Facial Recognition Unit

By: Laci Patiga

In a recent article, High-Tech NYPD Unit Tracks Criminals Through Facebook and Instagram Photos, the NYPD is making the most of social media to catch criminals. With a new advancement in technology, the NYPD’s Facial Recognition Unit has the ability to run faces found on Facebook, Instagram, or surveillance cameras and run it through a database of mug shots to see if they get a match. This new technology is ideal because a lot of cops hit dead ends; either there are no fingerprints left behind or the victim has an unclear description of the suspect. Facial recognition “zeroes in on features and extracts size and shape of eyes, noses, cheekbones and jaws to find a match—[and] is now revolutionizing investigations in ways not seen since fingerprint analysis was implemented generations ago.”

This Facial Recognition Unit has already hit the ground running. Its first encounter involved a woman’s jewelry stolen by a friend’s boyfriend. His name was unknown to her, but she identified him through Facebook photos and the police were able track him down. In other cases, police successfully arrested a man who was involved in numerous cab robberies and another man who robbed an elderly couple. All these apprehensions were possible because of the use of the Facial Recognition Unit. Not only can it help with recent crimes, but it can also aid in past crimes. If police come across similar descriptions from a past case, they can follow up and see if the suspect is involved in both charges.

This is a completely different side when viewing technology and surveillance. While there are those who believe surveillance is too prevalent in our society—welfare cases, businesses refusing us a job because of past Facebook photos from our younger and immature days, or surveillance cameras in shopping malls that act as a deterrence—there is a bright side to this. Instead of negatively using social media to target citizens, police are using it to find out criminal’s identities. If they get a hit, the name and age of the suspect pop up. One officer claimed “it saved a ton of time and potentially dangerous investigative legwork.” The whole police force doesn’t have to go out in the field and attempt to find that suspect; they just send in the photo and wait for a response. If they do get a hit, they can learn more about the suspect’s file and their criminal history. As a result, the police can act accordingly for when they do go in for an arrest. Policing styles are definitely keeping up with progressing societies. We are in a technological era, and police need to keep up their efficiency and replicate such changes.

The article does touch base on the fact that “facial recognition hits are not legally considered ‘probable cause’ for cops to make an arrest” and this technology “is not foolproof,” but it is a step in the right direction. It helps victims identify suspects, the police can do more investigations with a clearer direction of where they’re headed, and it saves time and resources.

Resisting Stop and Frisk as a State Agent

By: Ji Park

The efficacy of the stop-and-frisks has been a topic among law enforcements, and has recently been brought to the spotlight due to the recent lawsuit that challenged NYPD on their controversial technique. Pedro Serrano is a New York City officer retaliating against the racialized stop-and-frisk tactics. Abiding by his own moral belief, Serrano made fewer stop-and-frisk stops compared to his colleagues. His stance of the controversial technique of stop and frisk clashed with his bosses in NYPD who encouraged utilizing stop-and-frisk to meet the quotas. Serrano’s accounts reveal the firm belief of NYPD on the efficacy of stop-and-frisk. According to Serrano and another officer Adhyl Polanco, the stops entailed of racial profiling to target blacks and latinos. This racialized side of the New York trial brings the attention to the legitimacy and fairness of the stop-and-frisk tactic. NYPD denies the accusations of racial profiling, even though 87% of all those who were stopped were black and latino. The lawsuit is not demanding a complete stop to the stop and frisks, only that it is supervised with more oversight, to ensure “all stop-and-frisks be based on reasonable, articulable suspicion”.

The tactic of stop-and-frisk roots its origin from the broken windows theory, a theory of aggressive policing focused on crime reduction. Broken windows theory suggests that untended property encourages untended behavior; leading to the question on the efficacy of the broken window policy in the urban areas of the United States such as Los Angeles and New York. Perhaps it is time to shift from the tactic that stems from the broken windows policy, originally designed to have zero-tolerance and no-nonsense policing, to a more advanced tactic that is tailored to the urban neighborhoods of the US. With further continuation of the stop-and-frisk method, NYPD risks legitimacy among citizens. 

Near the end of the article, Nicholas Pert testifies on the stand to advocate his stance on being racially profiled as an innocent black man. His accounts were one of the examples in our Policing and Society class, depicting his negative experiences of being stopped and searched numerous times altering his overall behavior and demeanor. Nicholas Pert is a victim of the adverse effect of stop-and-frisk tactic: being unfairly targeted started to alter the way he conducted his life. According to the article, the plaintiffs also appeal their humiliation and fear they experienced while being searched. The validity and efficacy of the stop and frisk tactic must be reviewed. Zimring has already published his personal view against the tactic, but perhaps more extensive search is needed. It is disturbing to see that the officers who refuse to conduct the controversial tactic that has yet to be proven in efficacy is subjected to questions from the state agents, being accused of not doing their job properly.

