Incredible Police Surveillance

By: Jacqueline Galeno-Escobedo

A major theme in the readings and class discussions is surveillance. A proper definition given by Gilliom and Monahan in their book SuperVision, is that surveillance is the monitoring of people in order to regulate or govern their behavior. From our discussions we came to see that surveillance is indeed a big part of our lives. Our cell phones, credit cards, social networking accounts, etc. are all capable of tracking and displaying very personal information that can be used in many ways. It is obvious that technology has become more advanced in our already modern world. What has not been thoroughly discussed though, is how technology has become increasingly sophisticated in the area of law enforcement surveillance. This leads people to question where their information is being displayed, for how long, and whether they are being targeted based on their identities, which may lead people to resent and distrust the police.

A recent article by the Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spotlighted the police department of Lansing, Michigan. The ACLU executed reports on surveillance cameras used by the police in residential neighborhoods. What they found was that the technology being used was extremely advanced. The residents are subject to constant monitoring twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Not only that but the cameras are able to display images in high-definition, and are not limited by darkness since they are also equipped with night vision technology. This makes it possible for police to read a paper in someone's hand up to fifty feet away. It is also possible to recognize a face that is as far as four-hundred feet or a license plate that is three-hundred feet away. The length of time for which the information is retained is left to the discretion of the police. The minimum limit is about two weeks. With such advanced technology one can expect residents to feel discomfort and wonder if there are any restrictions on what can and cannot be monitored. These limitations are explained next.

The LPD ( Lansing Police Department) has designated "privacy zones" which should not be recorded. These include the windows of homes and other "non-public areas;" but as one can see this name is not very descriptive of what places are truly restricted. Even though window areas are banned from recording, the police are still capable of seeing what types of packages the residents receive, who visits them, what services they subscribe to (ex: they notice a Comcast repair man parked in front of a house), etc. Being under constant surveillance can lead residents to wonder where their information is sent out to and for how long it remains there. It can also lead them to question whether they are being targeted because they are part of a minority group.

An independent researcher's findings demonstrated that African-American residents were indeed to be "..twice as likely to be under camera surveillance as white residents;" black residents were aware of this. The LPD's advanced surveillance can anger anyone, but when people know they are specifically being targeted, resentment and distrust grows.

Professional and Community Policing: A View of LAPD's Southeast Division

By: Pedram

Since we were discussing elements and effects of professional policing, community policing, and the LAPD on Tuesday the 26th, I thought it would be appropriate to highlight a law-enforcement entity that I am very familiar with through past involvement: LAPD's Southeast Division. Information on the area can be found at the following links:

http://www.lapdonline.com/southeast_community_police_station/content_basic_view/1752

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/lapd/division/southeast/

The area has historically been one of the most impoverished, gang-dense, and criminally active areas in California. I believe that Southeast Division has manifested, and continues to manifest today (although to a much lesser extent) the difficult balance between community and professional policing in areas similar to Southeast. This is shown in the following documentary by Peter Jennings: 

The documentary follows an LAPD Southeast Gang Unit throughout the year of 2003, as they try to contain the gang violence that's endemic to the community. It shows that the police, given a level of resources that they believe to be inadequate, must be aggressive in their tactics and possibly devoid of compassion to effectively police. Community-policing, under these circumstances, appears to be an infeasible luxury.

There is commentary by community members and civil rights activists that liken the department's professional-policing operations to an occupying force (as mentioned in lecture). They also comment on the history of professional policing crises that created and help perpetuate current distrust of the LAPD, such as the Rodney King incident and Rampart scandal. This distrust creates a crisis of legitimacy and, as seen in the video, results in citizen fear and animosity towards the LAPD. The police officers even state that many of the citizens know who has committed a crime, but don't trust the LAPD and don't come forward to them with the information.

However, that documentary was made in 2003. Since then, considerable progress and a greater shift towards community-policing has been made in Southeast. The LAPD had added 1,000 more officers, crime has been dropping, there is better leadership, greater political attention has been placed on the area, and new community-oriented policing tactics have been implemented. For instance, there is a policing unit/program called the Community Safety Partnership (CSP), where officers are placed in the gang-infested housing projects. They work footbeats, where they get to meet and interact with many of the residents, and build community trust. Additionally, meetings are held weekly where political leaders, community members/leaders, police officials, and even former gang leaders convene and discuss issues in their community and disseminate information. Crime has been steadily decreasing in Southeast Division, and I would opine that a significant part is due to a much greater level of community-policing and community trust lent to LAPD's Southeast Division, a stark contrast to a decade ago.

Another caveat: the Commanding Officer of Southeast for the past 6 years, Captain Tingirides, even received an offer of protection from the division's community members when they found out he was on Christopher Dorner's kill-list. (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/A-New-Reputation-for-Watts-193205411.html). This most likely would not have happened if it were not for the greater focus on community-policing since 2003. But, of course, that's not to say that such a focus on community-policing would have been appropriate back then. Police departments must find the right balance between professional and community policing.

