Empowering local communities to weigh in on surveillance technologies
Police departments across the country operate surveillance programs using invasive technology such as facial recognition, stingrays, license plate readers, and X-ray vans, often without the knowledge or approval of the public. The Baltimore Police Department used a private contractor to conduct aerial surveillance over the city for eight months before city officials learned about it. Even then, the surveillance only came to the attention of the mayor’s office and city council because of news reports. What happened in Baltimore is not an anomaly. Surveillance programs carried out by local law enforcement agencies often go undisclosed to the public and to elected officials.
The people who are affected by broad surveillance programs, and their elected representatives, should have notice of these programs and the opportunity to review them before they go into effect. That’s why CDT joined 16 other organizations, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, to support Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS). The effort includes a set of principles to help cities develop legislation allowing them to take control of decisions about the funding, acquisition, and use of surveillance technologies. The following principles emphasize the critical role of local communities in the decision-making process and the need for transparency by law enforcement agencies:
Surveillance technologies should not be funded, acquired, or used without prior express city council approval.
Local communities should play a significant and meaningful role in determining if and how surveillance technologies are funded, acquired, or used.
The process for considering the use of surveillance technologies should be transparent and well-informed.
The use of surveillance technologies should not be approved generally; approvals, if provided, should be for specific technologies and specific, limited uses.
Surveillance technologies should not be funded, acquired, or used without addressing their potential impact on civil rights and civil liberties.
Surveillance technologies should not be funded, acquired, or used without considering their financial impact.
To verify legal compliance, surveillance technology use and deployment data should be reported publically on an annual basis.
City council approval should be required for all surveillance technologies and uses; there should be no “grandfathering” for technologies currently in use.
Local democracy can and should provide a crucial check on overly broad law enforcement surveillance. Affected communities should have a voice in decisions about how their communities are policed and surveilled — especially since the use of surveillance technologies disproportionately impacts low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. The goal of the CCOPS campaign is to empower communities to take control and reign in unchecked surveillance at the local level.
CDT-led Coalition Calls for Transparency for White House AI Framework
CDT and Americans for Responsible Innovation led a broad, bipartisan coalition of over two dozen civil society groups in calling on the White House to release its Framework for review of frontier AI models.
CDT Amicus Brief Calls on Fourth Circuit to Rein In Geofence Warrants
Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled in Chatrie v United States that the Fourth Amendment protected all cell phone location information, which CDT lauded as a landmark decision, but sent the case back down to the Fourth Circuit to assess the propriety of the geofence warrant at issue.
CDT and Partners Post Floor Alert Opposing CA SB 1013 Automated License Plate Readers Bill
The best way to ensure that Automated License Plate Readers are not abused is to limit the retention of stored data and to keep loopholes to lawful process closed. CA SB 1013 is a step in the wrong direction, and we urge the California legislature to reject this approach.
British Public Oppose Secret Surveillance Powers and Want Strong Protections for Encrypted Communications
CDT released nationally representative polling data revealing that a the British public are broadly concerned about the security, privacy, and free speech consequences of allowing law enforcement to access encrypted communications.