Evident in the article is the issue of racial profiling. Terry v. Ohio(1968) is a supreme court decision that shifted the police’s powers to stop and search on “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion”. As the legitimacy in the tactic of stop-and-frisk grows, ACLU have filed a lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia on Racial profiling among stop and frisk routines. In a precedent case against the LAPD in 2008, the police could search anyone with ‘suspicious activity’, now they are no longer allowed to search people committing minor infractions such as jaywalking or sleeping on the street. As Professor Musheno asserted in class, racialized policing is one of the major problems of police malfeasance. Bias and human error among stop and frisk policy is unavoidable. As the issue of stop-and-frisk gathers the media attention, demands for reform is growing. 

iPhone Tracking

By: Lissette Morales

While walking around the U.C. Berkeley campus, one cannot help but notice that an immensely large proportion of both the student and staff population own a remarkably ingenious device: the iPhone. Yet, despite the usefulness of such a device, indulging in the iPhone’s technologically advanced features comes at a cost.

     

In the article “Report: iPhones secretly track their users' locations”, the public is informed of the iPhone’s ability to secretly track and store every single location the iPhone’s owner has visited. When synched to a computer, every location visited by the owner as well as the time the owner was there, is stored on his/her computer and can be easily accessed by anybody who comes into contact with the computer. Even though there is no evidence that the information being collected through the iPhone is being transmitted to Apple, there remains the possibility that Apple will in fact use this stored information to create an app in the future that requires a history of previously visited locations. In response to this discovery, the researchers who discovered this storing of information decided to create a program called the iPhone tracker that allows iPhone owners to view a map of all of the movement that has been tracked by their iPhone. The iPhone tracker enables the public to grasp the magnitude of the iPhone’s location collecting capabilities.

    

Gilliom and Monahan attempt to demonstrate that we are all in one way or another being surveilled, because we live in an information society built around a social architecture that instills in us a social need to give out information about ourselves. Yet, in this case, we are NOT willingly granting permission for our information to be stored and made so easily accessible. As the author of the article points out, even though we are aware that all cellphones can track our location, this information is kept behind a firewall and is only made accessible with a court order. On the other hand, the location information tracked by an Iphone is available to anybody. Sadly, the tracking of location information could potentially be used to generate profits for Apple.

     

Professor Musheno makes a valid point when he states that market values are becoming more and more valuable. The potential profits made through apps seem to be more important than our right to not have our information compromised. As more possibilities for an expansion of technologies and profit are being created, the less our rights are taken into account. Fortunately, there are forms of counter-surveillance, such as the iPhone tracker that use surveillance to open the public’s eyes about the invasiveness of the surveillance tactics being used. Yet, I question whether the program will be successful at dissuading individuals from purchasing an iPhone. Some may just not care if their information is being stored and others may simply value the iPhone’s many other features too much to stop using it. I for one recently bought one and can’t imagine my constant “on-the-go” lifestyle without it, regardless if my information is being stored or not.

Effects of Aggressive Police Practices on Youths

By: Sehun Lee

Police officers in schools might be frowned upon but it may be argued that that their presence would more good than harm. Although many would argue that increased arrests, creation of criminal records for students as well as increased tasking of the justice system; their presence might avert serious crimes for example the columbine shooting(kupchik in reader). However the potential for racial oppression might increase. Having the police in schools is therefore more of a trade-off i.e. increased monitoring is good but it’s less likely that the police will prevent every possible crime that might occur, however it would seem that the pros outweigh the cons.

The police watch the mess halls, supervise students as they board their buses home, as well as general patrol. The patrols seek to remind the students of an existing force and help the schools manage the students. In addition to those roles, the police carry out investigations into minor offences around the school such as thefts, fights; follow up on cases and so on. It is important that the students be taught the law and inevitably the consequences of breaking laws, a role the police are most suited for. However counseling and teaching are not roles the police cherish. Most importantly, the police help in enforcing discipline within the school and the positive impact of these is that the students know that school rules are important. However there is an underside because the punishment meted for indiscipline might be too harsh (kupchik in reader)

Police presence benefits the administrators mostly because they can be advised on the seriousness of the crimes committed within the school. More importantly the police help to ensure that the schools’ safety initiatives are unquestionable, especially when parents are unpleased. Lastly the law enforcers help the administrators mitigate certain behaviors through appropriate harsh consequences’. Unfortunately, the police also create confusion within the school as to whose authority is greater; the administration or the police? Conflicts can arise if teachers feel that their roles are being undermined. The effect of this is that the teachers are continuously detached from their students as they just concentrate on teaching alone. The problem with this is that the police view the students as criminals, not as troubled teens being that they don’t know their backgrounds and that is the main cause of the strife between the police and the youth.