Self-Policing by Civilians in Mexico City

By: Negin Etemad

Due to a lack of state security, Mexico has had an outbreak of violence and civilians are teaming up to provide their city with civilian policing tactics. Civilian policing started a few weeks ago when residents used rifles and machetes to arrest three dozen people who they claim that public law enforcement failed to arrest themselves. After this outbreak of civilian policing, this movement has spread throughout the country by movement leaders and local human rights officials who promote communities patrolling and policing themselves since public law enforcement seems to be absent. This kind of civilian policing is pretty common in Mexico considering there are large drug and organized crime problems that public law enforcement don't take care of. The civilians have built their own checkpoints, they investigate the offenses and hold public trials.

This article was interesting to me since we learned in class that civilians can actually make arrests and act as a private police of their community. In Mexico City, public law enforcement is generally absent or corrupt. An example of this is the shootout that happened last summer in the Mexico City airport between two forces of police. One group of police were helping the drug trade by allowing the transportation of drugs on the airplanes, and the other group were there to arrest them, which is when the shootout took place. This shocked me because I didn't know there was still police corruption like this going on today. This shows that the public law enforcement in Mexico is not very reliable and that is why the civilians of certain communities in Mexico need to stand up and police for their own communities.

The question I raise is whether or not people are complying with the citizens who have chosen to police their community. In class Professor Musheno brought to our attention why people comply with legal authorities, and that is by coercion or threatening sanctions, utility, legitimacy and trust. Public police have an authority of the state and they are able to threaten sanctions on people, but most people don't believe that private citizens are capable of doing the same thing. They may not be able to send people to jail, but they can certainly can detain a criminal and then have public law enforcement deal with them when they get there. At first when I learned about citizens arrests and civilian policing, I didn't really take it seriously because I didn't think anyone would actually listen to or obey the actions of a fellow citizen trying to arrest a person, because they are not the public actors who have a badge and are authorities of the state. But after reading this article it made me look at civilian policing differently and I believe that it does work and in this case may be the only form of law enforcement in a certain city or country. Due to the corruption in Mexico City, the communities which have come together and formed civilian policing units are doing a great service for their city, however, it still has the same dangers that public law enforcement face on a daily basis. It is for that reason alone why most communities don't police themselves and trust that public law enforcement will handle everything, which as you see from this news article, isn't necessarily true.

Police Priorities

By: Andres Diaz

Captain Eric Upson, Operations Division Commander of the Berkeley Police Department, mentioned in class that there are conflicting ideals towards the function of the police department. He stated, “the business owners of Berkeley want us to prevent the homeless people from loitering in front of their stores, while the political figures such as the mayor want our number one priority to be crime prevention. The patrolling and regulating of people smoking weed is at the bottom of our priority list.” Consequently, the police officers of Berkeley are torn apart by the number of assignments and obligations that are needed to be fulfilled by the different members of the city of Berkeley. The inability to address the priorities of public law enforcement in a small city like Berkeley become more complex in a metropolitan city such as Los Angeles where the issue of fiscal constraints becomes a problem.

In the article that I read in the Los Angeles Times, thousands of sex offenders and child molesters have begun to remove their GPS monitoring devices and some have recently been charged with new crimes such as manslaughter or kidnapping. The offenders have found a way to disable the tracking devices and due to the over capacity in the jails, the likelihood of them serving time in the jail is slim. Under Governor Jerry Brown’s “realignment” program, jails have been forced to reduce the overcrowding in the state prisons. As a result, sex offenders and parole violators are being released within days of violating their probation. Some state prisons have even refused to accept these menaces to society. “Rithy Man, a convicted child stalker, was arrested three times in two months after skipping parole and was freed almost immediately each time. After his third release, his GPS alarm went off and vanished. The next day, he turned up in a Stockton living room where a 15-year-old girl was asleep on the couch. The girl told police she awoke to find a stranger staring at her and that he asked ‘Wanna date?’ before leaving the home. He went twice more that week and menaced the girl and her 13-year-old sister before authorities recaptured him in a local park.”

State prisons are following the courts’ orders by releasing some of its inmates due to a maximum capacity, and jails are dismissing sex offenders who have violated their probation within days. So whose job is it to protect the members of society? The public law enforcement is constrained by opposing interests that are ultimately beyond their control.

You’re Always Being Watched

By: Derek Campbell

Surveillance has been a very useful and necessary tool in order for the government to investigate crime for a long time. The use of surveillance has evolved come a long way over the years through the invention of equipment used, such as video cameras, cameras or sound equipment. As our society has evolved people are starting to add surveillance into their own homes as methods to ensure safety and care for their families. The reasoning could either be for when the family is out of town or to just monitor behavior. Over time the government has developed home surveillance laws, to ensure privacy of others. While states have different laws, filming without consent is normally okay but should not be done in private areas. National policies regarding surveillance have caused some controversy because there has been some unwarranted surveillance that has been done in the name of national security. Should government have the ability to surveillance wherever they decide? The public has their pros and cons for the unwarranted surveillance from the government, through actual events that have happened one can see the reasoning for our National security to disregard certain surveillance laws.

The NSA Warrantless surveillance controversy is one loophole the government formed to use National surveillance whenever they please without approval of anyone. This controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National security agency (NSA) as part of war on terror. This high power surveillance clan really got going post September 11^th. People in America are all on board for the termination of terrorists’ acts on our country. Alongside the governments advanced technological surveillance options, are the negative side in which certain Americans disagree with.

