Tag: surveillance

Categories
News ordinances

How We Blocked Flock In Cambridge

Cambridge and Somerville and Boston, as a result of prior work by Digital Fourth, ACLU of MA and others, have “surveillance oversight ordinances” that put procedural hurdles in the way of police adoption of surveillance technologies.

Under these ordinances, for something like Flock Safety, city agencies are legally obliged to disclose to City Council that they are intending to deploy any surveillance technology. They must explain what the technology is; what will happen to the data from it (collection, retention, sharing, destruction); and whether they believe it will have a differential impact on any group within the City. That report must be presented at a public hearing, and the City Council is empowered to say yes or no to the technology.

In the context of this ordinance in Cambridge, unfortunately, a lot depends on who chairs the Public Safety Committee, and how close they are to the cops. We made very little headway in blocking surveillance technologies from January 2023 through to the summer of 2024, because the chair of Public Safety, Paul Toner, was the most powerful Councilor and was very tight with the cops. He waved through anything they asked for. He was very reluctant to schedule separate public hearings for new technologies. In February 2025, therefore, he made sure that Flock would be approved, and the three City Councilors with genuine concerns (including DSA-endorsed Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler), weren’t able to prevail. We brought six people to give public testimony against it.

At the same time, we were fighting the City on a proposal to allow Cambridge PD to deploy drones. We worked closely with ACLU of MA, and Councilors were worried enough that Toner had to schedule a hearing. At the hearing, we focused on the fact that Cambridge PD hadn’t bothered to develop or disclose a policy on drone use, so whatever they were saying about how drones would or would not be used wasn’t binding. We recommended that Cambridge PD go and draft a policy, consult with us and with ACLU, and bring the policy back to City Council, whereupon City Council would consider whether the proposal to deploy drones was reasonable. Remarkably, City Council agreed, against Toner’s objections. It was a sign of things to come. Over a year later, Cambridge PD has not moved forward with that proposal.

In May through to June, things began to shift regarding Flock. Our national folks monitor surveillance, privacy and Fourth Amendment news very closely. The news broke that Flock had helped a Texas cop chase down a woman suspected of having an abortion. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, responding to that news, filed a policy order for reconsideration of the Flock deployment, backed up by Nolan and Siddiqui. Because we were monitoring the agendas for City meetings in general, we saw that the Pole and Conduit Commission was proposing to approve the actual installation of Flock equipment. We saw an opening, and mobilized to get the Pole and Conduit Commission to delay approval of actual installation till after City Council had considered Sobrinho-Wheeler’s policy order.

Flock had to disclose to that Commission the exact locations where they planned to put in the cameras. That gave our advocacy lots of ammunition. Bad news kept flooding in for Flock Safety, and we made sure City Councilors, the City Manager and the Pole and Conduit Commission members had that information. Then, on July 8, a scandal that had been circulating around City Hall for around a year broke, and Paul Toner announced his future resignation, and was stripped of his committee chairmanships. Toner was replaced as chair of Public Safety by his vice-Chair Angie Wilson. She scheduled consideration of Sobrinho-Wheeler’s policy order for September. We organized speakers for that session. Toner still strenuously objected to revoking Flock’s contract, so it was agreed to suspend it, pending a review by the City Manager. We submitted for this hearing a thorough analysis of where the cameras were to be deployed, because Flock had had to disclose to the Pole and Conduit Commission exactly where they were planning to put them up; we made the argument that the ALPR cameras were heavily focused on East Cambridge in a way that would deeply and differentially affect the residents of public housing complexes in that area.

The review returned to the Council on December 9, and Wilson invited Gideon Epstein of ACLU of MA and Alex Marthews of Digital Fourth to provide expert testimony, like we had done in 2018-21 under Toner’s predecessor. Then, unexpectedly, at the start of the meeting, Cambridge PD and the City Manager’s office recommended revocation of the Flock contract. They had just found out that morning that Flock Safety was in breach of the contract terms. The City had suspended the contract and made very clear that no equipment was to be installed, but a Flock technician had gone ahead and reinstalled two cameras anyway. What with that, and our and ACLU’s expert testimony, and nine out of ten public testimonies being thoroughly opposed to Flock, the writing was finally on the wall. Public Safety Committee recommended revocation, and given the City Manager’s and the police’s posture, it was a given that the full Council would wave through the revocation.

The City Council still preserved, and the City Manager is even now trying to preserve, the underlying City approval for the use of ALPR in general, but now without a specific vendor in mind, and therefore without any specifics on where it would deploy or what the policies would be. The onus is now on the City/Cambridge PD to identify an ALPR vendor that won’t pose significant privacy issues.

Categories
Mission News privacy shotspotter

End Cambridge’s Use of ShotSpotter Once and for All

[This alert is from The Black Response; Digital Fourth is a member of “Stop ShotSpotter Camberville,” a coalition of community groups opposed to this surveillance technology.]

“On Monday, May 11, 2026, at 5:30 p.m., the Cambridge City Council is scheduled to vote on a policy order to end the City’s use of ShotSpotter microphones and remove the devices from Cambridge neighborhoods.

ShotSpotter is a network of microphones installed across the Port and Riverside (Coast) neighborhoods (see ShotSpotter dashboard). The system is marketed as a technology that detects loud sounds and alerts police to possible gunfire.

However, during the April 29 Public Safety Committee hearing (video not yet available), it became clear to council members and attendees that ShotSpotter is continuously listening. The Cambridge Police Department explained that when ShotSpotter detects a gunshot, the company provides them with an audio clip containing one second before and one second after the sound. This raised significant concerns because the existence of audio from before the alleged gunshot indicates that the system is actively listening at all times. [Not only that, but ShotSpotter records continuously over a 48-hour period; Cambridge PD acknowledged that that was so, and that recordings from within that timeframe were “useful for evidence.” – Digital Fourth]

Boston University Professor Spencer Piston emphasized the distinction between continuous recording and the alert that the police eventually receive, noting that while ShotSpotter may not permanently store all audio, the technology still relies on constant monitoring in order to generate alerts. This raises serious concerns.

Additional concerns were raised about the structure and oversight of the program in Cambridge. The current ShotSpotter system is funded through a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant, the same federal department that oversees ICE. Harvard Law School Professor Mason Kortz testified that the City of Cambridge is not itself a party to the current ShotSpotter contract operating in the city. As a result, city officials have reportedly faced difficulties obtaining and reviewing the contract. Since we are not party to the contract, residents lack clear protections regarding how data may be accessed, shared, or used.

The ACLU of Massachusetts, represented by lawyer Gideon Epstein, explained why ShotSpotter appears inconsistent with the standards established under Cambridge’s surveillance technology ordinance, a framework the ACLU helped develop.

Taken together, these concerns paint a troubling picture. Cambridge’s use of ShotSpotter may create risks that sensitive surveillance data could be accessed by federal agencies, including ICE, potentially undermining Cambridge’s commitments as a sanctuary city and Welcoming Community.

Four of the five members of the Cambridge Public Safety Committee, Councillors Al Zubi, McGovern, Nolan, and Sobrinho-Wheeler, have sponsored and submitted a policy order for the Monday, May 11, 2026 City Council meeting to remove ShotSpotter from Cambridge. The ShotSpotter policy order is the second item on the agenda: POR 2026-98.

We encourage community members to sign up for public comment and send letters in support of the policy order and to attend the meeting if possible. Please join us in supporting this important step toward ending Cambridge’s use of ShotSpotter.

Categories
cameras Mission News Police body-worn cameras

Lack of Police Oversight Board Delays Body-Worn Camera Adoption in Somerville

[Narrative reposted by permission of Derrick Rice]

On Friday April 24th, a working group of Somerville residents concerned about body-worn cameras [“BWCs”] delivered this letter to City Council, co-signed by 22 community leaders and organizations. The letter outlines the gaps between widely recognized BWC policy requirements and the City of Somerville’s proposed BWC Surveillance Technology Impact Report (“STIR”), which functions as the legally binding use policy). It also emphasizes the importance of developing a BWC use policy with public engagement and defining the policy prior to collective bargaining.

On Tuesday April 28th, we were sponsored by Councilor Scott to speak at City Council’s Legislative Matters Committee meeting. Derrick Rice presented, summarizing some of the policy concerns and emphasizing the procedural concerns. The Legislative Matters Committee then deliberated the BWC STIR. You can watch the video here (presentation @ 49m38s, deliberation @ 1h05m to 1h37m). 

Derrick: “From what we in the public are able to see, there is a real cause for concern in this moment. … We have six years of task forces studies in this council’s past deliberations have converged on a clear answer to the question of how body-worn cameras should be governed if adopted, yet we don’t see elements of that adequately represented in the STIR presented by the city. The city’s own studies and past commitments have led us to expect community transparency and input on this policy, yet we’re being caught off guard by the mayor’s request for funding and STIR approval prior to any public engagement. I am one of many people appealing to you to use your authority over the STIR to help ensure we meet these held standards of transparent policy and public engagement.”

