Facial recognition is a threat to privacy, racial justice, free expression, and information security. EFF supports strict restrictions on face recognition use by private companies, and total bans on government use of the technology. Face recognition in all of its forms, including face scanning and real-time tracking, pose threats to civil liberties and individual privacy. “False positive” error rates are significantly higher for women, children, and people of color, meaning face recognition has an unfair discriminatory impact. Coupled with the fact that cameras are over-deployed in neighborhoods with immigrants and people of color, spying technologies like face surveillance serve to amplify existing disparities in the criminal justice system.

Across the nation local communities from San Francisco to Boston have moved to ban government use of facial recognition. In New York, Electronic Frontier Alliance member Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) is at the forefront of this movement. Recently we got the chance to speak with them about their efforts and what people can do to help advance the cause. S.T.O.P. is a New York-based civil rights and privacy organization that does research, advocacy, and litigation around issues of surveillance technology abuse.

What does “Ban The Scan” mean? 

When we say scan, we are referring to the “face scan” component of facial recognition technology. Surveillance, and more specifically facial recognition, disproportionately targets Black, Brown, Indigenous, and immigrant communities, amplifying the discrimination that has defined New York’s policing for as long as our state has had police. Facial recognition is notoriously biased and often abused by law enforcement. It is a threat to free speech, freedom of association, and other civil liberties. Ban the Scan is a campaign and coalition built around passing two packages of bills that would ban facial recognition in a variety of contexts in New York City and New York State. 

Are there any differences with the State vs City version?

The City and State packages are largely similar. The main differences are that the State package contains a bill banning law enforcement use of facial recognition, whereas the City package has a bill that bans all government use of the technology (although this bill has yet to be introduced). The State package also contains an additional bill banning facial recognition use in schools, which would codify an existing regulatory ban that currently applies to schools.

What hurdles exist to its passage? 

 For the New York State package, the coalition is newly coming together, so we are still gathering support from legislators and the public. For the City package, we are lucky to have a lot of support already, and we are waiting to have a hearing conducted on the residential ban bills and move them into the next phase of legislation. We are also working to get the bill banning government use introduced at the City level.

What can people do to help this good legislation? How to get involved? 

We recently launched a campaign website for both City and State packages (banthescan.org). If you’re a New York City or State resident, you can look up your legislators (links below!) and contact them to ask them to support these bills or thank them for their support if they are already signed on. We also have social media toolkits with graphics and guidance on how to help spread the word!  

Find your NYS Assemblymember: https://nyassembly.gov/mem/search/ 

Find your NYS Senator: https://www.nysenate.gov/find-my-senator 

Find your NYC Councilmember: https://council.nyc.gov/map-widget/  

The Electronic Frontier Alliance (EFA) is a loose network of local groups fighting for digital rights in the United States, chaired by EFF. Members’ efforts have been recovering from the limitations put on local organizing caused by the pandemic. More EFA members have been holding in-person workshops and meet-ups that help cement the relationships needed to do their work.

If you’re a member of a local or state group in the United States that fights for digital rights and might want to join, please learn more at our FAQ page. If your group feels like a good fit, please fill out an application here. The Alliance has scores of members, all doing great things this year. This review highlights just a few.

EFA members are organizing for your rights

This year, we caught up with our friends at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), a growing organization that has become a force to be reckoned with in New York. STOP has worked to pass the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act in their City Council, and used the law to uncover previously unknown NYPD surveillance contracts. They also won key successes against discriminatory policies by the NYPD by taking the department to court.

We talked to Portland’s Techno-Activism 3rd Mondays (TA3M), which came out of a nationwide effort to increase digital rights activism by providing regular workshops on related topics. Portland’s TA3M hasn’t just survived when most other chapters have disbanded. They have kept a great pace of trainings and panel discussions which has helped keep the digital rights movement alive in Portland, even through the pandemic when these educational events had to move online.

