March 2021 - Eisenberg & Baum, LLP

Cyberbullying: Technology, Responsibility, and Community Safeguards

March 30, 2021/ AI Fairness and Data Privacy

“Cyberbullying: Technology, Responsibility, and Community Safeguards”

[FREE EVENT OPEN TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC]

Join us on Wednesday, May12th at 7pm EDT for a symposium on Cyberbullying, hosted by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP.

“Cyberbullying can happen to any child – with long lasting harm.”

This symposium exposes the harms of cyberbullying, a pandemic that is spreading online that causes irreversible consequences to lives of young people, explores solutions and seeks accountability.

Featured Remarks

Story of a Teenager (told by Family members)
Tyler Clementi Foundation
Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5, NJ Anti-Bullying Task Force) (video feature)

Q&A with Expert Panelists

In a moderated Q&A discussion (including questions from the audience) we will discuss detection, mitigation, and safeguards through community efforts with three distinguished experts: Dr. Hinduja, Professor Sarah T. Roberts, and Professor Charalampos Chelmis.

The conversation will delve into the role of students, parents, and educators to seek effective measures to fight against cyberbullying. We will also examine the role of the tech sector, including the current state of technological solutions and AI-powered techniques that are being used for content moderation.

Moderator:

Juyoun Han, Esq. is a Partner in Eisenberg & Baum’s Artificial Intelligence Fairness and Data Privacy Practice Group. As a litigator, Ms. Han advocates for equity in the use of AI and works to eradicate systemic injustice, stemming from unchecked use of personal data and problematic automated decision systems.

Expert Panelist Bios:

Dr. Charalampos Chelmis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and Director of the Intelligent Big Data Analytics, Applications, and Systems (IDIAS) Lab, which is focused on socially important data science with a particular emphasis on models, algorithms, and systems to solve problems involving big, and often networked data. Dr. Chelmis has developed machine learning methods for cyberbullying characterization and detection, which have been presented at International conferences including TheWebConf and WebSci. Dr. Chelmis is also the co-organizer of the forthcoming tutorial Characterization, Detection, and Mitigation of Cyberbullying, which will be held as part of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference on June 21st, 2021. Dr. Chelmis can be found on Twitter at @CChelmis.

Dr. Sameer Hinduja is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University, Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center, and Faculty Associate at the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University. He is recognized internationally for his groundbreaking work on the subjects of cyberbullying and safe social media use, concerns that have paralleled the exponential growth in online communication by young people. He has written seven books, and his interdisciplinary research is widely published and cited in a number of peer-reviewed academic journals. As a noted speaker and expert on teens and social media use, Dr. Hinduja also trains students, educators, parents, mental health professionals, and other youth workers how to promote the positive use of technology. In addition, he is frequently asked to provide expert commentary by news organizations, and his work has been featured in venues that include CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, NPR’s All Things Considered, the BBC, and The New York Times. He has received Auburn University’s Global Anti-Bullying Hero Award, won Florida Atlantic University’s Researcher of the Year award, presented on cyberbullying at a Congressional Briefing on Capitol Hill, testified in front of the Attorney General and the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, and served as a Fulbright Specialist Scholar at Dublin City University. Dr. Hinduja is also the Co-Founder and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Bullying Prevention, a new peer-reviewed journal from Springer. You can follow him on Twitter at @hinduja.

Dr. Sarah T. Roberts is internationally recognized as a leading scholar on the emerging topic of commercial content moderation of social media (or CCM, for short), a term she coined to define the field study around the large-scale, industrial and for-pay practice of social media user-generated content adjudication. Professor Roberts is an Associate Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in the Department of Information Studies where she serves as the co-founder and Co-Director of the UCLA Center for Critical Internet Inquiry, and holds an appointment in Labor Studies. Her monograph, Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media, was released to critical acclaim in 2019 from Yale University Press, with a new edition to follow in 2021. Find her on Twitter at @ubiquity75.