In a recent New York court case (People vs. Moore), the court denies the police officers “exigent circumstance” in the officer’s plea of him using the phone tracking system to track down an alleged homicide suspect. In court the officer did not have sufficient evidence to offer, so he became at the wrong in using the particular surveillance. This brings up the question of penalty. The law enforcer that misuses government surveillance should be penalized. This in the end will hold police officers and/or government officials more liable for their actions. They possibly will think twice or enable them to find legitimate evidence before using unwarranted government surveillance in order to get their job done.

There is a contrary to these two examples of feasible government surveillance.  The public is aware of these unrecognizable surveillance options; this actually parallels Bentham’s panopticon. In Bentham’s panopticon he explains how in prison, the prisoners have no idea when they are actually being watched. And the idea that people know they are being watched is tremendous power over whomever you are surveillance. The fact that people of the United States now know they are basically being watched at all times, most of the time they have no idea how, is a tremendous threat to society. People feel as if they can’t or wouldn’t get away with anything due to high surveillance options of the government, so that forces them for the most part, to abide by the laws.

Surveillance and Technology

By: Heidi Cheung

Today, we are constantly under surveillance. Reports about companies and employers wanting their employees’ login information to social media sites, stop and frisk, and public/private police misconduct further reaffirms Gilliom and Monahan’s argument about our surveillance society. In lecture, surveillance was defined as a systematic and intrusive watching from a position of power, with the intent of channeling and governing human thoughts, actions, and behaviors. The reality is, surveillance is built into our social architecture and there is virtually no way to escape it. Recent news includes police drones, which further supports the idea of a rapidly increasing surveillance society/police state through new technology.

Used for years in military war zones like Afghanistan, the Federal Avian Administration has recently expressed interest in testing these “unmanned drones” in several civilian places in Seattle. Since last year, Seattle has obtained U.S. Permits for police departments who want to try them out. A guest lecturer mentioned that citizens feel the need to carry guns when they feel the police force isn’t doing enough to protect them. Especially recently, when gun use is getting out of hand, the government is constantly looking for ways to reduce crime. This is one way to combat crimes because the police evidently can’t bring down crime to a sufficiently low level.  Also, while the President is pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, our country fears another terrorist attack. 21 states are considering bills to regulate the use of drones in civilian life, in large part to combat terrorism. Technology of these drones moves faster than public policy debates, therefore, implementation of these drones in our future seems promising.  

An NPR article describes the debate about drones. Professor Musheno said some of our main concerns about surveillance in the 21^st century are about eroding democratic participation and public accountability and our values. In addition, legitimacy of our government needs to be preserved. Drones pose a scary thought to the public, as our daily lives would be constantly watched. This is invasive to our privacy and freedom – important values to our country. Last month, the mayor in Olympia shot down the use of drones. Now, the issue has moved to the capital. Privacy activist Sam Bellomio points out that we’re not in a war zone, we shouldn’t be at war against our citizens. Drones supporters say that initiating state rules will ensure citizens that they’re not being personally watched, and surveillance will be deleted if nothing is out of the ordinary. However, limitation shouldn’t be too strict either - technology isn’t fully completed yet, and they don’t want to limit the use and efficiency of potentially successful crime deterrents. The federal government is planning to pay for these drones. (The two drones purchased by Seattle last year were financed by the Department of Homeland Security.) This article also brings up other concerns in society like license plate scanners and facial recognition software. 

G&M summarize our privacy debates concisely in one sentence: “by and large the ‘right to privacy’ is not well enforced.” (G&M 6) Everything we use has become capable of monitoring us. We carry around cell phones, credit cards, computers, walk in and out of private property, etc. Simply cell phones are equipped with all the technology necessary to track us down quickly and easily.

Four days ago, NBC wrote about surveillance cameras becoming increasingly popular. The meteor that struck in Russia was recorded through the use of dashboard cameras, a popular commodity in Russia. People buy these cameras for similar reasons to why we buy home surveillance cameras – to feel security. This is an example to how we choose to be under surveillance.

In conclusion, while many new technologies are invasive and eroding our values, we can rethink how we choose to give up our privacy and freedom, too. 

Beware What You Search

By: Jessica Crume

Internet privacy and surveillance have been a big part of our discussion this semester. Most people shop online, search Google, or post thoughts and pictures up on Facebook without worrying where their information is being stored or shared.   

The problem with privacy on these websites and in general is that most people do not think it is an issue until their privacy has been violated. Many think that if they are not doing anything illegal or have nothing to hide, their privacy, or lack of, is not an issue.

In a recent article from the Huffington post, Eric Clemons explains the issues with privacy and how corporations can invade privacy to target consumers or participate in price discrimination. Although many people think clicking on ads is anonymous and harmless this is not always the case. Insurance companies can advertise to you after they have seen something you search or purchase knowing that they can charge you a higher price. In the article a man that has come back from a bachelor party in New York got so drunk to the point of a black out, only remembering having unprotected sex with multiple women, and remembering them to be prostitutes. He conducted a Google search of the percentage of prostitutes in NY with HIV/AIDS, how long he has to wait for this to show up in a test, and also finds out if it is insurance fraud to deny being exposed to the HIV virus. During this last search he gets an ad for an insurance policy targeted at men in his age who are non-smokers. Sounding like this fit his description he clicks on it. Once he is taken to the insurance companies’ website, they now have all the information he just searched and know that they can overcharge him for insurance even though he may be a healthy individual.

