PUBLISHER'S NOTE: In a recent post, James Corbett, of the Corbett Report, warned about state-of-the-art police technology that may well be pseudoscience."Does this technology work, or is it all hype?, " Corbett asked. "After all, it wouldn’t be the first time that the public has been duped into believing that the crack CSI experts and their state-of-the-art technology can solve any crime through the power of science. In reality, more often than not the crime-detection technology of the past has turned out to be pseudoscience at best, and outright fraud at worst. And, of course, it has been used to put innocent people in jail, and risks severely individual and community privacy." Today's post illustrates how some communities - such as Oakland, California - recognize the dangers of intrusive state of the art police technology, and are doing something about it.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
----------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "While Oakland may be at the head of the pack
here, it isn’t alone: In the past few years, local governments across
the country have become laboratories for developing new approaches to
reining in policing tech, and the solutions they’ve been cooking up are
starting to spread to more cities and towns that are concerned about
overreaching or secret police surveillance of their communities. After Sept. 11, thanks in part to massive federal grants with
few strings attached, local law enforcement agencies all over the United
States began steadily acquiring and deploying powerful new policing
tech. These surveillance technologies, often acquired and deployed
unbeknownst to residents or city councils and usually without court
approval or oversight, include cell-site simulators for tracking cellphone-call details (often referred to as stingrays), automatic license plate readers for tracking cars, drones for conducting aerial surveillance, gunshot-location technology that relies on citywide networks of high-powered microphones, and predictive policing
algorithms that tend to push police to focus even more on already
overpoliced communities. This trend of unrestrained acquisition and use
of surveillance tools has been dubbed by some critics as “policymaking by procurement,”
with important decisions being made about police power based simply on
the fact that the feds were willing to cut a check for the tech, rather
than being based on careful consideration by local elected officials.
Now, however, those officials and their citizens are catching
on to what’s been happening."
-----------------------------------------------
POST: "How Cities Are Reining in Out-of-Control Policing Tech," by reporter Robyn Greene, published by Slate on May 14, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: (Robyn Greene is the policy counsel for the Open
Technology Institute at New America specializing in issues concerning
surveillance and cybersecurity.)
-----------------------------------------------
GIST: "Since the turn of the 21st century, local law
enforcement departments have stocked up on unprecedentedly invasive
surveillance tech for monitoring their communities, with little to no
oversight. But a counterrevolution is brewing. On May 1, the Oakland,
California, City Council unanimously adopted the Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance,
the nation’s strongest law governing how police acquire and use
surveillance technologies. While Oakland may be at the head of the pack
here, it isn’t alone: In the past few years, local governments across
the country have become laboratories for developing new approaches to
reining in policing tech, and the solutions they’ve been cooking up are
starting to spread to more cities and towns that are concerned about
overreaching or secret police surveillance of their communities. After Sept. 11, thanks in part to massive federal grants with
few strings attached, local law enforcement agencies all over the United
States began steadily acquiring and deploying powerful new policing
tech. These surveillance technologies, often acquired and deployed
unbeknownst to residents or city councils and usually without court
approval or oversight, include cell-site simulators for tracking cellphone-call details (often referred to as stingrays), automatic license plate readers for tracking cars, drones for conducting aerial surveillance, gunshot-location technology that relies on citywide networks of high-powered microphones, and predictive policing
algorithms that tend to push police to focus even more on already
overpoliced communities. This trend of unrestrained acquisition and use
of surveillance tools has been dubbed by some critics as “policymaking by procurement,”
with important decisions being made about police power based simply on
the fact that the feds were willing to cut a check for the tech, rather
than being based on careful consideration by local elected officials. Now, however, those officials and their citizens are catching
on to what’s been happening. Over the past five years, a growing number
of local governments have begun to pass laws demanding transparency and
accountability around the use of surveillance technologies and other
data-gathering technologies in their communities. Santa Clara County, California; Nashville, Tennessee; Seattle; Somerville, Massachusetts; Berkeley, California; and Davis, California have all adopted ordinances and policies similar to Oakland’s. More than a dozen other municipal, city, and state governments are considering similar bills, and more than 30 civil rights and civil liberties organizations recently announced support for a bill in California that would impose similar requirements on every local government in the state. This steady spread of what some have described as “privacy localism” has been encouraged through the work of the Community Control Over Police Surveillance coalition, led by the ACLU. That coalition has proposed a model bill
to establish a system by which localities can govern and oversee the
use of police surveillance technologies. The ACLU’s Northern California
affiliate also published a guide
for local governments that are considering whether and how to regulate
surveillance in their communities, which has helped carry the idea even
further. Over the
past five years, a growing number of local governments have begun to