Throughout deliberation, all councilors communicated some degree of apprehension with the BWC STIR. Ultimately, they agreed to hold the item in committee, effectively declining to seriously consider approval at this time. (Want to know what they said? See the addendum below!)

What’s Next

The City Council’s Legislative Matters Committee has opposed the BWC STIR for now, but Mayor Wilson’s administration could push for its approval at any time. We will be watching carefully to see if and how the City responds to our letter or changes its process with regard to collective bargaining negotiations and BWC policy.

In the interim, community members have circulated a variety of content regarding the consideration of Body Worn Cameras:

Somerville residents can sign up for future updates by filling out this form.

With neighborly love,

Derrick Rice (he/him)

e: local.derrick@rice.io

Want to be more involved? Have something to add? Spot an error? Please get in touch!

Addendum: What They Said

Here’s what the councilors on Legislative Matters had to say on April 28th: 

Councilor Mbah: “I’m a proponent of body-worn cameras, but now the more I hear about this conversation I just also want to make sure that those loopholes that continue to surface have to be closed. We have to do it right. So, you’ve really articulated a lot of stuff that is also — I mean, it almost feels like common sense. If anybody wants public safety, they should be able to accept those things. They should be able to accept that this is all about accountability”

Councilor Strezo: “I would like to have the administration respond about the concept — because there is a good point that is brought up — about the police oversight board. … The administration had to have seen this coming with the body-worn cameras talk. All the research that I’ve seen has mentioned that this is an important element to implementation of the body-worn cameras. We need that oversight board.”

Councilor Ewen-Campen: “This is different from every other impact report we’ve done because it’s the subject of collective bargaining. …  this council has an executive session — had conversations about this topic — but the public hasn’t seen any of that, right? …  I’m concerned about the kind of putting the cart before the horse; that it’s not come as a surprise to anyone that the use policy is really, really important to me, to my colleagues on the council, to the public, and to not be able to have a detailed conversation about it before we’re asked to approve it in public is really, really hard”, adding “given the budget conversations we’re having this year, I’m extremely apprehensive about that.”

Councilor Davis: “Aside from all of the sort of the tactical issues that are raised with trying to review a document that we can’t change that relates to some discussion that may be happening that we can’t really materially impact. — I guess I will repeat [Councilor Ewen-Campen] a little bit. — This is a backwards way of doing it.”

Councilor Scott: “As I look at the impact report, I am certainly in agreement that there are a few glaring omissions here. …  one thing I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is no pathway for this to be a beneficial technology implementation without meeting at least these baseline requirements that have been presented, both in the Good Counselors 2022 memo and the legion of sources that was cited here, which I do want to call out again, included the cop staffing study that the city paid for in 2022 that was done by an outside consultant that included a chief of police”, later adding “I firmly believe that we must have a civilian oversight body in order for this to be of any positive effect.”

Councilor Scott went on to clarify with Legislative Liaison Raddassi (representing the administration), that the city’s ongoing negotiations with the police unions will constrain what can or cannot be in the BWC policy. These are discussions that we — the public — have no transparency into, despite the clear impact it has on all of us.

Legislative Liaison Raddassi: “The collective bargaining agreement will set the limits of what can be included in a surveillance use policy. …Those conversations have been happening in executive session with this council around some of the policy considerations that councillors have raised. And so again, this STIR is based on the current body-worn camera policy because it’s basically the only thing we can debate about in public at the moment.”

Councilor Scott: “I think I heard, I just want to make sure I repeat accurately what you said, that the outcome of collective bargaining will serve as a top-end constraint over what could be pursued in terms of access and policies in that use policy.”

Legislative Liaison Raddassi: “Correct.”

Councilor Scott: “Okay. Well, from my standpoint, that’s just entirely backwards of where we should be doing this as a city. The city council has a very specific role in this process. … I am inclined not to support this in its current stance. I would encourage the city to go back and rethink their approach to this.”

Categories
cameras Mission News

Let’s Stop Cambridge From Getting Flocked Up

Recently, Cambridge residents have been receiving communications in their mailboxes that new “Flock Safety” cameras are being installed in their neighborhoods. 

Flock Safety (“Protect Your Community With 24/7 Coverage That Never Sleeps!”) is a surveillance company which produces and installs, among other products, cameras with automatic license plate reader (ALPR) capabilities. Flock is marketed as an all-encompassing “privacy solution […] boosting efficiency and reducing crime” for municipalities.

There are, however, serious privacy concerns with Flock’s systems. Despite months of denying contracts with federal agencies, Flock recently revealed that it has a contract with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and shares ALPR data without the consent of local officials. This week, it was also revealed that they had been sharing data with ICE, Homeland Security Investigations, the Secret Service and, for good measure, NCIS. Due to the company sharing data in violation of Illinois law, the state of Illinois recently terminated their contracts with Flock. After Evanston, IL, ordered Flock to shut down its use of ALPR cameras in the city, Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, prompting Evanston to send a cease-and-desist letter. This week, Eugene, OR, also paused its Flock deployment as a result of privacy concerns.

As other states and municipalities reckon with Flock’s dishonest data sharing policies, Cambridge should take a long look at their own contract. This is the state of play in Greater Boston for now, as far as we know. The City of Boston launched a pilot contract with Flock in 2024, but has not yet, to our knowledge, proceeded to a full rollout. Flock cameras are appearing in Brookline and on the Watertown-Waltham line. Cambridge City Council, at the urging of Cambridge PD and embattled Councilor Paul Toner, approved Flock Safety for use in February 2025, and Flock opened an office in Boston in August 2025. Now, resistance is mounting in the Greater Boston Area due to concerns about data sharing, and Cambridge residents are being confronted with the implications of Flock in their own neighborhoods. 

So far, 16 Flock ALPR camera locations have been proposed in Cambridge (the blue pins):

The densest deployment is planned for East Cambridge, near the public housing at Newtowne Court, Washington Elms and Roosevelt Towers, as well as Kendall Square and MIT. The other proposed locations are on major thoroughfares into and out of Cambridge, including nearly all routes of travel between Cambridge and Boston. This raises the concern that it will become very difficult for local residents to move about without having their license plate information, and thereby in many cases their patterns of life, captured. 

Depending on the city’s contract with Flock relating to data retention, these residents’ patterns of movement may be visible to both the Cambridge Police Department and other agencies using Flock’s database. This is particularly concerning because Flock has developed an AI tool which reports suspicious vehicle movement patterns to local law enforcement. This is to say, artificial intelligence may have a hand in not only assisting police with searching networks for particular crimes or “hits,” but in deciding what is suspicious in the first place and flagging potentially innocent residents based on algorithmically determined criteria. Citizens should not be subject to the whims of an algorithm determined by a private company whose policies are not transparent or subject to the same rigorous checks that a government administration would be. Flock has given Cambridge no reason to trust in the idea that their algorithms are effective and unbiased, and has in fact provided more reason to suspect the contrary. 

There’s a further issue. The City of Cambridge Surveillance Use Policy directs the City to pay attention to whether any communities are being “disproportionately impacted” by the deployment of any surveillance technology, especially “low-income communities, communities of color, or any community that is marginalized in the City.” Based on the proposed camera locations, it’s obvious that the movement patterns of residents of Strawberry Hill and West Cambridge traveling, for instance, to Harvard Square, would not be as regularly captured as would the movements of East Cambridge residents. The City has not considered whether there are disproportionate impacts of this kind; the Council, in approving it, relied simply on a declaration by Cambridge PD that there weren’t any.

A key privacy practice is data minimization: Limiting data collection to the minimum required, and not retaining data for longer than it is required. Flock’s website discloses that the local law enforcement agencies that contract with them may store data themselves, but Flock itself stores all license plate data for 30 days. As a result, in accordance with their data sharing record, Flock data may be visible for a significant window to out-of-state law enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), CBP, the Department of Homeland Security, or other federal agencies, either through the pilot data-sharing scheme Flock now claims to have suspended, or through requests by federal agencies to local and state law enforcement who themselves have Flock contracts. 

Federal agencies may also have the opportunity to access Flock ALPR data through the Boston Regional Intelligence Center and through informal favors granted by local members of the Joint Terrorism Task force, which has recently been directed by Trump in a presidential memorandum to conduct investigations of groups which espouse “anti-fascist,” “anti-capitalist,” “anti-American” or “anti-Christian” viewpoints. The actions of the current federal administration make it even more urgent to protect the sensitive data of vulnerable Cambridge residents, including immigrants, politically active people, and those who express views that might be classified under these dangerously loose categories. Anything that requires the use of a car in certain areas of Cambridge has the possibility of being tracked. Whether residents choose to exercise their free speech by attending a protest, accessing reproductive care, or simply moving about, Flock’s license plate readers may be storing that data, exposing it to federal search, and potentially using it to draw conclusions about the vehicle driver’s future potential to commit crimes. For example, many vehicle going into and out of Cambridge Health Alliance’s Windsor Street Care Center, which offers reproductive healthcare services, would be in Flock’s databases.