Car insurance can also look at credit card purchases to determine prices. If someone paid a bar tab then paid for a parking lot soon after, it looks like they are driving drunk. This would increase the amount of insurance even if this person was actually not drinking.

The issue with privacy is when is it enough. We can use surveillance like this for crime prevention, which is a positive tool, but should we let already wealthy corporations make more money by documenting what we do on a daily basis, even when this may not be accurate?  As technology gets more advanced, privacy becomes more of a concern and we need to be more aware of it.

Police Misconduct

By: Donald Chan 

In recent years, it seems as though public police have garnered a decidedly negative reputation in the public eye and—while, of course, this is not a universal view—there is an arguably strong sense of distrust within modern American culture in regards to police. One doesn't have to look far to see hints of this distrust and disapproval, considering the public outcry against the way campus police handled student protests at universities throughout California in the last couple years. Now, I'm not trying to say that all police are corrupt and use excessive force, but it is indicative of an underlying problem that should not be ignored. That problem is that police do not have proper accountability for their actions, with far too many incidents occurring without adequate repercussion.



Most recently—and revealing—are some of the events surrounding the recent manhunt for Christopher Dorner. One of which was the Torrance police opening fire on innocent civilians in what LAPD Chief Charlie Beck described in a local CBSarticle as “a case of mistaken identity by the officers”. In this same article, Attorney Glen T. Jonas responded, “The vehicle is a different color. The license plate doesn't match. There's nothing there for you to start shooting people... And even if they had the person in question... Mr. Dorner... you still have to give them an opportunity to get out. You can't just start administering street justice.” In this event, police were not following proper protocol and subsequently opened fire on a vehicle that didn't match the description of the suspect's vehicle nor did the occupants—two Hispanic women—match Dorner's description.



In the wake of these events, Sunil Dutta (an LAPD officer) published an article in the Washington Post, saying, “Police serve the community — any concerns about their integrity must be transparently, expeditiously and judiciously resolved. Relying on cops to police cops is neither efficient nor confidence-inspiring... The solution? Abolish internal affairs units and outsource their work to external civilian agencies.” While the idea of utilizing civilian agencies to essentially police the police may have its merits, the subtext is that police do not always have adequate accountability.



In regards to how all of this relates to class, David Alan Sklansky's article, The Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism, discusses the balance between what he calls “police professionalism” and “community policing”. He states that professional policing, as it has existed historically was “blamed for making police departments insular, arrogant, resistant to outside criticism and feckless in responding to social ferment” (Sklansky 44). Arguably, this problem is still very pervasive in some modern police forces. He goes on to talk about the idea how technology detracts from “other critical parts of the contemporary policing agenda: building trust and legitimacy, ensuring democratic accountability, and addressing the enduringly corrosive connections between criminal justice and racial inequality” (Sklansky 49). So while the Dorner case saw the use of drones to hunt a man within our own borders, it also saw a lack of accountability on the part of police forces involved and a loss of legitimacy.



Additional links for further reading/information on the matter:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-0216-mailbag-dorner-police-20130216,0,5596863.story

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/protesters-show-support-for-christopher-dorner.html

Stop and Frisk in New York City

By: Tayler Davis

One topic we have covered in class and discussion is the technique of stop and frisk used by public police in order to reduce crime in their cities. New York City is the main city that has made use of this aggressive form of policing. New York City has been the nation's leading city in crime reduction, as crime, specifically violent crime, has been declining since 1990. Many researchers have looked to the techniques the NYPD uses to evaluate which methods are most responsible for reducing their crime rate. The ultimate goal is to identify this and apply the same techniques to other cities around the country. An article written in the New York Times this month, dismisses the idea that it is the stop and frisk method that has been the reason for the decrease seen in violent crime in New York City. 

Stop and frisk methods have been very controversial due to the high amounts of innocent people being stopped, as well as the fact that the majority of people stopped and frisked are Latinos or African American males. Last summer, it was announced that the police department would decrease the number of stop and frisks. People of New York City expressed their concerns that cutting down this method and being “soft-on-thugs” would result in “more blood in the streets”. However, this has not been the case. In 2012, New York experienced the fewest amount of homicides it has had in 50 years. This shows that there may be no direct correlation between stop and frisk and homicide rates. 

Franklin Zimring’s book Policing in New York City relates to this article as it touches on the issue of stop and frisk in chapter 5. He explains that stop and frisk cannot be seen as the only explanation for the decrease in crime in New York City. As Zimring explains, since the decline in crime, there have been a multitude of different tactics that have been intertwined and used together. Their combination has attributed to the success of the NYPD (Zimring 132). To point to one tactic as the reason for crime reduction is improbable. 