We hope you’ll join us. Register here.

Organ Transplant Discrimination: Disability Will No Longer Dismiss You From the List

March 25, 2021/ Employment Discrimination Blog

An intellectual or developmental disability shouldn’t have any effect on your access to necessary medical care, but patients with Down syndrome and other conditions routinely face organ transplant discrimination. Now states and the federal government are taking on the rights of disabled Americans, to make sure they have equal access to the organ transplant list.

Transplant Centers Pass Over Patients with Other Disabilities

It might seem like medical professionals would be the last people to discriminate against someone because they had a disability. You might assume that doctors, medical facilities, and researchers would understand comorbidity and the need for people with disabilities to have access to necessary, life-saving treatment like organ transplants.

It is common for people born with Down syndrome to also have heart conditions. The National Down Syndrome Society says about half of all infants born with the syndrome have a heart defect. Many of these children and their families face a long journey of surgeries and other medical treatments. However, when those surgeries aren’t enough many find themselves in need of an organ transplant.

Unfortunately, in many parts of the country, those disabled individuals may not get access to the life-saving treatment they need. They may be passed over or screened out of eligibility for organ donation based on unfounded assumptions about their quality of life and ability to follow post-operative care instructions.

Disability advocates have known about the problem for a while. In 2008, researchers at Stanford University surveyed 88 transplant centers across the country. It found that 85% of pediatric transplant centers consider intellectual or developmental disability as one of their eligibility criteria. In heart transplant programs, 71% said they “always” or “usually” considered intellectual and developmental disability diagnosis before adding a patient’s name to the organ transplant list.

More recently, in 2019, the National Council on Disability issued submitted a five-report series called Organ Transplants and Discrimination Against People With Disabilities to then-President Donald Trump. That report “focuse[d] on how the historical and continued devaluation of the lives of people with disabilities by the medical community, legislators, researchers, and even health economists, perpetuates unequal access to medical care, including life-saving care.”

States Fight Back Against Organ Transplant Disability Discrimination

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act make it illegal to discriminate against someone because they have a disability. However, many medical professionals and organ transplant centers continue to do it, apparently unaware that the anti-discrimination laws apply to the organ transplant process.

The National Down Syndrome Society has been working to increase visibility of the issue, and improve state-level protections against organ transplant disability discrimination. They have advocated for additional anti-discrimination laws in 15 states, including California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Delaware, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, Louisiana, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, and Virginia.

One NDSS advocate, Charlotte Woodward is an organ transplant recipient herself. Woodward, who has Down syndrome, received a heart transplant to correct an atrioventricular heart defect that left a hole in the wall between her heart’s chambers, and flaws in its valves. After multiple surgeries, Woodward was told she would need a transplant. Unlike many in her condition, Woodward’s doctors advocated for her to be put on the transplant list. She had the heart transplant operation 11 days later.

Now Woodward is an advocate against organ transplant discrimination. Woodward told Forbes:

“Many people with Down syndrome in society aren’t considered to be candidates for an organ transplant, and that begs the question, whose lives are valuable?”

She told her story in front of the Virginia health committee in 2020, which played a key role in the state passing organ transplant legislation later that year.

Congress Takes Up Organ Transplant Legislation

Now Ms. Woodward is being asked to take her advocacy to the national level. Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington State’s 3rd district, is working to propose anti-discrimination organ transplant legislation to the U.S. House of Representatives. She and her co-sponsor, Katie Porter, a Democrat from California’s 45th district are working to increase protections for Americans with disabilities’ access to medical care.

“Only a handful of states have laws barring [organ transplant] discrimination; it’s time to give all Americans with disabilities access to the gift of organ donation,” Rep. Herrera Beutler said.