Data stored is always data that may be used. Any data stored with Flock is not safe. Even if the City of Cambridge specifies that they do not want the ALPR data that they store to be accessed by federal law enforcement, there is no guarantee that Flock will successfully prohibit access by federal law enforcement to their own systems directly in the absence of the consent of the city of Cambridge, especially considering their recent record of lying to cities about their data sharing practices. What’s more, federal agencies can always subpoena Flock. 

We are currently advocating for Cambridge to terminate its arrangement with Flock, along with many other Cambridge residents, local advocacy groups, and MIT professors. As is all too common when it comes to local surveillance technology deployments, notifications on the proposed Flock camera deployments have been relatively under the radar, but progress has been made in the direction of an examination of Flock’s data sharing policies. Recently, all Cambridge city council members voted in favor of taking a second look at the deal with Flock that they approved in February, but it was specified that this review was not expected to result in abandoning the contract altogether.

During this meeting, Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler called attention to the funding source for the Flock cameras being deployed in Cambridge. They would be paid for largely by the federal Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant, meaning that Cambridge would technically only be leasing them. This system of funding would place very little control over Flock’s data storage systems in the hands of the Cambridge city council, and potentially open the door to more federal abuses of the type already being perpetrated by Flock in other states. The unexpected, and probably short-term termination of UASI funds by the Trump administration is not expected to change the City’s decision.

Approval of the specific locations for the cameras was included in an agenda for a recent Pole and Conduit committee meeting, but was later removed. The next committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 23, 2025, but it is unclear whether or not Flock will be discussed. 

As the members of the Cambridge City Council and the committee make time for community feedback and consider recent developments with Flock, Cambridge residents have a vital opportunity to make their opinions heard. Cambridge residents should take advantage of their right to free speech by reaching out to their city council members on this topic, all of whom are up for re-election. As informed and engaged members of the community, Cambridge residents should not be willing to accept the creeping spread of civil rights violations associated with the surveillance state.

Note: This article was written with assistance from Digital Fourth volunteers Alex M., Alex T. and Julie B.

Categories
Mission News

Trump Admin Directs Boston’s JTTF To Investigate “Antifa” Protests

On September 25, 2025, the President issued an order, NSPM-7, directing the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to coordinate a strategy to disrupt “antifa” organizations and nonprofits that advocate for “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”  ACLU just released a useful analysis of it, here.

Just in case any readers mistakenly thought that this new strategy was aimed only at spying on those planning or committing acts of violence, the President supplemented his order with a September 26 article, Democrats’ Unhinged Crusade Against ICE Fuels Bloodshed, containing a list of Democratic elected officials who had suggested publicly that his administration’s acts were authoritarian, fascist, Nazi, or Gestapo-like, and describing such suggestions as a “battle cry for violence.” That same day, DHS published a memo, DHS Is Fighting Back Against Antifa Violence, that included as an example of such violence, Democratic members of Congress attempting to exercise their legal right to conduct oversight visits of ICE facilities. On October 1, DHS and FBI circulated a joint intelligence bulletin to all law enforcement agencies in the country, Domestic Violent Extremists Pose Increased Threat of Violence to ICE Facilities and Personnel, arguing that previous attacks “took advantage of First Amendment-protected activity,” and therefore making a case for pro-active monitoring of protests against ICE. In advance of Saturday’s expected nationwide “No Kings” rally against the administration, House Speaker Mike Johnson has described it as a “hate-America” rally that would draw “the pro-Hamas wing” and “the antifa people.”

We should not deceive ourselves here. In the eyes of this administration, all Democrats, and all Republicans who dare to cross or even criticize the President, are now “antifa” — no matter how lawful, peaceful or reasonable their opposition is. This is a coordinated administration effort to depict all opposition to the administration as an appropriate target for DHS and FBI surveillance, spanning the whole range from mere verbal criticism through to actual, though thankfully rare, acts of violence. It won’t matter to Patel’s FBI or Noem’s DHS how much you support the police; if you cross this administration, it won’t matter even if you are the police.

This is no longer about “supporting public safety” by giving law enforcement every possible tool. This is about whether the tools previously given to law enforcement will be illegally used to criminalize political opposition. And the administration might as well right now be holding up a gigantic neon sign, saying, “We Plan To Criminalize Political Opposition.” Those going to the No Kings protest this weekend should plan accordingly.

And for those who think that, while the Trump administration might feel this way, Boston’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and Boston PD would never, here’s the actual front cover of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association’s newsletter “Pax Centurion” from their now memory-holed fall 2018 issue, which contained a vile and lengthy poem identifying as “antifa” undocumented immigrants, socialists, liberals, students, and anybody who took a knee to protest police violence:

Want to do something about surveillance?

  • MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS: Call the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security at the Legislature at (617) 722-2020, ask to speak to House Chair Rep. Daniel Cahill, and say that you’d like his committee to vote out favorably H. 2687, “An Act relative to protecting Massachusetts residents against federal government surveillance.”
  • BOSTON RESIDENTS: Call the Police Commissioner’s office at (617) 343-4500, tell them that you oppose the deployment of surveillance technologies against people organizing or attending protests, and ask what Boston PD’s response is to these federal instructions to use counter-terrorism powers against Boston residents for expressing First Amendment-protected speech.
  • CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS: Call the office of City Manager Yi-An Huang on (617) 349-4300, and tell him that in light of what the Trump administration is doing, you oppose allowing Cambridge PD to fly drones over protests, deploy Flock Safety security cameras that DHS can access, and participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
  • OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS: Email your questions and concerns here.
Categories
cameras facial recognition Mission News

Don’t Ban Masks At Protests

Most Boston ICE protesters know to mask up. The rest, we blur out for their safety.

It’s hearings season at the State House, so this is when we put together testimony on bills that particularly relate to privacy, surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. But first, a little history on the issue of face masks and privacy.

Before wearing a surgical mask became politicized as “a thing woke liberals do,” the Boston police, in fall 2019, tried to criminalize the wearing of masks in public without criminal intent. We objected, and testified in masks, because wearing a mask shouldn’t give discretion to police to launch in and arrest you. For some reason, though, by the spring of 2020 nobody was interested in banning mask-wearing.

In 2023-25, as the pandemic receded, and in response to the Gaza ceasefire protests, elected officials also began dusting off mask bans as a way to signal that they, too, found such protests unacceptable. Most notably, Gov. Hochul of New York, citing anti-semitism concerns tried hard to revive a ban (Our national coalition joined NYCLU in opposing it). Police would love these bans to pass, because it’s a lot easier to identify people if they’re not wearing masks, whether you use facial recognition software or not.

Most recently, the Trump administration is trying to require both universities and local governments to hand over drone and camera data of protests, presumably so that the administration can then use facial recognition software to identify unmasked people engaging in disfavored activities as well as crimes. In the Los Angeles area this week, the federal government has directly intervened to conduct aerial surveillance of protests using drones, and connectedly, President Trump posted on June 5 on Truth Social, “From now on, MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests. What do these people have to hide, and why???”

Inappropriate aerial surveillance of protesters may escalate still further, into violence. Regarding this coming weekend’s military parade in DC, the President has threatened any protesters with “heavy force.” Abroad, U. S. military drone technology has already been used in attacks on weddings, funerals and hospitals. Even domestically, lethal extrajudicial attacks on members of disfavored groups and people accused of violence are not unknown. The guardrails intended to protect us at home from our own government are getting weaker. The new facial recognition and AI-based targeting capabilities of military technology mean that today’s protesters face risks of identification that previous generations of protesters did not. The First Amendment, of course, ought to restrain the President from escalating further; but he already has a track record of only refraining from violating the law, where he faces a realistic chance of personal legal or financial consequences. Who among us can be fully confident that he will rein himself in?

Our own organization has always been explicitly peaceful and law-abiding, but even peaceful people have an interest in being able to protest or just to move around in public, without having their facial features fed into a federal facial recognition algorithm for them to be investigated as an opponent or dissenter and “doxxed”, “swatted”, harassed or prosecuted. Both the Supreme Court and Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court have now recognized that people have a privacy interest in the pattern of their movements in public. So we have good grounds for saying that masks are an important tool for the privacy-conscious.

To sum up, people can have perfectly valid reasons for masking, even if they have no health conditions that a mask would help with. Because of the risks to people’s privacy alone, we should not in any municipality in Massachusetts, at any point, be requiring people to unmask in public. We strongly support a favorable report for S. 1427‘s ban on municipal or board of health measures that prohibit “the wearing of face coverings for protective or medical use in any indoor or outdoor space open to the public.”

Our full testimony to the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government is here:

https://warrantless.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/D4-Municipalities-testimony-on-masking-2025-06-12.pdf

Categories
Mission News ordinances shotspotter

Cambridge Debates “ShotSpotter” Audio Monitoring

Banner saying "ShotSpotter Surveillance: Understand It's Not Safety!!

The following is a letter from Stephanie Guirand of The Black Response, a community group of current and former public housing residents concerned with racial justice, police abolition, and surveillance technologies. TBR has developed some good data visualizations of Cambridge’s ShotSpotter deployment here.

