City Council - Public Safety Committee

Public Safety Committee Meeting Meeting Minutes: May 13, 2020 Councilor Gomez called the meeting to order at 6:33. Zoom - Online Members Present: Chair Homar Gomez, Councilor Lindsey Rothschild and Councilor Salem Derby Also in Attendance: Police Chief Robert Alberti, Councilor Conniff, Councilor Peake ● Amber Black, 493 East Street ● Jason Montgomery, 107 Ferry Street ● Amiee Ross, 28 Oliver Street ● Kat Freeman, 5 ½ West Street ● Gladys Franco 27 Omstead ● Miranda Groux, 135 LaPlante Circle ● Jen Sandler, 26 Williston Avenue ● Patrick Brough, 107 Briggs Street ● Javier Luengo-Garrido, ACLU MA ● Emiliano Falcon-Morano, ACLU MA ● Kate Crockford, ACLU MA ● Bill Newman, ACLU MA Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Councilor Derby and seconded by Councilor Rothschild; it was unanimously voted to approve the minutes of April 7, 2020 and May 5, 2020. Public Speak Time: New Business: ● Ban on Facial Recognition Surveillance Technology Ordinance Councilor Peake spoke to the importance of the ban. Chief Alberti stated it was a pleasure to work with the committee and is present to address any questions. Emiliano Falcon-Morano stated his strong support and read and submitted  written testimony (attached). Javiar Luengo Garrido appreciates that the city council is taking up this issue. He spoke to the importance of pressing pause and sending a message to the state house. Residents Jason Montgomery, Amber Black, Amiee Ross, Kat Freeman, Jen Sandler and Miranda Groux spoke in favor of the ban. Chief Alberti spoke about talking to other Chiefs who have already put ban in place and that when attending International Chief of Police Conference that the general consensus is the technology is just not there and that there are too many inaccuracies. Councilor Rothschild asked if this ban would apply to businesses or individuals. Emiliano Falcon-Morano stated that it would not. Councilor Conniff asked a series of questions about the details of the ordinance. Councilor Derby and Councilor Rothschild asked questions about the enforcement and penalties associated with the ban. The working group is going to clarify the language and the Public Safety Committee will reconvene. Next regular meeting:, May 13, 2020 at 6:00pm A motion was made by Councilor Derby and seconded by Councilor Rothschild; it was unanimously voted that this meeting adjourn. Respectfully Submitted, Councilor Lindsey Rothschild Clerk to the Public Safety Committee Attached: ACLU Easthampton Testimony submitted by Emiliano Falcon-Morano  May 13, 2020 Testimony in Support of Face Surveillance Ban My name is Emiliano Falcon-Morano. I am the Policy Counsel for the Technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts. On behalf of the ACLU and our members and supporters in Easthampton, I submit this testimony in strong support of the ordinance introduced by Councilors Thomas Peake and Homar Gomez to prohibit the municipal government’s use of face surveillance technology. Face surveillance poses unprecedented risks to basic human rights Face surveillance technology poses unprecedented threats to civil rights, civil liberties, and open, democratic society. Numerous studies have shown the technology is inherently racially biased. The technology poses particularly severe threats to the rights and liberties of immigrants and communities of color. Unchecked, this technology can be used by government agencies to conduct mass tracking of the population. Face surveillance technology uses algorithms designed to analyze images of human faces. In one of its forms, a computer program analyzes an image of a person’s face, taking measurements of their facial features to create a unique “faceprint.” Face surveillance algorithms then use these faceprints, in combination with databases like the driver’s license system at the Registry of Motor Vehicles and surveillance camera networks, to identify and track people en masse, usually without their knowledge or consent. Some companies are also selling so-called “emotion detection” facial surveillance systems, which they claim can determine whether someone is happy, sad, honest, or deceitful. Research from experts at Northeastern University has demonstrated it is not possible to discern how someone is feeling by looking at their face.1 But companies are nonetheless selling these tools across the world. Instead of accepting that technology will determine the boundaries of our rights, we must chart an intentional course into the 21st century, maintaining democratic control over our society and our lives. To protect residents now and into the future, Easthampton should join Northampton, Springfield, Somerville, Brookline, Cambridge, and many more cities in acting to prohibit the use of face surveillance technology by the local government. 