The primary focus of the meeting revolved around the Boston Police Department’s use of social media surveillance tools and the implications for civil liberties. Fatuma Ahmed, Executive Director of the Muslim Justice League, and Usher Elders, a technologist, were among those who testified about the concerning practices of the BPD. Ahmed expressed alarm over the Boston Regional Intelligence Center’s (BRIC) utilization of social media monitoring tools without proper oversight, emphasizing that these practices have been ongoing without explicit permission or transparency. She highlighted procedural issues, noting the late submission of surveillance reports and the engagement of the BPD in open-source monitoring of public social media posts.

Ahmed raised concerns about biases in the BPD’s surveillance practices, citing instances where the Muslim community and social justice movements, such as Black Lives Matter, were disproportionately targeted. She illustrated this with an example involving the Muslim Justice League’s encouragement for community participation in a city council meeting related to the Gaza ceasefire resolution, which allegedly prompted a heightened police presence in contrast to a similar rally organized by Jewish groups. Ahmed questioned the risk assessment protocols employed by BPD and the criteria for monitoring specific organizations.

The discussion also included testimony from Nasser Elders, a computer scientist with a background in exposing surveillance practices. Elders detailed the technical aspects of BPD’s surveillance tools, including the use of GoPro cameras and the monitoring of hashtags like #MuslimLivesMatter. He criticized the department’s reliance on predictive artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to classify individuals as threats, arguing that these tools infringe on First Amendment rights and are not adequately regulated.

Elders described the capabilities of tools like Tangles, which can create detailed digital profiles based on social media behavior and location data. He compared this to legislation in other jurisdictions like New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law, which recognizes the dangers of data brokers. Elders emphasized that these surveillance tools operate without sufficient oversight or validation, allowing private companies to dictate acceptable speech and political opinions.

The council members were urged to reconsider the adoption of new surveillance tools, given the history of targeted surveillance against specific communities and the potential for misuse. The late submission of the BPD’s annual surveillance report further fueled concerns about the administration’s accountability and transparency. A panelist highlighted the Council’s unique position as one of the few bodies exercising oversight over these practices, emphasizing the need for rigorous scrutiny and transparent reporting.

Public testimony from Boston residents and students further underscored the pervasive apprehension surrounding BPD’s surveillance tactics. Elizabeth Vargas shared her personal experience with police scrutiny due to her roommate’s activism, highlighting the psychological impact and fear instilled by such practices. Similarly, Tosha Adler, a Boston University student, criticized the overreach of social media surveillance and its chilling effect on free speech, particularly for non-citizens concerned about political repercussions.

Zoe Ticwatch, a Jewish community member, opposed the use of surveillance tools, arguing that they endanger marginalized communities rather than enhancing safety. She, along with other public participants, urged the City Council to suspend the use of digital surveillance tools until proper guidelines and oversight mechanisms are established. Corey Jones, another participant, expressed skepticism about the reliability of artificial intelligence in policing, citing an incident of police brutality from his hometown to illustrate the potential dangers of such technologies.