Dear Cambridge City Councilors,

I am writing on behalf of The Black Response and the Stop ShotSpotter Coalition – Camberville to thank you for convening a thoughtful and deeply informative Public Safety Committee hearing on ShotSpotter on Monday. We are especially appreciative of Councilor Ayesha Wilson for her skillful facilitation and for managing a logistically complex session with care and focus. We also thank Councilors McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, and Zusy for their presence and engagement, as well as Police Commissioner Elow and her colleagues for taking this issue seriously and participating in good faith.

We can all agree that we are in a fight to preserve democracy nationally. At Monday’s hearing, we saw democracy in action. The public, councilors, CPD, researchers, legal experts, and community organizations engaged in meaningful dialogue on a highly consequential issue, ShotSpotter. While we appreciate the opportunity to be heard, several critical concerns raised during the hearing merit follow-up.

ShotSpotter is Always-On and Recording, and Other Privacy Concerns

One of the clearest takeaways from the expert testimony, especially from Professors Spencer Piston and Robert Maher, is that ShotSpotter is a network of microphones that are always on. Regardless of whether audio is stored for 24 or 72 hours, the reality is that these microphones are continuously listening and recording. Whether or not street-level conversation triggers a sensor to send local law enforcement doesn’t matter, the microphones are always listening. Professor Maher affirmed, and Professor Piston supported with legal precedent, that these microphones are capable of picking up and transmitting street-level conversations.

This raises a fundamental difference from personal recording devices (e.g., Smartphones, Alexa), which people knowingly use and control in everyday life. The vast majority of Cambridge residents are unaware of the ShotSpotter microphones. They do not know that they may be recorded while speaking outside or near these microphones. That lack of informed consent raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns.

The Overstated Utility of ShotSpotter for Law Enforcement

During the hearing, we repeatedly heard from councilors, the police, SoundThinking representatives, and the District Attorney that ShotSpotter is “just one tool among many” used to address gun crime in the city. Police Commissioner Elow opened her remarks by assuring the public that “no one has been arrested solely on the basis of ShotSpotter” (or something to that effect). However, this reassurance raises important questions about the actual utility of the ShotSpotter microphones.

Interpretations of current research (see Carr et al) suggest the presence of ShotSpotter may actually discourage members of the public from calling 911, undermining one of the most direct and community-driven tools for emergency response and investigation.

The data presented by the Cambridge Police Department did not demonstrate a clear or urgent need for ShotSpotter’s microphone technology. Despite the privacy concerns it raises, the numbers failed to show a meaningful impact on reducing gun violence or increasing arrest or conviction rates for gun-related offenses.

Additionally, attorney Connie Tran provided important clarification during the hearing. She debunked a misleading description of a case in which she represented a client who was falsely accused, and ultimately cleared, of gun charges that had originated from a ShotSpotter alert. Tran also noted that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has raised concerns about the scientific reliability of ShotSpotter and is now requiring courts to evaluate the soundness of ShotSpotter in relevant cases.

If ShotSpotter does not meaningfully reduce gun violence, does not lead to arrests or convictions, and is increasingly under judicial scrutiny for its lack of scientific reliability, we are left wondering: What is its true utility in Cambridge?

Potential Infringement on Civil Liberties of Cambridge Residents

One of the most striking themes to emerge during the hearing, and repeated during public comment, was the tension between the public’s right to privacy and the City’s use of ShotSpotter. At its core, this is more than a debate about a surveillance tool. It is a question of what we value as a community. Should residents be asked to give up their right to privacy in exchange for a law enforcement tool that has demonstrated limited effectiveness?

As experts explained during the hearing, ShotSpotter relies on microphones that are always on and continuously listening. While SoundThinking claims that recordings are only retained for 24 hours (previously 72 hours), the fact remains that these devices are always active in public spaces. Again, most people do not realize that their conversations on the street could be recorded without their knowledge or consent.

The benefits presented by law enforcement were modest at best. In eleven years, ShotSpotter was credited with saving one life in Cambridge. It was unclear whether that incident was also reported through a 911 call. In another instance, there was a confirmed gun incident without a 911 report. It is still not clear if these are two separate cases or the same one. Even if they are different, the impact of ShotSpotter over a decade appears limited.

Despite this, law enforcement and the District Attorney argued that ShotSpotter is a valuable tool beyond its intended function, to identify audio of gun incidents and alert law enforcement to the location of the gun incident. They described instances in which alerts led to broader investigations. For example, in a case discussed at the hearing, a ShotSpotter alert ultimately resulted in a conviction for a restraining order violation, but the person was acquitted of all gun-related charges. This was attorney Connie Tran’s case. While public safety is of course important, using ShotSpotter to extend the reach of investigations raises serious concerns. This pattern suggests that the tool is being used in ways not originally intended, scientifically investigated, or publicly debated.

Professor Spencer Piston raised a similar issue when discussing a class-action lawsuit in Chicago (William v City of Chicago). In that case, plaintiffs argue that ShotSpotter has led to increased policing, stop and frisk, in Black and Brown neighborhoods. They claim that the technology results in over-surveillance and unnecessary police encounters, often unrelated to gun violence. This pattern of overreach is at the heart of their legal challenge.

If local authorities are already stretching the use of ShotSpotter, there is reason to question whether the company itself, or its funders, might also be doing so. In this case, ShotSpotter is funded not by the City of Cambridge, but by the Department of Homeland Security. That funding relationship, between SoundThinking and the Department of Homeland Security, calls into question who truly controls the ShotSpotter technology (and the data it produces) in Cambridge. If the federal government is the real client, what assurances does the City of Cambridge have about how the data is being used or shared?

Without a clear and publicly available contract, it is difficult to verify what protections exist. The City of Cambridge cannot simply rely on verbal assurances from the SoundThinking salesman, or as a Cambridge police officer referred to him, “their colleague.” As attorney Connie Tran points out, the SoundThinking representative during the trial was under oath, and it was there that more information about the function of ShotSpotter was revealed. There must be enforceable limits, transparency, and oversight. The presence of always-on microphones in public spaces, especially without widespread awareness or consent, raises fundamental questions about civil liberties. If the benefits are so limited, is the trade-off worth it?

Cambridge must ask whether this is a reasonable and responsible use of public space and public trust to continue to use ShotSpotter microphones. If not, then it is time to reconsider whether ShotSpotter belongs in our city at all.

Lack of Contract Oversight

We were deeply alarmed to learn during the hearing that the City Solicitor has not yet seen or reviewed the contract that governs the relationship between the City of Cambridge and SoundThinking. The City has a duty to ensure that its agreements, particularly those involving surveillance technologies, are transparent, legally sound, and in compliance with Cambridge’s Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

We strongly urge the Council to:

  • Immediately obtain the full contract with SoundThinking,
  • Make the document publicly accessible, and
  • Schedule a follow-up hearing focused specifically on the contract and its legal implications.

Federal Influence and Sanctuary City Values

Although SoundThinking’s sales representative, Alfred Lewers, claimed that Cambridge data is only shared with the City of Cambridge, the fact that the Department of Homeland Security funds the ShotSpotter system casts serious doubt on that assurance, especially given SoundThinking’s unrestricted ability to share data as established in their contracts (see available contract with Boston). It appears that DHS, not the City, is the true client. We understand this because the City does not appear to even have the contract between the City and SoundThinking. This suggests that SoundThinking has no obligation to uphold Cambridge’s Sanctuary City protections, and the public has no way of verifying who else may access these recordings or how the data is ultimately used.

This raises an important question: if, under the current federal administration, our Sanctuary City status limits federal funding for social programs, why is DHS funding a surveillance system in our city and why is the City of Cambridge working to set it up for them? What does that say about the federal government’s priorities—and about our own?

Lack of Transparency on Device Locations

SoundThinking’s explanation for why device locations are withheld from the public was underwhelming at best. Fortunately, our coalition obtained a leaked list of ShotSpotter microphone locations, which we have since verified by physically visiting the sites. These microphones are disproportionately located on top of public buildings, including public housing and section 8 buildings, confirming that marginalized communities are bearing the brunt of this audio surveillance (see our map).

At the hearing, SoundThinking introduced a paid “dashboard” service that visualizes ShotSpotter data. We see no justification for Cambridge to spend any taxpayer dollars on this, especially when a free and equally effective alternative already exists. In preparation for the hearing, The Black Response developed a publicly accessible dashboard using data from Cambridge’s Bridgestats reports. We offer our dashboard to the city for free (The Black Response’s ShotSpotter data dashboard). If the city does not trust our dashboard, why not contract out this work to other local community organizations or universities in the City?

Incomplete Participation and Need for Follow-Up

Due to time constraints, two of our expert panelists, Jonathan Manes from the MacArthur Justice Center and Abdul Nasser Rad, a quantitative researcher from Campaign Zero, were not able to share their insights during the hearing. In addition, at least a dozen residents who signed up for public comment were not called upon.

We believe a follow-up session is necessary to allow for these important voices to be heard and for unanswered questions to be addressed. We would be more than willing to help coordinate that effort in partnership with the City.