The federal bill is called the Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act. If it becomes law, it would prevent doctors, hospitals, transplant centers, and other healthcare providers from denying someone an organ transplant based on a disability diagnosis. Instead, medical providers would be required to consider the likelihood of transplant success and to provide aftercare support to those with disabilities. The bill also includes streamlined procedures for challenging organ transplant disability discrimination, so that the legal process does not interfere with a person receiving appropriate medical care.

The Charlotte Woodward Organ Transplant Discrimination Prevention Act was introduced on December 16, 2020. It will likely be reintroduced in the new legislative session. It will then be referred to the House Energy and Commerce committee for consideration, and possibly additional testimony from Charlotte Woodward herself.

Americans with disabilities don’t have to wait for the new legislation to become law. If you are facing disability discrimination by a doctor, transplant center, or your employer, the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act already give you options. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our New York-based discrimination attorneys represent individuals who face systems designed to work against them. We can help you file an ADA complaint and get you access to the medical care you deserve. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

Sign the Petition to End Asian Hate Crimes and Discrimination (NYC)

March 19, 2021/ AI Fairness and Data Privacy

STOP AAPI Hate has created a petition, written with Eisenberg & Baum, LLP Partner Juyoun Han, Esq. and Intern Patrick K. Lin, to end Asian hate crimes and discrimination in New York City.

SIGN THE PETITION: End Asian Hate Crimes and Discrimination (NYC)

“I didn’t like the way he looked at me. . . . If he dies, he dies.” A 36-year-old man was stabbed with an 8-inch knife while walking in New York City’s Chinatown. The victim remains in critical condition.

The Facts:

Between March and December last year, the organization Stop Asian American and Pacific Islander Hate recorded nearly 3,000 reports of anti-Asian hate incidents nationwide.
The NYPD also reported a 1,900% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes last year.

Our Demands:

We Demand Manhattan DA to pursue investigations with the possibility of bringing additional charges of a hate crime: When the motive involves targeting someone because of race, it becomes a hate crime. As such, we call for an immediate and committed investigation.
We Demand Local and State Government to Commit Funds to Asian Community Groups to Combat Anti-Asian Racism: In California, the state government committed $1.4 million to help Asian Americans report hate incidents and track attacks against Asians. The Asian Community, grass roots movements, and community level Institutions should be financially backed to detect, report, and support the needs of individual members.
The Public Should Not be Misled by Rhetoric Pitting Minority Communities Against One Another: The battle we must fight is not between the victim’s community versus the accused suspect’s community. It is a battle between everyone versus racism. Throughout American history, the foundations of civil rights were solidified and advanced by movements led by many Black community members.
Stop the Gaslighting: The model minority myth is a form of unwelcome gaslighting rooted in stereotypes. It perpetuates a characterization of Asian Americans as a polite, law-abiding group who should be content with pull-yourselves-up-by-your-bootstraps immigrant striving. Thus, this mentality deters Asians from speaking up, engaging in public discourse, and fighting for Asian rights. The model minority myth is a falsehood conjured for the purpose of oppressing and subduing Asian voices.
We demand that the Governor, Mayor, Human Rights Commission/Task Force, Public Advocate, Department of Education, EEOC, Attorney General regularly meet with local community organizations, PTAs, School boards, Workers’ Unions, and advocacy groups.
We demand that there be public forums, education and training across sectors to detect instances of harassment, cyberbullying, and bias experienced by Asian Community members, and find ways to support those impacted through economic, legal, and political means.

David Haas Hymns Banned by Catholic Churches After Sexual Harassment Accusations

March 18, 2021/ Employment Discrimination Blog

Sometimes it doesn’t take a lawsuit to get real relief as a victim of sexual harassment and sex abuse. The multiple victims of Catholic composer David Haas demonstrated that sometimes a victim’s advocate can make a big impact even when legal issues may stand between the victims and the courthouse. As a result of their advocacy, Haas’s hymns have been banned from Catholic churches in 10 archdioceses nationwide.