Though the stop and frisk methods have only been limited and not completely put to an end, I think it is a step in the right direction as stop and frisk does not prove to be an effective form of policing. As stated in the article, 90% of the people that are stopped are innocent. This method does more harm than good as it threatens the legitimacy of the police. Other tactics should be considered and employed in attempt to suppress crime. 

AT&T Parking Meters

By: Randy Coomes

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has been adding hundreds of parking meters around AT&T Park over the last couple months. These parking meters will go into effect on March 4^th. These meters are a part of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s SFpark program. The SFpark program’s main goal is to deter people from driving in high demand places, such as AT&T Park, to reduce congestion. This is a demonstration of an agency trying to exercise their power over people through social control.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency isn’t actually removing any parking spots near AT&T Park, they are just going to start charging an hourly rate of up to $7 an hour to park there. So there is no guarantee that this plan will have an effect besides just raking in money for their agency. They seem to believe that charging outlandish parking rates will encourage people to take public transit instead of driving to the park and congesting the roadways.

This new policy seems a bit naïve to me. It looks like it’s going to negatively affect people of lower socio-economic levels much more than those at a higher level. Imagine a family that has saved up for a little bit to take their child to a baseball game for his birthday. It took them a decent amount of saving just to afford tickets to the game, there is no way they would be able to pay the extra thirty or so dollars to park at the stadium. Instead they will have to gather their family and take a much longer, and possibly much more crowded, bus ride to the ballpark. On the way to the game, the kids will probably be so excited that they get to see a game that they grow extremely restless on the bus ride and try to run around a bit, making the ride worse for everyone on it. On the way home, they’re likely to be tired out from the excitement of the game and want to sleep, but they’re stuck on an uncomfortable, packed, bus instead of their car. This family would be extremely negatively affected by the change. Consider a couple who buy season tickets every year. They, coming from a higher socio-economic class, probably wouldn’t mind paying for parking because it comes with the convenience of taking their own vehicle. The couple, while spending more money to go to the game, is much less inconvenienced than the family who has to put up with taking public transit to and from the game.

As stated earlier, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency isn’t removing any of the parking spots near AT&T Park. So while poorer people may be forced into taking public transportation, or just not going at all, people with means will be able to find spots even closer to the stadium since some people will be forced out of driving. This method of social control seems to be an effort to suppress poorer people from coming to ballgames. 

Stop and Frisks

By: Maria Campos

In New York, the implementation of stop and frisk has been plagued by controversy, with some saying that it reduces crime while others condemning it for its use of racial profiling. While it is obvious that stop and frisk targets black and latino youth, there is a continued effort to spread its use to other cities, such as Oakland and San Francisco. In the recent ABC news article , former NYC police commissioner, Bill Bratton claims that the use of stop-and-frisk is an effective way to decrease crime. He has recently been appointed as a consultant to the city of Oakland and is confident that the use of this policy will bring change to Oakland’s crime rates. The stop and frisk policy has already spread to Los Angeles and Boston and he believes that Oakland could also benefit from this tactic.  

As the use of terry stops expands, the president of the NAACP , Benjamin Jealous, has recently denounced the use of them stating that “Its thesis is this when you boil it down...that color and age are reasonable grounds for suspicion."  The NAACP and critics of the terry stops point out that, not only is it targeting people of color, but also most of the stops are ineffective. As learned in lecture,the Oakland police force is already highly understaffed, implementing stop and frisk could contribute to the already difficult task of answering to emergency calls. Valuable resources that could be put to better use are being wasted on searching young teenagers who happen to cross paths with a cop. 

Terry stops also connect to the idea of the Panopticon.  In the panopticon, individuals learned to police themselves because they never knew who might be watching them from behind the window. In Overseers of the Poor, Gilliom states that “ as Foucault put it, they ‘internalize the gaze’ so that the operation of power becomes cheaper, easier, and more effective” (Gilliom,130). As seen in the video we watched during lecture, knowing that an individual will most likely be stopped and frisked because they are a young male of color changes the amount of time they spend outside with friends and also makes them wary of police officers. Overtime, the change in behavior would be internalized. This same idea of internalizing the gaze creates a division between the police and the community. The police is no longer seen as a legitimate force of protection but rather as invaders on the community. The use of terry stops and the targeting of specific communities creates hostility between the community and the police, making it more difficult to effectively police an area because of lack of cooperation from the very people who the police are meant to be protecting. 

Two Interesting Articles

Jenny Carlson, the former GSI for this course and future professor of sociology at the University of Toronto, sent along two interesting links that students in this class might appreciate. The first is an analysis of what rappers actually say about police: "After an analysis of a random sample of hip-hop songs released on platinum-selling albums between 2000 and 2010, Steinmetz and Henderson concluded that the main law enforcement-related themes in hip-hop are not pleasure and pride in aggressive and criminal acts, but the unfairness of the criminal justice system and the powerlessness felt by those targeted by it."

The second link describes the new ACLU phone app to monitor stop and frisks. 
I encourage you all to check them out when you get a chance! And remember, your first comments are due by Wednesday at 3:00 PM. Those of you on the schedule for this next week should also submit your blog posts by that date, as well. 

