Technology could far too easily be abused
Implementing these “Smart Streetlights” and automated license plate recognition proposals would be a grave mistake. San Diego police have not adequately considered drawbacks and ethical concerns of this technology, and their proposals lack robust mechanisms for accountability.
Let’s start with errors in automated license plate recognition technology. Bad things happen when the accuracy of this technology is not double checked before police take action. In 2020, Brittney Gilliam was driving her nieces, younger sister and daughter to get their nails done in Aurora, Colorado. You could imagine their surprise when police surrounded their car with guns drawn. Officers handcuffed several of the vehicle’s occupants, which included children aged 6 through 17 years old, and forced them to lie face down on the ground. This stop was the result of an automated license plate recognition error.
In this case, automated license plate recognition technology flagged the car Gilliam was driving because a motorcycle with the same license plate number from a different state was reported stolen. Note that police treat the alerts from these systems in a manner that triggers high-risk stops, leading to potentially inappropriate escalation. From what I’ve read, San Diego Police Department procedure in its current form does little to ensure human review of machine-generated results and does nothing to ensure these stops are conducted without use of force. There is no guarantee of systematic review of error rates, hard stops to prevent police acting on erroneous information, or frequent disclosure of errors to the public.
The authors of these procedures have given little thought to the ethical questions raised by mass surveillance. There are simply too many to cover here, but we can start. Regarding necessity, what is the new threat we are facing that requires such a dramatic intrusion of police into our everyday lives? What non-invasive alternatives have we exhausted that have led us to this place? Then there are issues related to consequences of this technology. Are we willing to accept that the mere presence of this technology, regardless of how SDPD promises to use it, may have a chilling effect on our right to free speech and assembly? What are the risks of giving this technology to a government agency that also possesses military equipment and views the public as a threat?
These procedures lack accountability. There is no robust mechanism for discovering procedure violations. If police violate these procedures, there is nothing in here that guarantees consequences. I’m not going to detail the long history of police misconduct, but it’s not like these concerns are unfounded. And all it takes is a quick glance at the proposed locations of these devices to see the obvious pattern of discrimination based on race and income.
I refuse to accept that we should give SDPD officers this technology without a system of monitoring to ensure they behave themselves.
San Diego should abandon these projects. Until we dramatically reimagine the role of police in our society, we are not ready for this technology.
Devin Erbay, Rancho Peñasquitos