Almost 40 Women Raised their Voices Against Catholic Composer David Haas

In music, there is a big difference between a single voice singing a solo and a chorus of harmonious voices. While one singer can make an impact, a choir in full voice can shake the building. The same is true when advocating for social changes. One woman or man speaking about one incident may get some attention, but when dozens of women come together to tell the same story, people listen. The survivor advocacy group Into Account has assembled a chorus of 38 women, all of whom allege that they were sexually harassed or abused by religious composer David Haas. According to Susan Bruhl, one of the women represented by Into Account:

“David has this uncanny knack of finding girls who don’t have fathers at home, who may have come from an abusive background or were neglected.”

A New York Times article told the stories of six of those women (four anonymously). According to their stories, Haas approached several of these women early in their church music careers, sometimes as teenagers. They accuse Haas of:

Buying alcohol for an 18 year old girl and inviting her to his hotel room because “you’re a woman now.”
Grooming an employee at his music summer camp and treating her like a servant
Sending inappropriate Facebook messages to a parish music director
Pushing a woman against a wall
Forcibly grabbing, groping, and kissing several women
Pressuring an 18 year old workshop attendee into committing sexual acts

One of his victims, now a cantor in a Catholic parish, says she suffered a panic attack after the incident when she had to sing one of Haas’s songs during a church Mass.

Why Court Might Not be an Option for the Haas Victims

While the ladies’ stories are compelling there are a number of reasons they may have trouble raising sexual harassment claims in court. As the New York Times notes, no civil or criminal charges have been filed against Mr. Haas. That may have to do with how long ago the incidents occurred, interactions falling outside the formal employer-employee structure, and problems holding religious leaders accountable for workplace discrimination and harassment.

Compelling Stories, Told Too Late

The earliest formal sexual harassment complaint against has dates back to 1987, when the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis received notice of “unwanted sexual advances toward a young adult woman.” Ms Bruhl’s complaints date back even earlier, to 1984.

In many states, the statute of limitations for complaints like these may only be a few short years. Here in New York, it used to be that child sex assault victims had to file their claims within 5 years of turning 18. However, more recently, the New York Child Victims Act has allowed young women and men time to mature and heal before heading to court. These complaints can now be filed anytime before the child victim turns 55 years old.

Catholic Composer, Not Employer

Another legal challenge for some of David Haas’s victims comes in defining their relationship. Under federal law, an organization like the Catholic Church only needs to respond to sexual harassment complaints involving employees. But David Haas was not formally employed by the Church. As a composer, his working relationship with parish cantors and music directors was more like an independent vendor. That difference could block federal complaints filed under Title VII. However, the New York State Human Rights Law is broader. Since 2018, the law has protected contractors, vendors, consultants, and anyone providing services in a business, not just its employees.

Catholic Music Performer and the Ministerial Exception

Perhaps the biggest hurdle for those seeking a lawsuit against David Haas comes from his role within the religious organization of the Catholic Church. Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that teachers were “ministers” for the purposes of applying federal employment discrimination protections. It prevented the former teachers from suing their Catholic school employers based on the “ministerial exception” to Title VII and the First Amendment. While David Hass does not appear to be an ordained minister, under the court’s decision, the ministerial exception applies to anyone who has the responsibility of teaching religion and participating in religious activities. That could apply to a writer and performer of Catholic songs like Haas.

Victim Advocacy Prompts Catholic Archdioceses to Ban Popular Hymns

The victims of David Haas’s sexual harassment and assault aren’t letting legal obstacles stop them from holding him accountable. Described as a “rock star in the Catholic liturgical realm,” Haas, has long been able to make up his own rules. For example, after his ex-wife divorced him in 1995, she faced retaliation in the liturgical music world, even though she too had been a victim of his sexual assault as a teenager.

