Allegations of police brutality, unlawful detention, and other breaches of civil liberties during the G20 in Toronto in June 2010 provide an important case through which to understand the changing nature of security and policing, raising questions about the political implications of such shifts in terms of police accountability, transparency, and democracy. Within the field of public policing, scholars predicted that globalization processes would weaken public policing as a dominant policing institution. Instead, it has expanded, in part, through the convergence of internal and international dimensions of security, whereby new policy networks cooperate in matters of policing and security in a new integrated model, the result of which is a further militarization of urban space and expanded markets for security, leading to the securitization of everyday life. This article examines the case of Toronto's hosting of the G20 and the role that the Integrated Security Unit-led by the RCMP and including private security firms-played. By focusing on the role of multilateral networks that include private sector actors, we examine the implications of the privatization and securitization of policing for democracy, citizenship, and accountability, looking at how they affect the ability of publics to engage in public debate, to consult, or to protest policies.The dominant images that emerged from the G20 Meeting in Toronto in June 2010 were not the traditional family photos of world leaders coming together to advance their global initiatives, but rather those of street protests and violence in the context of a massive security operation and allegations of police brutality, unlawful detention, and other breaches of civil liberties (Malleson and Wachsmuth 2011). Such scenes make the Toronto G20 an important case through which to understand both the changing nature of security-particularly in the post 9/11 period in which the market for security has grown-as well as the implications of a series of shifts in authority and governance for the nature of democracy and the urban citizen.Since the end of the Cold War, and more particularly since 9/11, scholars have observed that the distinction between inside and outside in international relations has blurred. As part of this transformation, within the area of security studies, Didier Bigo (2001) argues that the domains of internal policing and external defense are no longer separable, but instead merge into one another as part of a "M€ obius ribbon" of security networks. In this context, ideas about the meaning of security and the identities of enemies are no longer clear. Similarly, 1 We would like to thank John Zelenbaba, Rhys Machold, and Jesse Maclean, who provided research assistance for this paper.Kitchen