrators reported excessive force and officers concealed their identities.
Developed by media artist Kyle McDonald, the platform was launched in response to these incidents, aiming to restore public accountability through facial recognition and public records data.
McDonald, whose prior work has interrogated the ethical implications of face analysis, has long been critical of the surveillance industry’s reliance on carceral data.
In a 2020 essay, he denounced the use of mugshots in algorithmic research as a form of systemic exploitation, arguing that such technologies reinforce racial bias and mass incarceration. His creation of F**kLAPD.com reflects a continuation of that critique—repurposing the tools of surveillance to expose, rather than conceal, state power.
The tool is part of the broader “Watch the Watchers” initiative by the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, a grassroots group based in LA's Skid Row. For more than a decade, the coalition has engaged in “copwatch” practices; community-driven efforts to monitor, document, and expose police misconduct, especially in marginalized neighborhoods.
With F**kLAPD.com, the group’s focus has expanded to countersurveillance technology, using public records and facial recognition to reverse what it claims as a longstanding asymmetry of power.
The site’s searchable database was assembled through a series of public records lawsuits filed against the City of Los Angeles, which compelled the release of LAPD officer headshots, along with serial numbers, division assignments, salary data, and available misconduct records.
Users can upload a photograph to see if it matches a listed officer; all image processing takes place locally on the user’s device, and no data is stored or transmitted.
Blurry or low-resolution images are automatically rejected. Officer profiles provide comprehensive detail—such as year of hire, physical characteristics, and email addresses based on LAPD naming conventions—alongside employment and paycheck histories.
The tool’s legal foundation lies in California’s Public Records Act (CPRA), and courts have so far upheld its operation. After losing a lawsuit to suppress the site, the City of Los Angeles was ordered to pay $300,000 in attorney fees to the platform’s defenders.
Notably, CPRA is considered one of the most transparent in the US, granting public access to most government records unless specifically exempted.
By contrast, states like Texas allow agencies far greater discretion to withhold records—such as communications deemed “intimate” or “embarrassing”—as highlighted in Governor Greg Abbott’s case involving email exchanges with Elon Musk.
Supporters argue that the platform addresses a longstanding accountability gap in protest policing, but it has also sparked ethical concerns. Police unions warn that using facial recognition may normalise surveillance, blur the line between transparency and doxxing, and expose officers to potential retaliation.
A federal rebuke and the fight over police anonymity
In a major ruling for press freedoms, US District Judge Hernán D. Vera issued a temporary restraining order in July 2025 against the LAPD. The order bars officers from using rubber bullets, chemical agents, or other less-lethal weapons on journalists covering protests, unless they pose an imminent threat.
The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Los Angeles Press Club and the investigative reporting outlet Status Coup, which accused LAPD officers of targeting credentialed journalists during demonstrations sparked by Trump administration’s anti-immigrant raids.
Judge Vera’s ruling cited multiple high-profile incidents of press interference, including Australian reporter Lauren Tomasi being shot with a rubber bullet on live television, New York Post photographer Toby Canham being struck in the head, and a CNN crew being briefly detained while attempting to report from the scene only a month ago.
The legal action against LAPD follows years of complaints over the department’s handling of protests, with critics citing repeated violations despite reforms enacted after the 2020 demonstrations over George Floyd’s death.
The July ruling reignited broader scrutiny of policing tactics in Los Angeles, particularly regarding officer anonymity during crowd control operations. LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell has denied that officers deliberately targeted journalists but acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for July 24.
This renewed attention comes amid similar concerns at the federal level. During recent ICE raids in Los Angeles and other cities, agents were seen wearing masks and unmarked uniforms, raising alarms among civil liberties groups and lawmakers.
Critics say such practices mirror authoritarian tactics and undermine the public’s ability to hold government agents accountable. “The basic principle is that the police are accountable to the public. And that requires, at a minimum, knowing who the police are,” MSNBC wrote in a June 2025 column.
Under the Law Enforcement Identification Act, federal law enforcement officers and members of the Armed Forces involved in protest-related crowd control or arrests are required to display clearly visible identifying information.
ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons has defended the agency’s use of face coverings, citing concerns over safety and doxxing. “ICE agents and officers go out there every day, put their lives on the line… and for them to be demonized, called modern-day Nazis, to have their families doxxed… it’s not right,” he said in a televised interview, recalling protests outside his own home and incidents in which agents’ addresses were publicly posted.
While officials frame anonymity as a protective necessity, civil liberties advocates argue it erodes public oversight, especially when used in local policing. The same concern has extended to local officers in riot gear, whose anonymity during protest operations has been compared by critics to secret police tactics more common in authoritarian regimes.
The emergence of F**kLAPD.com seems to reflect a broader shift in protest-era dynamics, where surveillance is no longer a one-way gaze.
As federal immigration enforcement intensifies and protests erupt across the country, from Los Angeles to Indianapolis, activists have faced increased militarisation, including the deployment of National Guard troops and armed federal agents.
Incidents like a driver plowing through protesters in New Jersey and ICE officers refusing to identify themselves have amplified public fears over the growing opacity of law enforcement. Particularly troubling are allegations that deputized corrections officers, operating without badges or names, are carrying out arrests with no means of public accountability.
Legal efforts to dismantle F**kLAPD.com have so far failed, but the push to restrict access to officer data continues, with city officials lobbying for laws that could shield police identities entirely.