pass laws demanding transparency and accountability around the use of
surveillance technologies and other data-gathering technologies in their communities. The laws that have passed or been proposed so far attempt to
ensure three key features: accountability, by requiring approval by the
local government prior to the acquisition or deployment of surveillance
tech; transparency, by requiring reporting about how that technology is
being used and how it is impacting the community; and meaningful
community participation in decision-making around surveillance tech, by
creating structures for public and expert input. Several localities, including Seattle,
have passed ordinances requiring that before law enforcement can
purchase a new surveillance technology, or continue using one previously
purchased, it must obtain approval from the city council. Such an
approval process can provide accountability to ensure that law
enforcement only acquires tools that are appropriate and cost-effective
for the community, and provide a check against the secret adoption or
improper use of these technologies. Although Seattle’s ordinance exempts
cameras, it otherwise applies to any technology
that observes or monitors individuals “in a manner that is reasonably
likely to raise concerns about civil liberties, freedom of speech or
association, racial equity or social justice.” Oakland’s ordinance,
on the other hand, offers a more technology-based definition of what it
regulates, including an illustrative list of covered technologies like
automatic license plate readers, stingrays, and algorithmic policing
tools. In addition to requiring approval, Seattle and Oakland—along with
Berkeley and Santa Clara County—also require the city council or county
board to approve surveillance use policies for each technology. These
policies govern features like the purpose of the technology, what uses
are permitted, what data it may be used to collect, and how those data
will be accessed, protected, and retained. In addition to requiring approval of surveillance tech, local
governments are also starting to demand transparency around its use.
Seattle, Berkeley, Oakland, and Santa Clara County all require law
enforcement to publish reports on when and how frequently surveillance
technologies were used, what data were collected, how data were shared,
compliance with data security standards, and the sufficiency of those
standards. Seattle, Berkeley, and Oakland also require reporting on
whether the deployment of surveillance technologies disparately impacted
particular communities such as communities of color, immigrant
communities, or minority religious communities—a crucial but often
overlooked component of oversight. Oakland has taken an additional step
to guard against violations of public trust and of use policies by
prohibiting nondisclosure agreements with surveillance-tech vendors and
incorporating robust whistleblower protections. Finally, outreach to experts and
opportunities for public input are also becoming common features of
local surveillance and privacy oversight. For example, in 2014, Oakland established a Privacy Advisory Commission—made
up of privacy and civil rights advocates, technology experts, and
community organizers—to develop privacy and data security policies for
its Domain Awareness Center, which conducted surveillance of the port.
The commission, which was made permanent in 2016,
provides the city with technical assistance and advice on best
practices to protect privacy during the use or purchase of surveillance
equipment and other technologies that will collect individuals’ data. It
also issues annual reports and recommendations concerning the use of,
and policies governing, those technologies; holds public hearings on
these issues; analyzes relevant federal, state, and local legislation;
and drafted the legislation that just passed. Under the new ordinance,
the commission will also receive and assess impact reports covering each
surveillance tool. These reports provide information
like descriptions of the surveillance tech used, their intended
purposes, where they are deployed, how privacy and data security risks
are mitigated, the tools’ efficacy, and whether there are alternative
methods for obtaining the same information. Even where no privacy commissions have been established and no
ordinances have been passed, municipalities have demonstrated the value
of offering opportunities for public input around surveillance tech.
For example, San Pablo and Alameda
City Councils in California canceled their planned expansions of
automatic license plate readers after holding public meetings in which
residents raised concerns. Similarly, New Orleans recently ended its relationship with predictive policing vendor Palantir. That came in response to public outrage just two weeks after the Verge broke the story that the its police department had been secretly using Palantir’s tech for six years without even the city council knowing. Despite these gains, the battle for accountability of police
tech is still being fought on fronts across the country. On May 9, the
Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Newark, New Jersey, installed 62 surveillance cameras
that livestream footage to a public online portal. Privacy and civil
rights advocates raised the alarm that allowing internet users to spy on
city streets and call in anonymous tips of “suspicious activity” to
Newark police will threaten residents’ privacy and exacerbate racial.
The trial phase of this initiative ends on June 24, so Newark residents
have just more than a month to reach out to their local officials and be
vocal about their opposition. Oakland may be the most recent city to
enact a surveillance-oversight law, but it surely won’t be the last.
Instead of investing in more unaccountable police tech, Newark and other
local governments should jump on the Community Control Over Police Surveillance bandwagon."
The entire post can be found at:
https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/oakland-california-and-other-cities-are-reining-in-out-of-control-police-technologies.html
The entire post can be found at:
https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/oakland-california-and-other-cities-are-reining-in-out-of-control-police-technologies.html
