EFF & ACLU Brief: SFPD Violated Surveillance Law by Spying on Protests for Black Lives

Police used private network of 300 surveillance cameras to spy on George Floyd protests in 2020, plaintiffs tell appeals court.

SAN FRANCISCO–San Francisco police violated the city’s surveillance technology law by tapping into a private surveillance camera network to spy on demonstrators protesting the 2020 police murder of George Floyd, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California (ACLU) told a state appeals court in a brief filed Monday.

San Francisco’s ordinance requires police to get the Board of Supervisors’ permission before acquiring or borrowing surveillance technology. But the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) obtained no such permission before officers monitored the Union Square Business Improvement District’s network of more than 300 cameras for eight days during the protests.

The EFF and ACLU represent three Black and Latinx activists who organized and participated in the protests and say the police’s illegal spying chills their willingness and ability to attend or organize future demonstrations.

Their brief asks the California Court of Appeal First Appellate District to overturn a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s ruling in the city’s favor. The lower court erroneously found that because SFPD had monitored a few business district cameras once before for a 24-hour period during the 2019 Pride Parade, it was fine for them–under a “grace period” subsection of the ordinance–to use the entire 300-camera network for eight days during the 2020 George Floyd protests without the Board’s permission.

“While thousands of people were peacefully protesting police abuses, the SFPD violated the law by unlawfully surveilling them,” said EFF Staff Attorney Saira Hussain. “The lower court’s erroneous interpretation of the ordinance would allow the SFPD to create a vast new spying program based on one prior use of a surveillance technology. This is exactly the kind of lack of transparency that the San Francisco supervisors were trying to prev

[…]
Content was cut in order to protect the source.Please visit the source for the rest of the article.

This article has been indexed from Deeplinks

Read the original article:

Liked it? Take a second to support IT Security News on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!