HUD: Binary Opposition of Benefit and Detriment

By: Patricia Boone

The housing authority (HA) is one form of institutional surveillance.* A recent conversation with my cousin, who resides in a L.A housing project, was concerning U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) control over her home. Our conversation  led me to two questions: (1) how does HA operate as a surveillance agency in public housing and (2) how does housing subsidization take on a binary opposition of benefit and detriment in the lives of low-income populations. For the purpose of this blog, I will focus on Housing Authority (HA)—a subset of HUD.

Government subsidies for housing sound like a good deal for low-income families; since rent is only 30% of the household income, but who really comes out on top? The HA enforce rules and regulations set by the federal government. In order to be eligible, applicants must meet certain criteria: income and identification verification; a current home inspection by an HA representative; provide documentation of those who will reside in the home and anything else that HA requires. Once satisfied, applicants are placed on a waiting list that can take months even years to get housing. This means that many people are entered into the system before they use the benefits. The detriment is similar to the welfare paradox in Overseers of the Poor, because an increase in income, unreported income, or non-compliance with any other HA regulations will result in eviction. Everyday resistance exists when residents find ways to either limit income or illegally subsidize it—to maintain affordable housing.  

How far is too far? If HA control residents of public housing can they regulate its visitors? According to HUD.Gov, “each HA has the discretion to establish preferences to reflect needs in its own community.” One example is in an article from the San Francisco Examiner, Rules Blocking Criminals from Public Housing Deemed Illegal. The San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) began using criminal records to ban visitors from public housing in an effort to reduce crime. However, the Supreme Court ruled that such civil injunctions were unconstitutional, even in the name of safety, because they violated the personal rights of Marcus Johnson; who was arrested multiple times although he was on the property to visit his children. Nonetheless, HUD found a way around such rulings by awarding 20 public housing agencies with $3.8 Million dollars to install/update surveillance systems for the purposes of fighting crime, monitoring drug activity, so that residents feel safe. Consequently, the benefit of safety appears to be at the cost of others.

In the end, HA may appear to be a satisfying answer to a deeply-rooted problem of poverty, and its subsidizing benefits make it hard for a poor person to say no. Yet, its centralized system of surveillance has detrimental effects that impede the social mobility of the poor. HA rules and regulations affirm poverty norms in public housing; its surveillance systems monitor behavior and civil injunctions guarantee residents compliance—almost.

---

*John Gilliom and Monahan, Supervision. 4. Uses credit rating systems to describe the evolution of surveillance. Here they discuss how institutional surveillance and data can be a hindrance for some and liberating for others.

Private Police Tickets?

By: Michael Bergin

In the modern “information society”, surveillance has become an increasingly prominent industry; highlighting the rise of surveillance, there has been an increased demand for private police. Due to economic and demographic changes, along with a new “culture of fear”, private police now outnumber public law enforcement officers. While private police have much less authority than public law enforcement, their jurisdiction differs on a state-to-state basis. Lately, there’s been a push towards private policing, as a greater number of states are allocating greater power to non-conventional law enforcers. Left unregulated, this increased power in private policing can have potentially damaging outcomes.

In 2008, an Illinois driver noticed flashing lights in his rearview mirror, and was then pulled over and issued a speeding ticket for fifty dollars. However, it was not a public law enforcer that pulled him over. The citing officer was an employee of a private third party policing company, whose services were subsequently purchased by the LaSalle, Illinois homeowner’s association. Claiming false imprisonment, the driver sought justice in an appeals court. The court decision ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the homeowner’s association could not detain and issue citations using private police who have no state certification or training.

        

Approximately four years later, in a ruling exemplifying the push towards increased discretion amongst private police, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the decision handed down in the appellate court. Concluding that there is no logic in allowing a homeowners association to build and maintain roadways, yet not allow them to enforce them, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling. While the ability to temporarily detain and cite LaSalle drivers is an example of increased discretion amongst private police, it is only a small part of a larger movement.

        

Examining cases from class, along with the aforementioned Illinois Supreme Court case, I have noticed a theme. Private organizations are allowed to enforce their rules, using private police, at essentially their own discretion. Corporate police in private realms act and present themselves as public police, yet aren’t limited by the same constrictions. Target security, for example, can legally detain and question customers without justification and without granting suspects their Miranda rights.  Furthermore, in the gated communities of LaSalle, Illinois, we see another example of unregulated power.

          

In such neighborhoods, one can legally be pulled over and issued a citation from an entity outside the bounds of state regulation. As the citing officer in LaSalle wasn’t under the same restrictions as a public law enforcer, he wouldn’t have been required to provide reasoning for the stop, or afford the driver the possibility to contest the fine; in this scenario, our constitutionally ensured due process of law is completely ignored. While this momentum towards privatization of law enforcement under the current economic, political and cultural climate may be inevitable, we must be extremely meticulous in how we regulate it. 

