Public Accountability
This week, The Boggs Center joined a coalition of local groups in suing the city of Detroit over the improper approval of multimillion dollar contracts with ShotSpotter. The lawsuit argues that the city violated a hard won ordinance requiring citizen input and transparent, evidence based processes before the introduction of new surveillance technologies.
The violation of this policy was clear during the public debates against the contracts. At the time of the contentious, split vote for the new ShotSpotter contract, Eric Williams of the Detroit Justice Center reminded the City Council of its obligations under the Citizen Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance. He said:
“What policies and procedures are in place in the instance of misuse? The city has not done any of the things required by the ordinance, including (that) ‘technology specification reports submitted for procurement of new surveillance technology shall be made available to the public, at a designated page on the city’s website, where a public hearing is required at least 14 days prior to the public hearing.'”
Detroit Police have a sordid history in implementing new surveillance technologies without public input. The Community Input Over Government Surveillance Ordinance came about after months of community organizing in response to Project Greenlight and the use of facial recognition technologies. Both technologies, like the initial ShotSpotter deployment, were implemented without any public processes.
From 2017 to 2021 citizens attended Board of Police Commission meetings and City Council meetings advocating for more informed public input. Organizations held forums, shared research, and offered public testimony on the limitations and dangers of surveillance technologies. Councilmember Mary Sheffield helped craft the ordinance and was able to garner the support of the Police Department for it. Councilmember Scott Benson used countless parliamentary tricks to block and water down its language and impact.
By the spring of 2021, the need for controls over the Police Department were clear. In an editorial supporting the adoption of the ordinance, the Detroit Free Press said, “The need for stricter oversight is manifest: the DPD has wrongly arrested at least two citizens after they were misidentified by the department’s problematic facial recognition software.“
The Freep concluded:
“Expensive surveillance technology is no substitute for the more meaningful investments Detroit and other cities need to make in communities. But the use of such technology seems destined to grow… Communities whose police departments have yet to acquire sophisticated surveillance technology should act now to make sure those powerful tools are deployed responsibly.”
During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military developed sophisticated technologies for urban warfare. Many of these have found their way into local police departments. ShotSpotter is one such technology – but it is not the only one. Weapons designed to kill and control are a big business. Just a few days prior to the filing of the lawsuit in support of more community oversight, the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco voted to give police the ability to use potentially lethal, remote-controlled robots in emergency situations. This decision came after a state law required police departments to become more transparent about their technologies. The city of Oakland rejected this use.
It is critical that the ordinance we fought to put in place be upheld. Throughout the public debate to secure this ordinance, to oppose the implementation of Project Greenlight, facial recognition, and ShotSpotter, community members demonstrated that they understand the dangers inherent in these technologies. We know that safety emerges in healthy communities, tied together with respect and care. We help create these kinds of communities when we hold each other accountable to what we have already decided is important.