In spite of all this, the victims are still pressuring the Catholic Church for change. They emailed a letter to church leaders, publishers, and liturgists explaining what they faced. As a result, 10 archdioceses from across the country have banned their churches from using David Haas songs. Liturgical publishers OCP and GIA Publications have cut ties with him, and his music has been pulled from a Mennonite hymnal called “Voices Together.” In addition, his local archdiocese now prohibits him from performing at Masses and other events, and it has not renewed his letter of suitability, which would allow him to perform elsewhere within the Church.

These steps show that even when a lawsuit isn’t the right option, victims of sexual harassment and abuse can get their stories heard and sometimes even be compensated for what they have suffered. At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have sexual harassment and sex abuse attorneys who know how to approach these claims from all sides: legal, regulatory, negotiation, and publication. We can help you consider the strength of your legal case in New York and federal courts, and what other options you may have to make your voice heard. Contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, today to talk to an attorney.

Join Live Q&A at the Documentary Screening of “A Dance with Destiny” featuring Panelist Juyoun Han – A community discussion about Kidney disease and medical algorithms that impact racial minorities

March 16, 2021/ AI Fairness and Data Privacy

Film Poster A Dance With Destiny

“Shining A Light On Kidney Disease In The Black Community”
Saturday, March 20th at 4pm EDT / 1pm PDT
Live Q&A discussing the documentary film A Dance with Destiny

Join panelists including Juyoun Han to discuss A Dance with Destiny, a documentary about a life-saving discovery in the fight against kidney disease produced by Shining Light Productions and distributed 1in9 Charities, Inc., an Arizona nonprofit with a mission of changing the trajectory of kidney disease and save millions of lives by raising awareness about this silent killer, promoting preventive and corrective practices, inspiring hope in those afflicted, and expediting research and development of regenerative treatments and solutions.

Hear key insights from panelists about the film plus a discussion of the disparities and impact of kidney disease in the Black community and information about the movement to remove the eGFR algorithm. Attendees will be able to ask questions of the panelists and share the ways in which the film impacted them the most, as well as an opportunity to share any pertinent examples of how kidney disease has impacted them, their family, or community.

Watch the virtual film screening here (available through the end of March, 2021):

“View the Documentary”

Did You Know

Transgender Warehouse Worker Seeking FedEx Lawsuit

March 4, 2021/ Employment Discrimination Blog

Being yourself at work shouldn’t mean dealing with daily insults, threats, and mistreatment. But in a FedEx lawsuit, a warehouse worker coming out as transgender at work meant that former mates and coworkers turned on her, forcing her out of a job she used to love.

UK FedEx Lawsuit Calls Out Transgender Discrimination in Warehouse

Toy Prendergast had worked at FedEx’s UK headquarters in Newcastle-Under-Lyme for years. Her career as a depot operative at the company spanned 12 happy years. Throughout that time, Prendergast was presenting as male, using the name Paul.

(Mrs. Prendergast has chosen to continue to refer to her pre-transition name in explaining her experiences with the company. That name is included in this post to give context to her statements. Eisenberg and Baum does not believe in deadnaming Trans* individuals and believes that every transgender person should be granted the dignity of choosing a name that fits with their gender identity and expression.)

Before coming out, Prendergast had a good relationship with her coworkers, counting many of them as friends. But then, in 2017, Mrs. Prendergast made the difficult decision to come out at work. She began living openly as a woman and presenting as female on the job under the name Toy. Her former “mates” turned on her immediately. She told the Daily Mail:

“I used to be one of the gang as Paul – but when I came out as Toy they turned on me straight away. My life was made hell. I was scared to go to work – I was scared for my safety.

“Virtually every day I was being abused. I would wake up every night crying and drenched in sweat.

“I just couldn’t go on – I was having too many suicidal thoughts. I was panicking at the very thought of going into work. Every day was like a recurring nightmare.”

Mrs. Prendergast says she that she was subjected to nearly daily sexual harassment and gender discrimination. Her coworkers would call her names including “f****** queer”, make sexually suggestive movements and gestures, and force her to complete heavy tasks that were very difficult for her after her transition.