A Call for a Temporary Freeze

We also want to echo the concern raised by Councilor Zusy: perhaps it is time to consider a (temporary) freeze on the use of ShotSpotter in Cambridge. This would be a prudent and responsible step while the City investigates the legal, ethical, and operational implications of ShotSpotter microphones. In an era where federal law enforcement agencies have demonstrated increasing disregard for legal norms and human rights, we cannot afford to take these risks lightly, especially in communities that are already vulnerable.

Thank you again for your leadership and for demonstrating what democratic governance should look like: accessible, informed, transparent, and responsive. We look forward to continuing this vital conversation and working with the City to ensure public safety strategies are both effective and equitable.

In community,

Stephanie Guirand
The Black Response
On behalf of the Stop ShotSpotter Coalition – Camberville

Categories
Uncategorized

It’s A Whole New World

Every two years, the Massachusetts legislature starts a fresh session. Here, we review bills on the top ten topics relating to surveillance, privacy and the Fourth Amendment, that have been introduced in the new session.

Please contact your legislators via https://malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator, to express your support, and to ask for theirs. Our thanks to Julie Bernstein for conducting the legislative research for this article.

1. Civil Asset Forfeitures: HD1780 / SD2388, HD1328
2. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REFORM: SD1970
3. Oversight of Fusion Centers: HD2088
4. Commercial Data Privacy Protection: SD745
5. Restricting Law Enforcement Use Of Facial Recognition: HD2304 / SD750
6. Restricting Automated License Plate Recognition: HD428 & HD2360
7. Protecting Locational Privacy: HD3698
8. Protecting Biometric Information: HD3053
9. Protecting Browsing Information: SD1217
10. SAFE COMMUNITIES ACT: HD2459 / SD1937

Summaries and explanations of each of these bills follow after the jump:

Read more: It’s A Whole New World
1. CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURES: HD1780 / SD2388, HD1328

HD.1780 / SD.2388 An Act Relative to Forfeiture Reform

HD.1328: An Act Relative To Civil Asset Forfeiture Transparency And Data Reporting

HD.2128: An Act Relative to Civil Asset Forfeiture

Restore The Fourth’s Issue Brief on Civil Asset Forfeiture

The threshold for civil asset forfeitures (CAFs) in MA is the lowest in the country, “probable cause” that a crime was committed. Our state is notorious for seizing cash and vehicles from people without them having committed a crime and we were ranked worst in the country for civil asset forfeiture policies by The Institute for Justice.

Last year, a special legislative commission was convened to investigate civil asset forfeiture in MA. They requested civil asset forfeiture data from every District Attorney (DA)  and every local law enforcement agency. The only response that they received was from Suffolk County and in cataloging  how the assets from their seizures and forfeitures were spent, they listed 50% as going to “other”. H.D.1780 is an outcome of the recommendations of the Commission on Civil Asset Forfeiture.

H.D.1780 raises the evidentiary standard for CAFs by one level to “a preponderance of the evidence” which is more typical nationwide. DAs and local law enforcement keep all of the proceeds from forfeiture in our state incentivizing seizures. H.D.1780 requires that all proceeds from seizures and forfeitures go to the Treasurer, who after reimbursing all non-personnel costs associated with the seizure and paying liens, would deposit the remainder in the General Fund.

This bill also narrows a major loophole. Currently police departments participating in joint task forces with the federal government (often cooperating in large seizures of contraband), are required by the federal government to contribute the 80% of the proceeds which they receive into law enforcement. This has enabled law enforcement to purchase surveillance technology like stingrays, without any oversight even when required by a local Surveillance Ordinance. Under the new provisions, if federal law prevents the distribution of CAF proceeds to the General Fund, then police departments can no longer accept forfeited property or proceeds from the federal government. A remaining  gap is that all joint seizures would have to be litigated by a local DA or the AG except for seizures of U.S. currency worth more than $50,000. 

A report by Politico and WBUR about civil asset forfeitures in Worcester County revealed that 1 in 4 seizures of cash and property that the Worcester DA’s office filed forfeitures for in 2018 either were not associated with a criminal conviction or weren’t even linked to a criminal drug charge and another 9% of seizures had no publicly available court records. Among those, there were more than 90 instances where people lost money or cars, taken most often during traffic stops, frisks and home searches — even though there weren’t related drug convictions or drug charges. WBUR documented more than 500 occasions between 2016 and 2019  where funds were held by the DA’s office for ten years or more before officials tried to notify people. More than half of funds seized between 2017 and 2019 were $500 or less. When the county finally got around to notifying someone that their assets were not legitimately seized and could be returned, they published a small notice in the local newspaper.

Elsewhere in the state there was a well-publicized case where a vehicle belonging to Malinda Harris was seized after her son was suspected of using it in a crime. The woman had nothing to do with his crime and needed her car for work. Six years later it was finally returned to her.

H.D. 1780 would require that seizures and forfeitures occur only after a court convicts the suspect of a crime with exceptions for lawful arrests and searches, and seizures of contraband. Police officers would be compelled to itemize everything that they seize and they would be prohibited from seizing currency of less than $200 and vehicles worth under $10,000. A seizure that occurred before a trial for a crime can be appealed via a hearing. Both H.D.1780 and S.D.1328 compel every law enforcement agency including the state police and all DAs to annually report all seizures and forfeitures including those under federal jurisdiction, and the crimes associated with them.  These would be entered by the executive office of administration and finance into a case tracking system and searchable public website.

H.D. 1328 requires that important additional information be reported including the outcome of any criminal charges, the details of all proceedings related to seizures and forfeitures, all case numbers and the zip code in which the seizure occurred. This granularity is crucial in view of the abuses that have occurred and the need to understand whether the new regulations adequately address these. Furthermore, whereas H.D.1780 requires that the data be reported to the AG, H.D. 1328 requires that all of the data also be reported to the Senate and House Committees on Ways and Means and the Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

H. D. 2128 would raise the standard of proof for a civil forfeiture to occur further than H. D. 1780 would do; instead of the Commonwealth having to prove that the asset was associated with a crime on “the preponderance of the evidence”, they would have to meet a standard of “clear and convincing evidence”. That standard or higher is the law in 28 states. The bill would also route all state forfeitures revenue into the Commonwealth Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund. It includes process improvements similar to H. D. 1780, though less detailed than those in H. D. 1328.

Digital Fourth supports these bills individually, and would support a consolidation of them in committee, using the standard of proof and revenues provisions from H. D. 2128, the detailed process requirements from H. D. 1780, and the detailed reporting requirements from H. D. 1328. These bills should help to ensure that forfeitures occur only when the vehicle, asset, or realty was involved in a crime, that innocent owners do not lose their property, and that law enforcement agencies have no financial incentive to conduct seizures and forfeitures.

2. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REFORM: SD1970

Qualified immunity reform was left out of the 2020 police reform in Massachusetts, unlike in other states. Currently, Massachusetts imposes an unfeasibly high bar on civil rights lawsuits against state government agents, including police, of having to prove that the civil rights violation involved “threats, intimidation or coercion.” As a consequence, attorneys don’t take these cases, because they don’t expect to win; many plaintiffs can’t afford to pay an attorney unless they win damages.

S.D. 1970 stipulates that: “In an action brought under this section against a person or entity acting under color of law, proof shall not be required that the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation or coercion.”

3. OVERSIGHT OF FUSION CENTERS: HD2088

This bill would require the Commonwealth’s “criminal intelligence systems” – the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, the Commonwealth Fusion Center, and others – to submit to regular outside auditing to ensure that they are complying with 28 CFR Part 23. This federal regulation requires that any information they hold on Massachusetts residents be based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime.

It provides a private right of action to residents who believe that these entities have violated their privacy rights. It also requires the Commonwealth Fusion Center to publish the names of its privacy advisory committee, to have it meet quarterly, and to make its minutes public.

4. COMMERCIAL DATA PRIVACY PROTECTION: SD745

SD. 745: An Act Establishing the Massachusetts Data Privacy Protection Act

This is a very complete data privacy bill that covers large corporations, service providers social media companies and data brokers that either collect, process or transfer data. It requires the originating covered entity (CE), for example, Google, to limit the data that it collects from you to only what is necessary in order to provide you the service that you desire and must give you an easily accessible and user friendly affirmative consent mechanism in which you will be told what data Google collects and where it goes for what purposes and you will be able to consent to or opt out of these uses of your data. The CE must communicate your preferences to all of the service providers(SPs) or data brokers (DBs) or any other third parties with which it shares your data because they must comply with your preferences.

Each covered CE and SP must make publicly available an obvious and understandable privacy policy including a detailed and accurate representation of its data collection, processing, and transfer activities, the purpose of all data collected, the length of time that the data is to be retained, the data security practices implemented, every data broker or third party to whom the data is transferred and several forms of contact information so an individual can readily access the CE or SP to make requests concerning their data.

If the covered entity makes any changes in the data it collects, shares or transfers or sends your data to a new party, this must be communicated to you so that you can consent or opt out. You can change your data preferences and delete data twice a year without paying.

