The discussion began with Councilor Henry Santana, chairing the Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice, emphasizing that the session was an informational hearing to review the City of Boston’s 2023 Annual Surveillance Report as mandated by the Surveillance Oversight and Information Sharing Ordinance. Santana clarified that no votes would be taken during this meeting and highlighted the importance of balancing public safety with privacy concerns.

The report covered 26 technologies utilized across six city departments, with the Boston Police Department (BPD) employing 19. Santana underscored the need for the hearing to provide a high-level overview of these technologies and to gather feedback for refining future reports. Councilor Benjamin J. Weber, who co-sponsored the hearing, echoed Santana’s sentiments, stressing the necessity for timely and informative reports to ensure effective council oversight.

One notable issues discussed was the use and effectiveness of ShotSpotter technology. Ryan Walsh, Director of the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, emphasized the importance of technology in effective policing. Walsh assured that all surveillance technologies were used appropriately and in line with civil liberties. However, concerns were raised about the reliability of ShotSpotter, particularly its tendency to misidentify loud noises such as fireworks and car backfires as gunfire. Councilor Weber inquired about the specific instances of false positives and the overall effectiveness of the technology in reducing gun violence.

Deputy Superintendent McLaughlin provided a detailed explanation of ShotSpotter’s operational mechanics, noting that the technology requires either a court order or exigent circumstances for its use. He reassured the council that only pertinent data is retained during operations and that all other collected information is purged once an operation concludes. This explanation aimed to address concerns raised by the ACLU about the potential misuse of data collected by the technology.

The meeting also featured insights from Dr. Eric Pizza and Dr. Daniel Lawrence, both professional researchers with extensive backgrounds in peer-reviewed studies on ShotSpotter. Dr. Pizza presented findings from research conducted in Kansas City and Chicago, highlighting that ShotSpotter alerts provided a significant time advantage for police response. However, he acknowledged that the technology’s deployment in communities of color raised concerns about over-policing and potential civil liberties violations. Dr. Lawrence echoed these concerns, emphasizing that while ShotSpotter improves response times, it has minimal impact on reducing violent crime rates or increasing shooting-related arrests.

Kade Crockford from the ACLU of Massachusetts addressed the council, stressing the importance of transparency and accountability in police surveillance practices. Crockford cited studies indicating that a significant percentage of ShotSpotter alerts in cities like Chicago and New York could not be confirmed as gunfire, raising questions about the technology’s reliability. In Boston, nearly 70% of alerts from 2020 to 2022 were similarly unverified. Crockford urged the council to ensure responsible use of ShotSpotter if they decide not to eliminate it entirely, emphasizing the need for policy reforms surrounding data management and the use of alerts to establish reasonable suspicion.

Community engagement and public perception of surveillance technology were also critical points of discussion. A council member recounted personal experiences from their district, particularly in public housing areas like Mary Ellen McCormick, where recent gun violence had deeply affected the community. The member underscored the importance of community safety and called for more police officers and technological resources to ensure secure neighborhoods. They emphasized the need for fostering a partnership between the community and law enforcement to address public safety issues effectively.