In the NYLS law review, growing up policed in the age of aggressive policing policies, the aggressive policing practices of the NYPD have been brought to light and their effect on the youth. The policies are based upon the broken windows theory; which maintains that surveillance and order in urban environments reduces crime.  Most important is the stop, question and frisk strategy which is based on reasonable suspicion and was supported in 1968 in Terry v Ohio. Terry is intended to enable the police carry out their work with ease, but its effect on the youth welfare cannot go unnoticed. The stop and frisk has had adverse effects to immigrant youth and those of color, and especially after the aftermath of 9/11.

The police stops target the youth more, in fact the NYPD Stop, Question and Frisk dataset for the years 2008 and 2009 showed that most of the stops involved kids in their teens, mostly in high school. The reason for this stops are inarticulate and are based on a hunch, such as suspicion, furtive movements and this begs the question as to whether the stops are based on race, gender or even sexual orientation. The police argue that the main reason for stop and frisk is to minimize contraband among the youth. The case of the Guyanese youth who pulled his gun on the police would certainly support this claim (kaieteur news, 2012)

The PFJ survey shows that most of the police contact was reported outside school, and some reported inside school. The increased police presence and the zero tolerance policy in the streets have also found its way in the schools as part of the school safety campaign. The NYCLU reported that in the fall of 2008, 5055 school safety agents were working in NYC’s public schools and another 191 armed NYPD officers were assigned to bring about change in those schools with the highest crime rates (and also schools largely populated with poor youth of color). It is evident that as much as the police presence might be applauded, it has more negative effects than positive. A better approach would be integrating the police with the community so that the force appears friendlier than foe.

Profits or Privacy?

By: Aaron Lee

In a recent BBC News article on technology, Google was criticized by EU privacy watchdogs for supposedly infringing its users' rights by failing to provide adequate information about the firm's scope of collection and potential usage of their personal data. According to CNIL, the French data privacy regulator that carried out the investigations, Google “might be in breach of several of the bloc's data protection principles” for providing "incomplete and approximate" details regarding their newly updated privacy policy. UK-based organization Big Brother Watch also supported these findings, asserting that citizens need to be aware of when and how their behavior is being monitored in order to make informed choices regarding their online activity. While Google adamantly claims that it has and will continue to abide by European law, their vague and incomplete responses to official inquiries calls into question whether or not the company is truly trying to be transparent and honest about its business practices.

To that end, CNIL has recommended that Google modify its policies in order to provide users with more direct control, such as 1) allowing its members to choose under what circumstances data about them was combined by asking them to click on dedicated buttons, 2) offering a centralized opt-out tool for users to decide which services can share their data, and 3) by differentiating the tools used for security and those used for advertising. These are all crucial improvements that need to be made in order for ordinary citizens to regain direct power over how and where their data is stored and shared. As mentioned in Gilliom and Monahan's book SuperVision, people are “vaguely aware” that their cellphone data, Google searches, and Facebook posts can be monitored, but many are completely ignorant about what they stand to lose when they click “Ok, got it” without knowing which shadowy individual now has access to the most intimate details of their lives.

In fact, while the suggestions made by CNIL are a decent first step in piercing the surface of our massive surveillance society, more needs to be done. Before users can even choose under “which circumstances” data can be shared, Google should offer them the choice of whether or not they even want to share any data at all. Furthermore, instead of just “streamlining” its privacy policy—which many people do not bother to read in full anyway—Google should integrate it into everyday tasks, actively notifying users about the potential risks each step of the way via mandatory checkpoints or text pop-ups. However, does Google also have rights to use the information that—as Gilliom and Monahan remind us—we knowingly and willingly provide in the first place? Is it unfair for Google, which specializes in information gathering, to not be able to use its key resource for profit? Or should our right to privacy and security completely override that incentive? What then would be the fate of corporations like Facebook and Twitter? Balancing both profits and privacy may be a tricky legal and social issue for years to come.