1Khalida Sarwari, You Think You Can Read Facial Expressions? You’re Wrong, Northeastern University, July 2019. https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/07/19/northeastern-university-professor-says-we-cant- gauge-emotions-from-facial-expressions-alone/  ACLU support for face surveillance ban 2 Face surveillance: Unregulated, biased, and harmful to immigrants, people of color, and privacy • Face surveillance is entirely unregulated in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, the spread of this technology is occurring in the dark, absent public debate or democratic oversight. Government agencies are adopting it despite the absence of privacy regulations, the technology’s inaccuracy, and the threats it poses to free and open societies. • Face surveillance is racially biased. Among other issues, facial recognition technology is not always accurate—despite what you may have seen on television shows like CSI. And these inaccuracies are more likely to unfairly harm people of color and other oppressed groups. For example, MIT researchers found that face recognition software sold by prominent technology companies misclassified Black women up to 35 percent of the time.2 Another study found that so-called “emotion detection” software inaccurately classified Black men’s faces as more angry and contemptuous than white faces, even in pictures where all the men are smiling.3 Moreover, a recent study published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) showed that the majority of the algorithms studied performed worse on Black, Asian, and Native American faces.4 No Easthampton municipal department should use technology that is inherently racially biased. • Face surveillance technology harms immigrant families. The Trump administration’s vicious attacks on immigrant communities have made immigrants fearful of engagement with public institutions, including schools and local police. The use of face surveillance systems would further chill immigrant participation in public life, because the technology can be used to track where people go, and when, in real-time and retroactively. Last July, Easthampton passed an historic Welcoming City Ordinance. A ban on the use of face surveillance will ensure the spirit of that Ordinance lives in municipal policy and law, as technology changes and makes immigrants even more vulnerable to local participation in federal overreach. • Face surveillance is a threat to Easthampton residents’ civil rights and civil liberties. Especially concerning is how this technology affects First Amendment rights and freedoms. If the government can track everyone who goes to a place of worship, a political rally, or seeks reproductive medical care or substance use treatment, we lose 2 Joy Buolamwini et al, “Gender Shades,” MIT Media Lab. https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/gender- shades/overview/. 3 Lauren Rhue, “Emotion-reading tech fails the racial bias test,” Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2019-01- emotion-reading-tech-racial-bias.html. 4 This study also showed additional bias against women, the elderly, and children. See National Institute of Standards and Technology, Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 3: Demographic Effects, Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan, Kayee Hanaoka, December 2019, available at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf  ACLU support for face surveillance ban 3 our freedom to speak our minds, freely criticize the government, pray to the god we want, and access healthcare in private. The authoritarian government in China is deploying facial surveillance in that country to control and oppress people because the tool is a perfect weapon for social control.5 Easthampton must chart the opposite course. Easthampton has an historic opportunity to protect its residents Today, Easthampton has a unique opportunity: Your City can pump the brakes on the spread of this dangerous technology. The Ordinance presented by Councilors Peake and Gomez will protect the people of Easthampton and free and open society in three key ways. First, it prohibits the City of Easthampton agencies from using both face surveillance technology and information obtained from it until the City Council approves Easthampton Police Department rules, policies, and procedures governing the use of face surveillance systems. Second, it makes this prohibition effective by ensuring that data collected or derived from the use of the technology is suppressed and cannot be received as evidence in any trial, hearing, or similar proceeding. Third, it provides for a fine if the ordinance is violated, allowing Easthampton residents to seek relief and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Ordinance. Ultimately, faced with the question of whether Easthampton should pass this ordinance, Councilors ought to consider what kind of community they want to foster into the 21st century. Constant surveillance has adverse effects on health, well-being, and community trust. Surveillance increases not only our fears and uncertainty but also personal anxiety.6 Privacy advocates have long warned about the psychological consequences of being watched and observed by unaccountable, faceless entities.7 Face surveillance magnifies these concerns and extends them into a truly new and frightening territory by totalizing the surveillance of our movements in public space. We strongly urge you to support this critical and commonsense proposal. The ACLU looks forward to serving as a resource to the City and the Council throughout this process, so please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or seek further information. 5 Paul Mozur, “One Month, 500,000 Face Scans: How China is Using A.I. to Profile a Minority,” NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/technology/china-surveillance-artificial-intelligence-racial- profiling.html. 6 Kaleigh Rogers, What Constant Surveillance Does To Your Brain, Vice, Nov. 2018, available at https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pa5d9g/what-constant-surveillance-does-to-your-brain 7 John Borland, Maybe Surveillance Is Bad, After All, August 2007, available at https://www.wired.com/2007/08/maybe-surveilla/  ACLU support for face surveillance ban 4 Thank you very much. Emiliano Falcon Morano efalcon@aclum.org