Wired 02.12.2021 |IDEAS| “New York City’s Surveillance Battle Offers National Lessons” “A lack of police transparency highlights how citizens need to remain vigilant to take back control over their privacy” by Albert Fox Cahn and Justin Sherman
Image thedailybeast.com
Read the article for full detail.
Summary of Article
Recently New York implemented their Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act among other actions this new policy requires police transparency regarding surveillance tools and practices in place. Instead, the NYPD, responded by issuing reports devoid of “almost everything of value.” So, it initially was unclear what “vendors, surveillance tool models, or information-sharing practices” are being used. Regarding facial recognition a loose standard was cited that “says it can share data ‘pursuant to ongoing criminal investigations, civil litigation and disciplinary proceedings.” Ideally the idea of “Community Control of Police Surveillance (CCOPS) involves the public collaborating on how “communities are surveilled and whether or not “tools like facial recognition, drones and predictive policing are acceptable for their neighborhoods.”
Combining Artificial Intelligence-Algorithms with facial recognition software makes spying on “public squares” easier “from afar and in passing”. So, without a “physical search” or court-authorized warrant, drones, and automatic license-plate-readers can readily gather and use detailed information regarding an individual’s whereabouts and actions. Such information can be applied then in a range of applications from “’predicting’ crime to bail hearings to the sentencing bench.”
In some locales, like Oakland California, CCOPs groups have been able to push back on certain uses including predictive policing, biometric surveillance software and automatic license plate readers. San Francisco has taken action as well being the “first in the country” to ban government use of facial recognition. Recently, NYPD did publish a listing of “deployed surveillance technologies that includes audio-recording devices, cell-site simulators, license plate readers, facial and iris recognition.” Still, there’s doubt about the candidness and transparency in some of the NYPD reporting as established information contradicts reports about use of facial recognition and “ShotSpotter.” NYPD clarifies by noting that tools are used “as limited investigative” tools. For example “comparing a still image from surveillance video to a pool of lawfully possessed arrest photos.”
In NY, the public has until February 25 to respond to the released information. It is expected that dialog over the rest of the year will render a clearer picture of acceptable uses of these new crime-fighting tools.
Comments