Red-light Surveillance Cameras

By: Marielle Bautista 

One of the significant topics we have discussed in class is the legitimacy of surveillance tools. Surveillance entails the invasive, meticulous observation of people with the purpose of channeling their behavior. It is integrated into all aspects of our daily lives so that we are in constant fear that our actions must abide by the law. While surveillance techniques can prove to provide protection and ensure safety, they can be seen in a negative light. Some issues include a minimization of public accountability, increase in marginalization of various groups in society, invasion of privacy, and growth of market values. Within this essay, I will analyze an article in the SFGate which questions the legitimacy of red-light surveillance cameras and I’ll argue that they should remain intact to keep the roads safe.

Last week, SF Gate reported the arrest of the St. Louis councilman Joe Brazil for the non-payment of a red-light violation and absence from the court trial. Brazil argued that these cameras should be removed because Missouri law does not add penalty points to his driver’s license for such offenses. He also protested that police are wasting time and energy arresting citizens for these traffic violations. Brazil’s reasoning is flawed because he does not take into account drivers’ safety and the prevention of accidents. He merely measures the legitimacy of the surveillance cameras by the severity of the violation. He thinks that the power he holds as a politician will allow him to evade vital traffic regulations. 

The laxity of Missouri law shows that the perceived effectiveness of surveillance also depends on the context of the situation. A red light violation in California would cost a driver $500 and the requirement to attend traffic school. Our state’s traffic laws not only deter you with the risk of a hefty fine, but also secure conformity to codes of conduct on the road by requiring you to attend traffic school for violations. The red-light cameras are central tools of social control. 

As we have discussed in class, surveillance techniques have become increasingly high tech in this new information age. The red-light cameras snap a picture of the driver’s face and can detect whether the driver matches the owner of the license plate. Arnold Schwarzenegger hopes to enhance the cameras so it will serve a dual purpose of catching those who run red-lights and those who are also exceeding the speed limit. Gilliom’s book SuperVision explains how we have to be more cautious and aware that surveillance may replace in-person reprimands. Rather than being approached by a cop for speeding and having the opportunity to negotiate and get the ticket waived, we will automatically have an expensive ticket mailed to us for our actions caught on the red-light/speeding cameras.

What is compelling about St. Louis is that these surveillance tools have actually spurred a wide-spread debate. Opponents argue that companies which establish the cameras make profit out of the tickets issued. They say it is unfair for citizens to finance this useless installation. Again, however, they do not take into account the benefit of securing the safety of drivers and pedestrians. When drivers know there are cameras around them they are much more likely to drive carefully, follow the traffic lights, and avoid injuring themselves and others on the road. The youtube video attached includes a CBS report on the effectiveness of red-light cameras in ensuring public safety.

An Ongoing Debate: Corporate Policing and Surveillance v. Privacy

By: Mariola Bak

On February 6^th, 2013, a short article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle about a proposed legislation that the state of Rhode Island is currently considering. The bill, if accepted, would “prohibit companies from demanding a potential employee's user names and passwords to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.” (SF Chronicle) So far, similar legislation has already been enacted or has been introduced in at least twenty-six states (NCSL website), but the controversy remains.

The issue this debate spurs that directly corresponds to our class readings and discussions is the extent to which the continuously expanding corporate policing and surveillance practices limit our privacy. In order to elaborate on this statement, I will first comment on the issue and then connect it to the assigned readings.

It is apparent that employers who require the applicants and/or employees to provide login information to their social media sties are crossing the boundaries of an individual’s right to privacy. Social media sites such as Facebook are predominantly utilized for individual and personal interactions. Employers’ claim that having access to an applicant or employee’s account provides insights about one’s character and personality is an absurd. One could learn a lot about person’s character and personality by analyzing the person’s spending habits, yet asking about login information to an online banking is considered a direct violation of one’s privacy. The fact is that the twenty-six states, which have passed or are in the process of legislating laws that prohibit employers form requesting the login information to social media sites of their employees or applicants, are emblematic. Not only do they constitute the most supportive example of the idea that such practice is an unwarranted invasion of one’s privacy, but they also symbolize resistance against the corporate policing practices in the form of legal activism, a concept discussed briefly by Professor Musheno on February 12^th.

The presented issue is the most relevant in connection with “privacy paradigm” and “need based claims” notions introduced in the Overseers of the Poor. The welfare recipients, although felt that the welfare system invaded their privacy, understood that meeting their basic needs and taking care of their children was the most important. In order to survive, they had to give up their privacy. A similar claim may apply to individuals in the states in which the legislation that would prevent employers from requesting the login information to social media sites from their employees or applicants have not been passed yet. Because the US economy continues to struggle and high unemployment rates affect the lives of many, obtaining a job is a crucial necessity. If meeting the basic needs by obtaining an employment comes at a price of providing social media login information to a potential employer, than many individuals will consent to this practice, just as the welfare mothers consent to the requirements of the welfare system apparatus.

Corporate practices of surveillance and policing unquestionably limit our privacy, but it is possible, through legal activism for example, to limit the extent to which they do so.