All CEs must allow individuals to access their data in a downloadable, portable, structured, interoperable, and machine-readable format and to make any corrections to inaccurate and incomplete data. Requests to change or delete your data should generally be honored within 30 days and you can make these changes twice annually for free.

Companies will have to report to the Attorney General (AG) how many requests they receive and how they have been handled. Any individual alleging a violation of their privacy rights under this act may bring “a civil action in the superior court or any court of competent jurisdiction” against the CE, DP or third parties. If a violation is found to have occurred, the plaintiff will be eligible for damages as well as an injunction or other relief and attorney fees.

DBs must register with the OCABR ( Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation)which will maintain a searchable database with information on what data it collects and transfers and how you can contact the data broker about removing or verifying your data, linked to a website provided by the DB where you can opt out of data collection. Failure of the DB to comply will result in a fine.

Each DB will also be required to provide the AG with an impact statement for any algorithms that it uses that can potentially have a disparate impact on any protected group or individual registered to a political party along with steps they are taking to mitigate the impact. The AG can take action against CE or SP that fails to comply with civil rights provisions.

Large data holders (DHs) must hire at least one privacy officer or a data security officer and implement a data privacy program and data security program to safeguard the privacy and security of covered data. All CEs and Large DHs must perform a privacy impact assessment that weighs the benefits of the data collecting, processing, and transfer practices against the potential adverse consequences of such practices, including substantial privacy risks, to individual privacy and mustreview how technologies are being used to secure covered data.

CEs must provide all legal requests for disclosure of personal information that they receive to the AG and the general public on a bimonthly basis. This includes requests for location information and both the number of legal requests that resulted in the covered entity disclosing location or biometric information and those that did not.

The bill bans targeted advertisements to minors.

The bill has strong protections for workers against electronic monitoring that limit the monitoring to the least amount of information necessary from the fewest number of employees for the shortest length of time in order to enable tasks that are necessary to accomplish essential job functions or to monitor production processes or quality. The monitoring must not harm the employee’s mental or physical health. Employers must provide employees with notice that electronic monitoring will occur prior to conducting each specific form of electronic monitoring and include details including the purpose, the specific activities, locations, communications, and job roles that will be electronically monitored, the technologies that will be used and all vendors and third parties who will receive the data.

5. RESTRICTING LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION: HD2304 / SD750

This bill implements the findings of last session’s Commission on Face Surveillance. The findings had support from law enforcement as well as from civil liberties organizations. The bill would provide that:

1. Law enforcement other than the State Police and FBI cannot directly possess or access a biometric surveillance database.

2. Law enforcement may not use biometric surveillance to infer a person’s emotion or affect nor for analysis of moving images or video data.

3. The State Police can access the facial recognition database used by the registrar of motor vehicles to conduct a search for local law enforcement, a federal agency or the FBI if they are presented with warrant issued by a judge based upon probable cause or if there is an immediate threat of danger of serious injury to someone or a need to identify a deceased person.

4. Law enforcement must document the basis for any emergency requests and file them with the appropriate Superior Court within 48 hours of the request.

5. All searches of the database by the State Police or FBI must be documented and reported to the executive office of public safety and security, quarterly disaggregated, by the requesting law enforcement or federal agency. The same goes for breakdowns of whether the request involved a warrant or emergency. The agency must post the total # of searches performed ID of a deceased person. These must all be publicly posted by EOPSS by March 31 of the following year.

6. Any person charged with a crime in which they were identified by a facial recognition search must be provided notice that the search occurred and defendants and their attorneys in criminal prosecutions must be provided with all records and information pertaining to any facial recognition searches performed or requested during the course of the investigation of the crime or offense.

6. Restricting Automated License Plate Recognition: HD428 & HD2360

HD.428 An Act Relative to All-Electronic Tolling Data Privacy.

This bill provides that:

1. A department may not access, search, review, disclose or exchange tolling data (meaning any data captured or created by an ALPR system or from signals or radio frequencies emitted by a transponder in connection with the assessment or collection of a toll, including, without limitation, GPS coordinates or vehicle location information, dates and times traveled, images, vehicle speed, and license plate numbers, existing in an any form or medium, whether electronic, paper or otherwise) unless this is necessary to:

a. collect, access or pursue payment tolls or fines or surcharges related to unpaid tolls

b. to install, maintain or repair a transponder

c. to respond to a reasonable belief that an individual is at imminent risk of serious physical injury, death or abduction; provided, that not later than 48 hours after responding, the access and detailed reasons for it are provided to the AG.

d. comply with a search warrant, production order, or preservation request issued in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a felony.

3. a. The department must erase or destroy the tolling data accessed within 120 days of access.

    b. The department may retain tolling data beyond 120 to comply with a search warrant, production order, or preservation request, or as necessary to collect unpaid tolls or fines or surcharges related to unpaid tolls.

4. a. A person whose tolling data was retained in violation of the above can institute a civil action in district or superior court for damages or in superior court for injunctive relief.

    b. If a violation has occurred the violator will not be entitled to absolute or qualified immunity and will be liable for proven actual damages, be liable for treble damages or for exemplary damages of between $100 and $1000 along with costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Why this is important: ALPR data records everywhere that someone has driven. If it is maintained in a database, then it can be reviewed retroactively for many unlawful purposes such as to identify a suspect in a crime for which there is ho particularized evidence of them having committed the crime This means that potentially many people who have traveled to the vicinity of the location of a crime will now become suspects. In addition, tolling data can be used to identify individuals who have participated in a political event or rally or a protest which are acts protected by the First Amendment and therefore should not be monitored.

HD.2360 An Act Establishing Driver Privacy Protections

This bill provides that:

Law enforcement or other state government employees or officials may not:

  • use an ALPR system to track or monitor activity protected by freedoms of religion or speech guaranteed by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
  • retain ALPR data longer than 14 days except in connection with a specific criminal investigation based on articulable facts linking the data to a crime;
  • disclose, sell or permit access to ALPR data except as required in a judicial proceeding; or
  • access ALPR data from other governmental or non-governmental entities except with a valid search warrant.

Toll collection technologies may only be used to identify the location of any vehicle for tolling purposes.

The department of transportation may not access, search, review, disclose, or exchange tolling data in its possession, custody, or control except to:

  • assess, collect or pursue the payment tolls or fines or surcharges related to unpaid tolls; 
  • install, maintain or repair an ALPR or transponder system or a system storing tolling data;
  • respond when an individual is at imminent risk of serious physical injury, death or abduction
  • comply with a search warrant, production order, or preservation request issued in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a felony.

The department of transportation must eliminate all tolling data that it possesses or controls within 120 days of its was creation unless it is necessary to comply with a search warrant, production order, or preservation request, or as necessary to collect unpaid tolls or fines or surcharges related to unpaid tolls.

No toll collection or vehicle data may be shared with or provided to any law enforcement entity or official without a search warrant, or production order; unless this information is requested  because of a reasonable belief that an individual is at imminent risk of serious physical injury, death or abduction and that such data is necessary to respond. Such a request must be narrowly tailored to address the emergency and subject to the following limitations:

  • the request must document the factual basis for the emergency and the applicability of toll collection and/or vehicle data
  • within 48 hours of accessing these records, the government office must file a written notice describing with particularity the grounds for emergency access and exactly what tolling data was accessed, with the Attorney General.

If ALPR data, tolling data, and vehicle data is collected, retained, disclosed, sold, or accessed without complying with the above requirements, it may  not be admitted, offered or cited by any governmental entity for any purpose in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding.

An individual whose rights have been violated by the improper transfer of or access to these data, may introduce evidence concerning this data in a civil action for damages or injunctive relief in a district or superior court or may allow another party in a civil proceeding to do the same.

If a willful violation occurred, the violator will not be allowed to claim any privilege absolute or qualified. In addition to any proven actual liability, the violator will be liable for treble damages, or, alternative, exemplary damages of between $100 and $1000 for each violation as well as costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

The attorney general will enforce the above and will have the power to petition the court for injunctive relief and other appropriate relief against violators.  

7. PROTECTING LOCATIONAL PRIVACY: HD3698

In this bill, location information is defined as directly or indirectly revealing the present or past geographical location of an individual or device within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with sufficient precision to identify street-level location information within a range of 1,850 feet or less. Location information includes but is not limited to (i) an internet protocol address (ii) Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates; and (iii) cell-site location information.

HD. 3698 prohibits the collection, processing, or disclosure by  a Covered Entity (CE) including “any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or other group” (except a state or local government agency or court) of an individual’s location information  from any device that “connects to a cellular, bluetooth, or other wireless network” “for profit or in exchange for monetary or other consideration including selling, renting, trading, or leasing location information without the express consent of the individual except for the following purposes:

Location information can be collected for “(i) provision of a product, service, or service feature to the individual to whom the location information pertains when that individual requested the provision of such product, service, or service feature by subscribing to, creating an account, or otherwise contracting with a covered entity; (ii) initiation, management, execution, or completion of a financial or commercial transaction or fulfill an order for specific products or services requested by an individual, including any associated routine administrative, operational, and account-servicing activity such as billing, shipping, delivery, storage, and accounting; (iii) compliance with an obligation under federal or state law; or (iv) Response to an emergency service agency, an emergency alert, a 911 communication, or any other communication reporting an imminent threat to human life.”

