The complaint points to 42 surveillance technologies managed by a slew of city departments without corresponding disclosures required by city law.
Additionally, the lawsuit cites seven surveillance technologies for which no annual report has been published — another violation of city law. Among those tools: ankle-monitoring bracelets and gunshot detectors under police purview, social media surveillance by the Human Services Agency and a “people counter” used by the Recreation and Parks Department.
Of the reports that were published, many lacked legally required information, the lawsuit claims. The San Francisco Fire Department’s annual drone report, for example, summed up the technology’s efficacy merely by saying it “has been used according to our policy.”
“Not only is that not responsive,” the lawsuit alleges, “but it also provides no quantitative or qualitative information to help gauge whether or not San Francisco spent its money wisely on the technology. This is even more concerning as the fire department states in the same report that it wants to procure additional drones, without providing any justification.”
The parks department responded much the same way in a report about its use of SenSource, an AI-powered video camera that counts people as they come and go from defined spaces like event venues. Asked in one of its annual reports whether the technology was effective, the department offered a perfunctory “yes.” The only elaboration was to say, “We have not had many cases using this technology.”
The lawsuit says such responses “make a mockery of the spirit and letter” of the law. Secure Justice also argues that the yearly reports are critical to the overall framework of the surveillance ordinance and are meant to provide the public and city leaders with metrics about efficacy, policy violations, corrective actions, data security, third-party information-sharing and costs to taxpayers.
“Without them, residents and leaders in San Francisco have no idea whether the technology even works, the technologies are performing as desired, there are civil liberties violations, or data breaches are occurring,” the complaint states. “Some technologies may be benign from a privacy infringement perspective but are ineffective at fighting crime or improving efficiency, and as a result, waste scarce taxpayer resources. This is especially a concern today as San Francisco is facing a historic budget deficit.”
Take ShotSpotter gunshot detection devices, Hofer said. San Francisco spends seven figures a year on the technology with a dubious return on investment. One analysis found that 3,000 ShotSpotter alerts in San Francisco over a two-and-a-half-year period led to two arrests — only one of them gun-related.
SFPD has yet to respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the City Attorney’s Office declined to weigh in on pending litigation, saying, “Once we are served with the lawsuit, we will review the complaint and respond appropriately.”
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source link
