# T014 - ACIN Analytical Reach vs Non-Surveillance Classification ACIN's first production places two coherent descriptions side by side. One describes a statewide, near-real-time incident-data and analytical network capable of linking cases and relationships, detecting patterns, generating alerts, and surfacing possible connections among people, vehicles, locations, and events. The other insists that ACIN is not a criminal-intelligence database, surveillance system, mass-surveillance platform, predictive-policing system, or dossier system. The documents establish that framing tension but do not provide the schemas, retention rules, policies, participant agreements, usage records, or legal analysis needed to resolve the classification. ## Statement A ACIN has surveillance-relevant analytical reach even if its inputs originate in incident reports rather than public camera feeds. - ACIN says agencies can "share and analyze incident-report information in near real time" ([[ACIN Executive Overview 2026-05-15]], p. 2). - It lists "investigative search, cross-jurisdiction case linking, relationship analysis, investigative dashboards, pattern identification, and real-time investigative alerts" ([[ACIN Executive Overview 2026-05-15]], p. 3). - Its AI materials describe "possible connections between people, vehicles, locations, and events" and "patterns, links, and relationships across authorized datasets" ([[ACIN AI Fact Sheet]], p. 1; [[ACIN FAQ 2026-05-15]], p. 2). ## Statement B ACIN classifies the platform as factual incident-data sharing and investigative support, not surveillance or a Part-23 criminal-intelligence repository. - "ACIN is not a criminal intelligence database and does not maintain standalone criminal intelligence files as defined under 28 CFR Part 23" ([[ACIN Executive Overview 2026-05-15]], p. 2). - "ACIN is not a public surveillance system and is not designed for mass surveillance activities" ([[ACIN FAQ 2026-05-15]], p. 1). - The AI fact sheet says ACIN is not "A predictive policing system targeting innocent citizens," "A mass surveillance platform," or "A system for collecting intelligence dossiers on citizens" ([[ACIN AI Fact Sheet]], p. 1). ## Why it matters The classification bears on which governance, retention, dissemination, auditing, access, public-notice, and legal-accountability questions investigators and policymakers ask. Accepting ACIN's label without the underlying system records could obscure the practical reach of relationship and pattern analysis; treating all incident-data collaboration as surveillance without examining inputs, access predicates, retention, and use could erase legally and operationally important distinctions. ## Resolution status `open` - the media package establishes the competing descriptions but cannot resolve them. Resolution requires, at minimum, the participant roster and agreements, field-level schemas, synchronization and retention rules, AI/vendor documentation, access and alert policies, audit samples, board records, and any legal analysis supporting the non-Part-23 and non-surveillance classifications. ## Discovery Surfaced during the 2026-07-21 ingest of [[pulaski-county-prosecutor/2026-07-21-acin-media-package-batch-1/_overview|ACIN Media Package - Batch 1 Overview]]. ## Notes This tension is descriptive and analytical. It does not decide whether 28 CFR Part 23 applies or whether ACIN meets any statutory or constitutional definition of surveillance.