When location information is collected for any but the last two allowed purposes, the CE must list each purpose in a Location Privacy Policy and individuals must provide discrete consent for each purpose to enable the collection of location information. Each CE must provide a clear, conspicuous, and simple means to opt out of the processing of their location information for purposes of selecting and delivering targeted advertisements.

Permission will be valid for one year unless the individual chooses to revoke it before that . If permission is revoked, any location information possessed by a covered entity must be permanently destroyed. An individual can opt in again at a future time. There cannot be any retaliation against someone who chooses not to have their location information collected but a service requiring this information can be withheld.

Covered Entities may not:

  • collect more precise location information than necessary to carry out the permitted purpose,
  • retain location information longer than necessary to carry out this purpose,
  • sell, rent, trade, or lease location information to third parties; or
  • derive or infer from location information any data that is not necessary to carry out the permitted purpose.

The CE may not disclose or assist in any way the disclosure of an individual’s location information to third parties (TPs), unless this is necessary to carry out the permissible purpose for which the information was collected, or requested by the individual to whom the location data pertains.

“A CE or service provider (SP) may not disclose location information to any federal, state, or local government agency or official unless:(1) the agency or official presents a valid warrant or establishes the existence of exigent circumstances that make it impracticable to obtain a warrant ,or (2) disclosure is mandated under federal or state law, or (3) the subject of the data requests this disclosure.

The CE must maintain and make available its Location Privacy Policy including:

  • the purpose(s) for which the covered entity is collecting, processing, or disclosing any location information;
  • the type of location information collected, including the precision of the data;
  • the identities of SPs with which the CE contracts with respect to location data;
  • any disclosures of location data necessary to carry out each purpose and the identities of the third parties to whom the location information could be disclosed;
  • whether the CE’s practices include its use of location information for targeted ads
  • the data management and data security policies governing location information;
  • the retention schedule and guidelines for permanently deleting location information

Users of the CE must be given 20 days advance notice of any change in the Location Privacy Policy.

It will be illegal for the government to monetize location data.

Covered entities must annually disclose annually any warrants for location information received by themselves or any associated SPs or TPs (if known), disaggregated by the requesting agency, statutory offense under investigation, and the source of authority to the Attorney General (AG). The AG will make these reports available to the public online.

Any individual alleging a violation of this chapter by a CE or SP may bring a civil action in the superior court or any court of competent jurisdiction. They will not need to file a report with the AG or accept arbitration. If a claim is proven, the plaintiff may be rewarded damages for emotional distress, or $5,000 per violation, whichever is greater, (2) punitive damages; and (3) any other relief, including but not limited to an injunction or declaratory judgment, that the court deems to be appropriate as well as attorney’s fees and other costs.

The AG can bring an action against a CE or SP to remedy violations. The AG must conduct investigations of any possible violations of this chapter and refer cases for criminal prosecution to the appropriate federal, state, or local authorities.

Location information may be collected by a healthcare provider for treatment or research purposes in compliance with HIPPA.

CEs must comply with this chapter within 6 months of enactment and delete any location information retroactively for individuals who withhold consent.

8. PROTECTING BIOMETRIC INFORMATION: HD3053

In this bill, “Biometric information or data” means information or data that pertains to measurable biological or behavioral characteristics of an individual that can be used alone, with each other or with other information, for verification, recognition, or identification of an unknown individual. Examples include: fingerprints, retina and iris patterns, voiceprints, DNA sequences, facial characteristics and face geometry, gait, handwriting, keystroke dynamics, and mouse movements. (The bill excludes medical information protected by HIPPA, medical images used for diagnosis or research. donated organs or tissues stored by a federal agency as well as writing samples, written signatures, mere photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as height, weight, hair color, or eye color.)

The Covered Entities (CEs) include any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or another group, however organized but not a state or local government agency, or any court of Massachusetts.

“ Processing includes collecting, accessing, using, storing, retaining, sharing, monetizing, analyzing, creating, generating, aggregating, altering, correlating, operating on, recording, modifying, organizing, structuring, disclosing, transmitting, selling, licensing, disposing of, destroying, de-identifying, or otherwise manipulating biometric information.

A CE or Data Processor (DP) cannot collect or process  (collect access, use, store, retain, share, monetize analyze, create, generate, aggregate, alter, correlate, operate on, record, modify, organize, structure, disclose, transmit, sell, license, dispose of, destroy, or de-identify)

someone’s biometric information unless: they

  • provide a written explanation of exactly what it will collect or process
  • provide the individual with the Biometric Privacy Policy(BPP)
  • receive advance explicit handwritten or electronic consent from the individual or their legal guardian or representative

Consent will expire after 3 years or when the initial purpose for processing the biometric information has been satisfied, whichever occurs first. Upon expiration, any biometric information possessed by a CE must be permanently destroyed. Consent may be renewed

The BPP must include:

  • the use models, detailing whether the biometric information is going to be used for identification or verification purposes; 
  • all data management and data security policies governing biometric information; 
  • all disclosure practices; and 
  • the retention schedule and guidelines for permanently deleting biometric information.

The CE must provide notice of any change to its BPP at least 20 business days in advance of implementation and request consent for the changes.

The CE must store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all biometric data in a manner that is the same as or more protective than the manner that it stores, transmits, and protects other confidential and sensitive information, consistent with the standard for similar private industries.

Any CE, DP or third party (TP) may only disclose biometric information if:

  • disclosure is required for the provision of a service or product by the CE and the individual has consented
  • disclosure is needed to complete a financial or commercial transaction requested by the individual and to which they have consented
  • disclosure is for a single purpose to a TP that has been authorized by the individual in handwritten consent
  • federal or state law requires disclosure but individual must be notified in advance via BPP
  • in response to a valid warrant
  • response to imminent threat to life or property[JB1] 

No CE, DP or TP may monetize biometric information.

If CE, DP or TP are served with a warrant for biometric information (BI), they must immediately provide the individual with a copy of the warrant, to whom and when their BI was provided, an inventory of the data disclosed, whether the CE, DP or TP provided the data, who requested the warrant from the court, if known. However, a government entity may apply to the court for a 30 day delay in notification and for a renewal of that delay.

CEs must annually report to the Attorney General (AG) any warrants for BI received by them or by associated DPs or TPs. CEs required to report BI pursuant to a law must annually report general aggregate information pertaining to these to the AG.

An individual alleging harm by a violation of this law may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction directed to any CE, DP or TP believed to have committed the violation.

If the defendant prevails they are eligible for liquidated damages ranging from  0.1% of the annual global revenue of the covered entity or $1,000 per violation, whichever is greater for negligent violations to 0.5% of the annual global revenue of the covered entity or $5,000 per violation, whichever is greater for deliberate violations, punitive damages and any other relief, including but not limited to an injunction as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses. Each instance of violation is eligible for damages.

The AG may bring an action pursuant to section 4 of chapter 93A against a CE, DP or TP to remedy violations of this chapter and for other relief that may be appropriate. 

Within 6 months of enactment of the law CEs must obtain consent for all BI collected or stored and must destroy any BI for which consent was not given. The Act will be in effect one year after enactment.

9. PROTECTING BROWSING INFORMATION: SD1217

This law would apply to electronic information collected by any corporation which sends or receives electronic communications, including any service that acts as an intermediary in the transmission of electronic communications, or stores electronic communication information for the general public.

It covers any information pertaining to an electronic communication or the use of an electronic communication service, including, but not limited to the content of electronic communications, metadata, sender, recipients, format, or location of the sender or recipients at any point during the communication, the time or date the communication was created, sent, or received, or any information pertaining to any individual or device participating in the communication.

In order for a government office, law enforcement agency or public official to access your electronic information from either a service provider or an electronic device itself, they would need to get a particularized search warrant supported by probable cause from a superior court judge. Exceptions would include if there were an emergency threatening immediate physical injury or, if you had previously given written consent to the corporation that possesses your electronic data to release it to them. Even in an emergency situation, the government would need to provide a written explanation of why the data was needed to the local superior court within 48 hours. Corporations would have to share the requested information within 14 days or earlier if justified, unless the corporation appeals for and is granted more time.

A Massachusetts corporation that provides electronic communication services, remote computing services, or location information services must respond to a warrant or subpoena from another state to produce records that would reveal the identity of the customers using those services, data stored by, or on behalf of the customer, the customer’s usage of those services, the recipient or destination of communications sent to or from those customers, or the content of those communications, as if that warrant or subpoena had been issued under the law of the commonwealth. This element is concerning, because it would allow a state that prohibits abortion to access content that might reveal that someone either had an abortion or received abortion medication.

