DESCRIPTION

Often, the government’s gaze doesn’t fall on everyone equally. Advanced surveillance technologies may be targeted inappropriately at particular groups or used disproportionately in minority communities.

A seminal study of public CCTV surveillance in the United Kingdom found that only 24 percent of the people targeted by camera operators attracted attention due to suspicious behavior. On the other hand, “34 percent of people were surveilled merely on the basis of belonging to a particular social or sub-cultural group.” CCTV operators were almost 50 percent more likely to target black people ”for no obvious reason” than white people. In the United States, certain religious groups and communities of color have also been disproportionately targeted, for surveillance. The NYPD’s infiltration and electronic monitoring of mosques, Muslim student groups, and Muslim-owned businesses is one recent example. Privacy advocates have found data indicating that the Boston Police Department has targeted its automatic license plate reader program at working class and minority neighborhoods.

Advocates of new surveillance systems sometimes argue that hi-tech mass monitoring is “neutral” in a way that traditional policing is not. The Police Executive Research Forum points out, for instance, that ALPRs capture (almost) every plate in their field of view. But if surveillance technology is concentrated in a particular area or directed at a certain population, unequal treatment and heightened scrutiny from law enforcement results. Police should use surveillance tools only to investigate people under suspicion for a particular crime. Otherwise, powerful surveillance technology and personal information databases could exacerbate racial, ethnic, and class disparities in the criminal justice system.