She reported the “toxic and intimidating environment” to FedEx after her coworkers’ behavior began to trigger panic attacks, depression, and suicidal thoughts. However, her complaints were never taken seriously. Finally, in May 2020, Mrs. Prendergast was forced to leave the company to protect herself. She is now suing the company under English anti-discrimination laws.

US Title VII, New York State Human Rights Act Protect Transgender Workers

Here in the U.S. there are state and federal laws that protect against gender discrimination and sexual harassment like what Mrs. Predergast experienced when she came out as Trans*. Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination and harassment based on a person’s sex or gender. That includes sexual orientation and transgender discrimination.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court considered a case very similar to Mrs. Prendergast’s. In RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes, Inc v EEOC, funeral director Aimee Stephens was told not to come back after she told her employer she would be presenting as female at work. The Supreme Court said that this action, as well as two other cases involving sexual orientation discrimination, were necessarily based on the sex of the workers involved.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The New York State Human Rights Act goes even further. It expressly prohibits discrimination based on “gender identity or expression.” According to the act:

“The term ‘gender identity or expression’ means a person’s actual or perceived gender-related identity, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth, including, but not limited to, the status of being transgender.”

Had Mrs. Prendergast filed her FedEx lawsuit in New York, she and her workplace discrimination attorney could have chosen between state and federal court.

What to Do if Coming Out at Work Results in Sexual Harassment

If Mrs. Prendergast’s story feels familiar, there are some important steps you should take before leaving a hostile work environment:

Object to the harassing behavior when it happens
File a written complaint with your supervisor, union representative, or HR department
Follow up on your complaint in writing (email counts)
Document each incident of discrimination or harassment in a personal calendar or journal
Get allies and witnesses to write statements to your employer (and keep copies for yourself)
Talk to an employment discrimination attorney (even before quitting) to see if they can negotiate with your employer to make changes and avoid a lawsuit

At Eisenberg & Baum, we understand how to pressure employers like FedEx to comply with state and federal law and stop sexual orientation and transgender discrimination at work. Our employment discrimination attorneys, help LGBTQ+ protect their rights under Title VII, and state civil rights laws. We can help you protect the job you love or recover damages if coworkers’ abusive behaviors have forced you to quit. If you have been the victim of transgender discrimination, contact us. We’ll meet with you and help create a strategy that protects you and moves you closer to equality.

Final Report: Public Comments on NYPD Surveillance Technology Submitted by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP on Feb. 25th, 2021

March 1, 2021/ AI Fairness and Data Privacy

Thanks to everyone for your participation and interest in the Forums on NYPD’s Use of Surveillance Technology, hosted by the AI Fairness and Data Privacy Practice Group at Eisenberg & Baum, LLP.

We appreciate the contributions of the 10 forum speakers and organizers in addition to the approximately 85 concerned citizens who shared their insights, thoughts, questions, and concerns about the NYPD’s use of surveillance technology tools.

We compiled the public comments collectively gathered from both forums and the Google form, and submitted them on February 25th, the deadline mandated by the POST Act.

Our document began with an outline of the POST Act before highlighting multiple ways in which omissions and procedural deficiencies in the NYPD’s draft policies undermined the disclosures they were meant to provide.

These omissions provoke questions like the following:

How do these technologies work together? Thirty-six discrete technologies are described as if they are utilized independently without disclosing if or when they are deployed in tandem.
How many surveillance tech devices are in use throughout NYC and where are they located? If this information isn’t included in policy disclosures, how then can we accurately assess the tools’ impacts on individual privacy and equity?
Which commercial vendors does the NYPD purchase these technologies from and maintain operations with? Relatedly, detailed funding disclosures should be provided for each.

We closed this section by pointing out other cities — including but not limited to Seattle, Oakland, and San Francisco — that provide a model for improving these procedural deficiencies.