The law enforcement or government officer who obtains someone’s electronic information via a search warrant must provide them with a copy of the warrant, the application for the warrant, an explanation of the law enforcement inquiry and the information requested and date of the request within 7 days of collecting their information unless a reason is provided for a delay which may be granted for up to 90 days and may compel the entity providing the data to delay notifying the target person.

A warrant for the electronic information requested is not necessary if the owner of the electronic information or the recipient of the information gives the law enforcement or government officer their written consent to share it.

If a government office, law enforcement agency, or public official believes that an electronic device is lost, stolen, or abandoned they may access electronic device information necessary  in order to attempt to identify, verify, or contact the owner or authorized possessor of the device.

Within 5 business days of issuing or denying a warrant, the court must report to the office of court management within the trial court all of the information pertaining to the warrant described above as well as name of the agency making the application, the offense described in the warrant and any modifications or extensions made to the warrant.

Every June, the court administrator in the office of court management in the trial court must provide the legislature with a complete report of the number of applications for warrants authorizing or requiring the disclosure of or access to information including a summary and analysis of the data which will all be public records.

No government office or law enforcement may ask any court for a reverse-location court order (including a search warrant or subpoena) to obtain the location of a specific device(s) or a reverse-keyword court order to identify who electronically searched for particular words, phrases, or websites, nor may they purchase this data. No court is permitted to issue any court order allowing the disclosure of reverse-location or reverse keyword data.

No government office or law enforcement may make a reverse location request or reverse keyword request from a company. Nor may they seek the assistance of any agency of the federal government or any agency of the government of another state or subdivision thereof in obtaining information or data from a reverse-location court order, reverse-keyword court order, reverse-location request, or reverse-keyword request if they would be barred from directly seeking such information.

No government office, law enforcement agency, or public official may use a cell site simulator (CSS)device for any purpose other than to locate or track the location of a specific electronic device, pursuant to a particularized warrant based on probable cause or if exigent circumstances exist requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to the safety of an individual or the public. A warrant issued limits the use of the CSS to 15 days unless an application is made for renewal.

A warrant application must specify

  • the facts establishing probable cause to believe the targeted individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony
  • that less invasive methods of investigation or surveillance to the privacy of non-targeted parties have been tried and failed or are reasonably unlikely to succeed
  • It must disclose the nature and capabilities of the cell site simulator to be used, the name of the government agency that owns the cell site simulator device
  • exactly how it will be deployed, including whether it will obtain data from non-target communications devices
  • the procedures that will be followed to protect the privacy of non-targets during the investigation, including the deletion of data obtained from non-target communication device
  • that all target data must be deleted within 30 days if there is no longer probable cause  that such information or metadata is evidence of a crime

Any individual whose information was obtained by a government entity in violation of the above requirements for the collection of private electronic information must be notified in writing, by the government office, law enforcement agency, or public official who committed the violation and of the legal recourse available to that person.

Any electronic information collected in violation of the above provisions may not be used in evidence any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the commonwealth, or a political subdivision thereof.

Anyone who has been harmed by a violation of these protections of private electronic information may bring a civil action against the government office, law enforcement agency, or public official who violated those sections in the Superior Court or any court of competent jurisdiction. Such a person will not need to  file an administrative complaint with the attorney general or to accept mandatory arbitration of a claim.

When the plaintiff prevails in a civil action, the court may award actual damages, including damages for emotional distress, the greater of either $1000 per violation or actual damages, (punitive damages; and any other relief, including but not limited to injunctive or declaratory relief). In addition to any relief awarded, the court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the plaintiff.

Any contract whether government or private that infringes the above rights will be considered void.

This bill would also prohibit “library user private data” meaning records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using the library from being collected by any government or law enforcement agency.

10. SAFE COMMUNITIES ACT: HD2459 / SD1937

This long-standing goal of Digital Fourth and allied organizations, especially MIRA, would prevent local and state law enforcement from sharing information relating to the potential presence of undocumented immigrants, with ICE or other federal agencies.

For further details, please see the action alert here: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/tell-lawmakers-prioritize-the-safe-communities-act-this-session-23

Categories
Mission News

Cambridge Spies On CPS Students

Illustration by Annie Zhao for VICE magazine

Many kids in the Cambridge Public Schools (and elsewhere in the Commonwealth) still don’t know that if you’re using a school-issued Chromebook, the school is monitoring whatever you browse, down to deleted draft emails, whether you’re at school or not.

This is through a browser add-on called “Securly.” CPS has an agreement with Securly that all school-issued Chromebooks will have this add-on.

What’s more, wittingly or not, CPS is lying to the City Council about whether student data gets shared. Let’s show you how.

In the Annual Surveillance Report submitted to the City, Cambridge Public Schools cites to the language of its Data Privacy Agreement with Securly, insisting, “This data is not shared with third parties” (Annual Surveillance Report, p.67). However, the DPA actually allows the sharing of data with third parties – specifically, but not limited to, the cops. Law enforcement is allowed to contact Securly to get data on students, and Securly is allowed to disclose that information without waiting for a warrant or evidence of involvement in illegal activities, and without telling either CPS or the student:

II. 4. Law Enforcement Requests. Should law enforcement or other government entities (“Requesting Party(ies)”) contact Provider with a request for Student Data held by the Provider pursuant to the Services, the Provider shall notify the LEA in advance of a compelled disclosure to the Requesting Party, unless lawfully directed by the Requesting Party not to inform the LEA of the request.

Since Securly can tell the cops without telling CPS, there’s no way CPS can truthfully guarantee to the City Council that your “data is not shared with third parties.” It might not be. But they can’t know for sure.

Beyond that, Article IV of the DPA goes into great detail about the circumstances under which Securly may share both personally identifiable student information and de-identified student information, for a variety of purposes. Again, it might be that, despite the DPA allowing them to, Securly is not in fact sharing CPS student information onwards; but we suspect that they are doing whatever the DPA currently allows them to do.

CPS also insists that Securly is being used only as a “Web Filter”, to block various kinds of disagreeable content. The material they have provided to the City Council focuses on students accessing gun-related content and suicide-related content.

But Securly’s Web Filter product not only blocks; it also shows to teachers and to admins what URLs are being blocked, offering what Securly describes as “Complete online visibility … monitor[ing] for signs of bullying, self-harm, gun terms, and violence”, with “AI-based context analysis … for signs of bullying, self-harm, gun terms, and violence across social networking and web searches. If a student is suffering or looking at concerning content, you’ll know.”

It is legal for students to search for content that includes violence, graphic imagery, and guns, and it’s hard to envision how they could research, say, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine without encountering such content.

It’s not clear that school monitoring software in general works. VICE reports, “The few published studies looking into the impacts of these tools indicate that they may have the opposite effect, breaking down trust relationships within schools and discouraging adolescents from reaching out for help—particularly those in minority and LGBTQ communities, who are far more likely to seek help online.” It is evident in places where school monitoring software is in use that students and parents are often contacted, inflicting harm, without administrators or teachers first examining the context of the flagged material. At a minimum, the City Council should find out what terms and sites are being flagged in Securly’s system, in order to evaluated whether there is manifest prejudice going into the selection of those terms and sites and whether each instance is being reviewed by the student’s teacher.

What Securly’s system appears to do is to monitor everything, and then rely on school officials’ discretion to determine whether what gets flagged is really cause for worry. Monitoring and disciplining students for accessing such content places the school district on dangerous legal ground. In last September’s ruling in Mahanoy School District v. B. L., the Supreme Court explained that students’ off-campus speech may be regulated only in cases of  “[1] serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; [2] threats aimed at teachers or other students; [3] the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and [4] breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers.” Securly’s systems envision monitoring students’ off-campus speech in a far larger set of circumstances than provided for in Mahanoy.

My master’s thesis was on blocking and filtering technologies, and their potential for discriminating against the provision of LGBT-oriented information. I was also bullied in school, for years. I understand why schools want to track students’ access to gun- and suicide-related imagery. But public schools have to adhere to the Constitution in the surveillance they conduct of students. At most, considering the rights protected by the Fourth and First Amendments, schools are only be justified in starting to track out-of-school browsing behavior of a particular student on a school-issued device if they have probable cause to believe that the student was engaged in or is the target of one of the four kinds of conduct envisioned under Mahanoy. This technology goes far beyond what the law and the Constitution permits. We believe that the City Council should not approve the use of this technology.

This is part of a series on the surveillance technologies the City of Cambridge is reviewing. The City Council has referred consideration of these technologies through to the Public Safety Committee, which will hold a hearing and then report back to the City Council with recommendations. Email us if you’d like to testify at the Public Safety Committee. Now is the time to weigh in on whether you want to see this technology deployed in your community!

Categories
Uncategorized

Understanding Fusion Centers

Our local fusion center, BRIC, has been at the core of police efforts to surveil and suppress social movements for over a decade. And, since 2012, we’ve been calling them out on their abusive and un-Constitutional practices.

This October 30, please join us for a livestreamed discussion on fusion centers, with Boston City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, law student Dani Hargus, and journalist Emma Best, moderated by our own Alex Marthews!