'Stop-And-Frisk' Quota

By: Tonny Leao

     

A nonjury trial involving a lawsuit from four men who argue the NYPD stops mostly black and Hispanic men without probable cause. This lawsuit seeks to reform and may even stop the stop-and-frisk which was made legal under a 1968 supreme court decision in terry v. In the nonjury trial, police officers were able to testify and made statements about the stop-and-frisk policy".

            

"Police officers testifying at a federal trial challenging New York City's stop-and-frisk policy say they were ordered to increase their number of arrests, summons and 250s — the code for stop, question and frisk". According to the article, police officers who fail meet the quota could be denied days off and overtime, and even be given a poor evaluation. Also it mentions that if they didn't meet the quotas they were sometimes forced to "drive their supervisors" who would make them give out to summons and make street stops, sometimes to people they didn't even observe.

            

Another police testify and said that "This is about quotas. At the end of the day, it's about quotas," he said. "That's why there is such an epidemic in these communities of people getting stopped and frisked — because the police are told to get numbers, and they are not interested in the numbers of radio runs or how they help. They are interested in arrests, summons and 250s." This article suggest that police officers in New York are too focus on meeting their quota. This system sacrifice quality over quantity. Many will argue that police who are cutting close to their quota deadline will probably stop and frisk someone without any probable cause.  Does pressure to boost statistics cause police to stop, question and frisk people, whether or not there's a real suspicion of a crime? Another testimony for this trial, three police department supervisors  all said no, "we are not a police department that wants to do numbers for number sake" said Heidi Grossman of the New York City Law Department.

            

What should we believe and what is the right thing to do? Should we modify stop-and-frisk or just remove it? Surely this type of policing have shown reduce crime rates with also combining it with other policing methods. I believe that police should not meet a quota but focus on making successful stops with probable cause. Police officers should not be pressure to make forced stops just to meet a number to satisfy their supervisor. I believe that the police who are not force to meet a quota and focus more on important issues in their city will create a more safe environment for their citizens. Hopefully this issue is resolved and that this will not diminish the safety of society.  

Diversity in the Department, but How?

By: Taylor Lawson

The struggle of diversity within police departments has increasingly become an issue for many departments around the nation today. As cities continue to become more and more diverse, many departments find themselves playing catch up trying to both mirror and respond to this diversity in their community. An honest desire to ensure that their city’s people feel legitimately represented by their police department, along with political pressures, make up a few of the reasons why diversity is becoming more of a priority in departments. Some reasons reflect a much higher level of seriousness, such as those that fueled the Frederick Police Department’s need to prioritize diversity. The Frederick PD, located in Frederick, Maryland, received a lawsuit condemning the reality of the department’s mainly white male demographic.  The Frederick News Post describes, “the allegation in the civil action was that the predominantly white police department had been routinely stopping and searching black residents without probable cause.”

             

With these real and immediate pressures, the issue then shifts to how departments can begin diversifying in a fair way. However, the question of how to go about solving this issue just leads to more problems. For example, in Frederick, the lawsuit reached a settlement that required the department to hire “at least one black applicant for every non-black hired, until 13% of the force’s officers were black”. A goal demanding enough on its own, it also brings more difficulties with the effect it has on other groups. One issue stemming from the action of Frederick to achieve a more diverse police force is the fact that now the department is forced to discriminate against all other minority groups when being compared to an African-American applicant. This does not seem fair to all other minority groups, especially those less visible to the public eye, as diversity consists of more than just ethnicity, but also one’s economic background, sexual preference, etc.

             

The Baton Rouge Police Department faces a similar problem, despite efforts to diversify. Jim Mustian, writer of the local Baton Rouge newspaper The Advocate, shares that the past five years of hiring data suggests that African-American applicants are less likely to be hired than their white peers. However, police spokesman Lt. Don Kelly says there is no easy answer as to why the department does not have more diversity, defending fair hiring practices, and describing that it is a “disservice” to look past the individuals and include things such as race, as ignoring the best individuals for any reason simply lowers the standards.

             

Questioning how aggressive the department’s efforts are to diversify, Kwame Asanté, president of the Baton Rouge chapter of the NAACP, feels that there is not enough community outreach. Increasing a “community-based effort to recruit” qualified individuals of minority groups will increase minority applicants, making the hiring of minority groups more likely. While there are many factors to point to in describing why there is not more diversity, such as unfair standardized tests or a biased oral interview board, there does not seem to be any clear solution yet. For the recruiting officers in Baton Rouge, they have decided to take the community outreach approach, reaching out to minority groups through community appearances at churches, universities, and job fairs.