Social Media and Social Architectures

By: Yunus Aybar

Between February and March 2012 Harrison interactive on behalf of Careerbuilder.com conducted a survey among 2,303 hiring managers and human resource professionals regarding the use of social media for hiring processes. Reasons for the use of social media were to see if the candidate presents themselves professionally, if they are a good fit in the company culture, if there is more information about their qualifications, if they are well rounded, and if there are reasons not to hire them. 37% of companies surveyed conduct this practice and were primarily using Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Applicants were hurt if there was info of them drinking or using drugs, bad mouthing a previous employer, posting inappropriate photos, discriminatory comments and lying about qualifications. However, there is a possible benefit. Some of the surveyed employers said that they found something they liked while looking through their candidates social media account. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that what you post on your social media has a good chance of impacting your employment opportunities.

We have all heard “Be careful of what you post on the internet!” But were these social sites created in order to sculpt ourselves online to be the perfect candidate for a job, or to keep in touch with friends? Are we supposed constantly be paranoid of a picture from last night that a friend might post and tag you in, or would it be smarter to not go out or do anything that would be deemed improper conduct by a future employer? Do we have to constantly worry about what someone might say someday about something posted on the internet, preventing me from gaining the job you want?  This form of surveillance in our social life raises questions like this, and how I see it leaves us only two options: 1) Sacrifice your online social life and be completely safe. 2) Maintain your online social media, constantly policing yourself, paranoid about what you say and post and what others say and post about you.

Regardless of what you choose, your decision is shaped by the social architecture created by social media. The social architecture created from this type of surveillance forces you to make a decision that you would normally not if you knew that your social life was safe from possibly being used against you. In Supervision, authors John Gilliom and Torin Monahan discuss the effects of surveillance.  “…surveillance architecture creates frequently hidden dynamics of inclusion and exclusion.” (35). Things that you may forget to omit on your website can consequently have an effect on one of the most important types of inclusion and exclusion, employment. I understand that an employer wants to know that they are hiring the right person, but looking into our personal lives via social media to see if we match their standards is wrong. There are other ways to find out the character of a person, and spying on us and our friends is not the one. Personally, thanks to things like this, I have made the choice to remove myself from the social media world. 

Use of Surveillance Drones

By: Amir Afshar

“It’s a bird, it’s a plan, no it’s an armed surveillance drone!” What comes to mind when picturing a surveillance drone? Many people including myself will most likely respond that they picture blips in the sky used to monitor terrorist activity and assist in warfare. Drone opponents proclaim that use of these drones cause too many civilian casualties. Loose oversight is also mentioned as a problem. There are many questions surrounding both armed and unarmed surveillance drones. Do the benefits of using these drones outweigh potential or realized consequences? Drones could prove to be valuable assets that protect American lives.

Drones are mainly used by the military for “surveillance and targeted killings." They are becoming increasingly advanced and can carry out important missions without risking lives of military personnel. There are different types of drones such as the armed MQ-1B Predator that is used for long endurance, intelligence gathering missions and the MQ-9 Reaper for taking out high-priority targets. The drones carry visual sensors that enable them to focus on targets and identify if individuals are carrying a weapon. In this new age of robotic warfare, it seems ever more pertinent to consider the ramifications of drone use.

Unfortunately the US surveillance drones are not as precise and effective as supporters might like to believe. “Since 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders which only accounts for a mere two percent of all drone-related fatalities” (New America Foundation). New America Foundation’s Year of the Drone project reports that somewhere between 1,584 and 2,716 “militants” have been killed in Pakistan since 2004, and between 152 and 191 civilians (and 130-268 “unknowns”). The US considers all military aged males in a strike zone to be considered “combatants” and there is a chronic underreporting of civilian casualties. Media reports on the strikes tend to conflict on the number of victims and location of the strikes. It is difficult to measure the aggregate effect of a drone strike.

While it is true that these drones are imprecise weapons, they can still be utilized to protect citizens from looming threats. For example, the LAPD is now using surveillance drones to find alleged domestic terrorist Christopher Dorner. They can save law enforcement valuable time that is needed to discover and monitor targets. Drones are also a rapidly growing form of technology that is now being used outside of the military sector. The NOAA uses drones to study animal behavior and ecosystems. There is more limited contact between the animals and humans which is safer for all involved. Journalists and sport photographers can use them instead of expensive helicopters and the utility industry may begin using them to find downed power lines.

The positives of employing drone technology seem too enticing to get rid of the program. Drones improve overall human safety and are invaluable in dispatching threats. They minimize risk both in and outside of the war zone. They are another addition to Gilliam and Monahan’s surveillance society.

Additional link: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/politics/drones-cnn-explains/index.html

Three Interesting Articles from the New York Times

Three interesting articles related to this class appeared in the New York Times over the last few days. The first article went viral Sunday, trending as one of the top stories on reddit, and receiving media attention from popular blogs like Gawker. In the article, Michelle Alexander, a law professor from Ohio State University, claims that police in some departments across the country regularly lie in court. Very bold and important claims from Alexander and others in the article.

The second article compares and contrasts US data protection laws with those from the European Union (EU). You may be surprised to see how countries in the EU have much stricter laws on information privacy than we have here in the US. For a great example of the differences between data protection in the US compared to the EU, look at how a country like Germany has treated Google Map street view. 

The third article details a potential move by the Federal Trade Commission to limit the tracking capabilities of mobile phones in order to safeguard personal information. This directly relates to some of the material we read in the Gillion and Monahan excerpt from Supervision. It's very interesting and worth a read.