from It’s far better than what the LAPD has offered in the past Dep
The Los Angeles Police Department is one of the largest in the United States. To say it is resistant to change would be an understatement. It — like the NYPD — is also resistant to oversight, transparency and accountability.
It may not be as blatantly counterintuitive as the NYPD, but it has a number of problems that have gone unaddressed for years. That’s what allowed the LAPD to tell the press and FOIA requests that it had never used facial recognition technology — something that came shortly after the release of documents showing the PD had used it 30,000 times over the past decade.
It’s this unwillingness to be held accountable that leads LAPD officers to file false reports to put innocent residents in a gang database. It’s this lack of internal accountability that has led LAPD officials to blame officer misconduct on speculative police software rather than the officers themselves. And when the LAPD can finally be convinced to abandon surveillance technology that hurts rather than helps, it will take a global pandemic to make it happen.
So, I’m concerned when the LAPD makes improvements aimed at surveillance technology. On the one hand, it could show that the LAPD finally realizes that the status quo is untenable and must agree to regain the public’s trust. On the other hand, the ready acceptance of surveillance limits suggests that the reforms are something the LAPD can absorb without having to work to change the policing culture that has drawn criticism since its inception.
The Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday approved new rules for how police can use crime-fighting technology, despite protests from advocacy groups that say it could increase surveillance.
Under the new policy, the LAPD must submit a detailed proposal to the commission before deploying a particular type of technology, specifying whether and for how long information will be collected on people, violations of people’s privacy and civil rights. rights, and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse.
Before voting to approve or reject them, the commission will discuss the proposals in public, giving people an opportunity to engage in “informed” debate about their use, Elizabeth Rhodes, director of the LAPD’s Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy, told commissioners at the panel meeting.
This is at least a good start on how it was presented. The true measure of its success will be its practicality. This would at least give the public input into finding and deploying new surveillance techniques. It’s a welcome change from the transparency that the LAPD usually operates.
But there are limits to the policy changes approved unanimously by the Police Commission. This only affects technology already in use. Adds reporting requirements on deployments, but does not allow prohibition of further deployments if the public finds current benefits unacceptable.
Additionally, technology that may not be possible with this new process can still be used if approved by the jury. This means that police can ask the courts for permission to use technology that is not available for public inspection. And those deployments are not subject to the same reporting requirements.
The LA Times reports that some of these restrictions are in effect. Similar policies govern facial recognition technology and drone deployments. The latter was long overdue. Earlier, the LAPD banned certain facial recognition technologies following a public outcry against third-party vendors like Clearview. The ban on the use of facial recognition technology by state agencies may be the reason for the LAPD’s sudden interest in restricting the use of this technology, as similar restrictions may soon be implemented by local politicians at the city level.
While these developments are positive, they are limited. what They are policy changes. These are not prepared. And, for the most part, the LAPD will be the only party that really knows if they’re being followed or not. Law enforcement agencies don’t bother enacting new policies unless anyone expects them to enforce them with meaningful discipline. The rules can be bent and broken at will, with offenders receiving little more than verbal or written warnings. The reporting powers only need information about deployment. Information about violations is still considered information that the LAPD is not obligated to share with the public.
Better than nothing is not a very high bar to reach. Just because the LAPD was able to clean up doesn’t mean the LAPD is on the road to recovery.
Filed under: lapped, surveillance, transparency