Comments from our first forum with speakers Renée Cummings, Albert Fox Cahn, Ke Yang, Reyna Lubin, and Phillip C. Hamilton, underscored concerns related to the following:

Accountability: e.g. “Following the model of Oakland Privacy Commission, there should be an independent board composed of residents, law enforcement, and community activists who have approval authority over the surveillance technology being used.”
Transparency: e.g. “NYPD should regularly submit its surveillance technology to independent, third-party monitors and the result should be made public,” and, “The comprehensive audit should include technological (data sets, models, implementation), socio-economic, financial, internal training and policy implementation procedures within the NYPD, and audit of all vendors and sub-vendors who develop and update the technology.”
Public Education, Right-to-Know, and Training: e.g. “FOIL requests seeking access to information about the use, impact, and deployment of surveillance technology should be expedited and maximize the information given to the public, and NYPD should not issue rote-denials on baseless rationales such as revealing investigative techniques, inter- / intra- agency materials, and more.”
Technology, Data Sets, and Accuracy: e.g. “NYPD with public stakeholders should focus on developing an ‘accuracy threshold’ and eradicate and/or pause the use of any technology that demonstrates biased inaccuracies in certain populations especially along racial, gender lines.”
Criminal Justice: “Any use of surveillance technology involved in a criminal case should be disclosed to the criminal defendant and counsel as well as the prosecution.”

Comments from our second forum with speakers Laura Hecht-Felella and Brandon del Pozo zeroed in on the following issues:

Third-Party Audits: e.g. “Audit should go beyond just the technology itself, but address the effectiveness, use, and impact of the technology.”
Safeguards and Civil Society Oversight: e.g. “Granting a private right of action that allows individual civilians to take action to hold the police accountable for abuse of surveillance technology that encroaches on civil rights.”
Establishing a “serious crime” threshold for surveillance tech: e.g. “If the NYPD came to lift fingerprints at the scene of every crime, it would be excessive and invasive – similarly, we should not be using technology for minor infractions which gives the government the capacity to invade into our private spheres in life.”
Financial Transparency between tech companies and NYPD: e.g. “NDAs should not be used. The research and development of the technology should be revealed to the scientific community and the public for review after a certain time period, akin to how the NIH and medical science community discloses their research and data to the science community after a period of time. The protected interest in surveillance technology should be the public good, and not the financial interest of tech companies.”
Data Use and Storage Oversight: e.g. “Should we shift our focus from looking at here at 36 technologies to how the technologies collect data and how that data is monetized by use of these technologies?”
Comprehensive Oversight: e.g. “NYPD should explore a comprehensive approach to enhancing oversight ‘through the utilization of an accountability assessment tool that allows an organization to take stock of its surveillance operations, and through the creation of multi-disciplinary Technoethics Boards that could be worked into the process of building and applying surveillance programs.’”
Need for NYPD to Gain Public Trust: e.g. “There is a general mistrust toward the NYPD that is further compounded by mistrust towards the use of technology in policing. But there are crimes that can be prevented if the police worked in better concert with the public and they have not.”
Legal Responsibility and Private Right of Action: e.g. “The names of vendors, software firms, and contractors, as well as their roles in developing and deploying the surveillance technology, should be disclosed.”

The final three pages addressed our concerns about what additional information should be disclosed about the use and impact of some of the individual surveillance technologies, like how many cell-site simulators are deployed in each zip code, whether or not images extracted from police body cameras are used in the facial recognition database, and the fact that “DAS comprises more than 20,000 CCTV cameras, police-worn body cameras, license plate readers, radiation scanners, drones, 911 calls, and unknown commercial and interagency intelligence databases, and has real-time tracking capabilities – what oversight is in place for such a mass surveillance system?”

Download our final report and check back for updates and developments on the NYPD’s policies on the use and impact of surveillance technology tools, due to be finalized and released by April 11, 2021.

Final Report: NYPD Surveillance Technology Public Comments [PDF]

Archive for month: March, 2021