We are thrilled to announce that thanks to the generosity of the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and the fiscal sponsorship of the Omni Commons, OP will be hosting paid part-time fellowships in 2021-2022 and again in 2022-2023.
Fellows will be working on a variety of special projects, including functional global privacy controls, public records and rapid response structures. Please see application below.
The gunshot detection technology Spotshotter has recently been the subject of investigations by Vice and the Associated Press stating the company routinely changes their forensic reports at the request of police department customers. The modifications include the reclassification of sounds not originally classified as gunshot fire by the company’s algorithm and changing the location records. In the case of Michael Williams, who was charged with first degree murder during Chicago’s George Floyd protests, spent a year in jail and then was released due to lack of evidence, the Shotspotter report altered the location by a mile.
In the 2020 annual report on the use of the technology in Oakland, the report stated the city used Shotspotter’s expert witness and trial preparation services under the contract 8 times in calendar year 2020. This practice must cease immediately.
This is not the first time Shotspotter has altered their data to align with a law enforcement narrative and frame an innocent man. We wrote about the Rochester NY case when Sylvon Simmons, who was shot 4 times by the Rochester Police Department in a case of mistaken identity, was charged with felony murder and jailed for more than a year based on a modified Shotspotter report. Simmons was acquitted on all charges after a judge threw out the Shotspotter evidence that had “found a fifth shot” and is now suing Shotspotter and the city for malicious prosecution and fraudulent evidence.
A Shotspotter alert was also the proximate cause of the fatal shooting of 13 year old Adam Toledo by the Chicago Police Department.
Take action and speak up about the expansion of the Capital Police to a field office in San Francisco with their eye in the sky aeriel surveillance plans from the Department of Defense.
by Ursula Curiousa
“Do you think you’re being watched?” This question is as loaded as a gun, but commonly pops up in mental health screening protocols. So what if I do think multiple law enforcement agencies have access to the cameras I sit in front of on the bus or train? So what if I think that tech lords in Silicon Valley mine my data to find marketable weaknesses? What if I’m correct? Does that make me paranoid or well-informed?
The Seattle Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a set of recommendation from the entinel Event Review (SER) of the first days of protests that took place in Seattle following the murder of George Floyd at the hands of police. The deliberations were co-facilitated by the Quattrone Center, a criminal research and policy hub at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, and by Point One North, an organization specializing in peacemaking and conflict resolution. The SER brought together a diverse group of community members and SPD representatives to examine root causes of poor policing outcomes and identify opportunities for systemic improvement.
Among the points raised in the report is community legitimacy and addressing the gap between what the police may be permitted to do by law or policy (“structural legitimacy”), and what officers need to do to meet the standards of justice expected by community (“perceived legitimacy”).
The full report can be read below. This is the first of several to be issued by the Seattle OIG.
On July 13, the Vallejo City Council allocated time on the agenda for Oakland Privacy and the ACLU of Northern California to present on why the City, famous for an extremely high rate of police violence, would benefit from a surveillance advisory board.
The ten minute presentation (you can view the slides below), was followed by a 30 minute conversation when each and every one of the 7 council members weighed in to support the proposal, confirming the conceptual approval that also had unanimous support on May 26th.
A municipal ordinance to create and seat the 10-member advisory body had been provided on June 10th and reviewed by the mayor’s staff. However, when pressed for a date for the ordinance vote, the City Council hedged a bit and pointed, no doubt correctly, to the overwhelming workload for the City Attorney. The ordinance is three and a half pages long.
The City Attorney later punted and said it could be prioritized if the Council wanted it prioritized. Vallejo City Council? The next step is yours. We’re waiting.