This scares the hell out of me. Not only are they going to use our photos for a purpose we never consented to, but I would expect the misidentification rate for Black people to be far higher than whatever is claimed. As someone who has been stopped by the police before due to a ridiculous case of mistaken identity, I can only imagine trying to talk them out of an arrest when they say "computer says this is you".
Today the government’s anti-democratic mission is seen clearly. As well as suppressing dissent through draconian anti-protest laws, the Met used live facial recognition surveillance during the coronation.
The idea that Indigenous, brown, and Black people should carry firearms to protect ourselves under the 2nd Amendment kinda falls apart when cops shoot us multiple times for having cellphones, wallets, or dark-coloured hands.
"A handful of powerful businessmen pushed New York City Mayor Eric Adams to use police to crack down on pro-Palestinian student protesters at #Columbia University, donating to the politician and offering to pay for private investigators to help break up the demonstrations, based on leaked WhatsApp conversations"
"police raids do not serve a university’s own interests in maintaining peace and civility on campus. The 1960s made that crystal clear. Bringing law enforcement to campus invariably intensifies protests, fuels acrimony, and creates a climate of distrust. Police involvement doesn’t dampen protests; it accelerates them, often with devastating consequences"
ORG’s investigation into the Prevent duty has uncovered shocking widespread data sharing due to finding a poorly redacted FOI, as revealed in The Observer today.
Our investigation into Prevent (UK) shows how the processing of personal data under the programme is neither proportionate nor necessary when the majority of referrals end with no action.
There’s especially no valid policing purpose for this when no criminal activity is involved.
Prevent (UK) turns safeguarding into surveillance.
Built around counter-terrorism, it conflates ‘victim’ with ‘perpetrator’. The foundation for this is a system of data sharing and retention that exempts itself from protections according to its own logic.
A catch-22 for data rights.
Read our full report, 'Prevent and the Pre-Crime State: How unaccountable data sharing is harming a generation'
We've seen multiple political interventions into the policing of protest in the UK recently.
From the Home Secretary urging the police to consider waving a Palestinian flag to be a criminal offence to the Prime Minister claiming the Cenotaph could be desecrated.
We urge the Met to stand firm against this political pressure and protect our right to protest.
Lacking in oversight and transparency, the national Prevent database operates in the shadows.
Prevent masquerades as a safeguarding measure while the police exercise security exemptions over data to limit protections in favour continued surveillance of mostly Muslim communities.
So, this guy solicited nude videos from an undercover police officer he believed to be a minor in 2018. It took nearly five years to convict him and (apologies but I’m going to use all caps here) HE REMAINED AN ACTIVE DUTY NYPD OFFICER UP TO HIS CONVICTION THIS WEEK. In the press release, the NYPD goes on and on about how he betrayed his oath but they don’t seem bothered with letting him keep his badge for years after he did.
In an interview I just taped with Rashid Khalidi about #Columbia he said words to the effect of "this is the neoliberal dream of the university--no students, no professors, just administrators and cops on campus"
Our report into widespread data misuse under the Prevent programme comes as referrals have spiked following the Israel/Gaza conflict.
Students should have safe spaces to process the world around them without fearing it’ll mark them for life. Prevent is a flawed programme that undermines freedom of expression and abuses data rights.
Our report into the Prevent programme (UK) uncovered an FOI showing that the data of people who are referred to the programme is being shared more widely than previously known.
This includes with airports, ports and immigration services with little transparency or scrutiny.
"For too long authorities have been able to cite national security as a reason for undermining the data protection rights of people who have not been accused of a crime.
We need full transparency from authorities who have enabled this data protection disaster."