We checked-in with CCTV Cambridge on their efforts to close the digital divide with their Digital Navigator program, as well as their advocacy for digital equality. CCTV Cambridge does work across all demographics. For example, they implemented a Youth Media Program where teens get paid while developing skills to become professional media artists. They also have a Foundational Technology program for elders and others who struggle with technology.

EFA groups kept the conversation going in their communities

Alliance members got together for a podcast interview on Firewalls Don’t Stop Dragons, including EFF, Portland-based PDX Privacy, and Chicago-based Lucy Parsons Labs. It’s a great introduction to the Electronic Frontier Alliance, a couple of its superstar members, and how to get involved.

The Electronic Frontiers track at the sci-fi, fantasy, and comic book-oriented Dragon*Con in Atlanta was produced in coordination with EFA member Electronic Frontiers Georgia and garnered some fantastic conversations. After a few years of hiatus or virtual panels, the digital rights component to the convention came back strong last year and carried on full steam ahead in 2023. Members of EF-Georgia, EFF and allied organizations presented on a variety of topics, including:

• Age Limits for Social Media
• Banning TikTok
• ChatGPT
• Civil Asset Forfeiture
• Copyright 101
• Copyright and AI
• Digital Landlords
• EARN-IT and STOP CSAM Act
• Hacking 101 and 201
• Killer robots in San Francisco
• Mastodon, the Fediverse and ActivityPub
• Police Foundations and Surveillance
• The Right to Repair
• Rise of Labor Unions in Tech Shops
• Section 230 Protections

More of the Dragon*Con panels can be found at EF-Georgia’s special Dragon*Con playlist.

EFF-Austin also moved back in-person events, including monthly expert talks in Texas and meet-ups for people in their city interested in privacy, security, and related issues. Subjects included:

• AI and Cybersecurity
• Automation and Landlordism
• Biometric Surveillance and Art
• City Surveillance and Public Trust
• Cyber Security’s Role in Rethinking Democracy
• Generative AI in its Historical Context
• OAuth: the Online Authorization Protocol
• Password Security
• Positive Developments in AI and Computing

New members

This past year, we also had the opportunity to expand the alliance, especially among youth-led groups, by welcoming six impressive new members:  

• Cyber Security Club @SFSU, San Francisco, CA: The Cyber Security Club is a student group for digital security-minded members of the San Francisco State University community.
• Encode Justice North Carolina: Encode Justice NC is mostly made up of high school students learning the tools of organizing by focusing on issues like algorithmic machine-learning and law enforcement surveillance.
• Encode Justice Oregon: Like the EJ-NC chapter, EC-Oregon is composed of  high school students training their peers to take an active role in local decision-making.
• MOKANCAN, Lawrence, KS: The Missouri & Kansas Cyber Alliance Network is a growing new group of volunteer activists who have been meeting on privacy and other digital rights in cities near the border of the two states.
• New York Law School’s Privacy Law Association, New York, NY: The PLA is a group of law students that train and organize around digital privacy and its impact in many fields of the law.
• Security Club @OSU, Portland, OR: The OSU SEC is a group for security-minded students at Oregon State University that engages in cyber defense training and related digital security education.

Looking forward

As we continue to fight for our digital rights, more groups are connecting to build and maintain a movement for change. In the coming year, a lot of EFA members will be focused on effecting positive social change, whether it’s by training new generations of digital justice activists or preventing attacks on rights to privacy and free expression. 

To learn more about how the EFA works, please check out our FAQ page, and to join the fight, please apply to join us.

Learn more about some of our other EFA members in these past profiles:

• Digital Fourth
• Restore the 4th Minnesota
• PDX Privacy interview 
• Restore the Fourth MN interview
• Future ADA interview
• Personal Telco Project interview
• CyPurr Collective interview
• Cryptoparty Ann Arbor interview

 This blog is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2023.

Recently I got the chance to speak with longtime Electronic Frontier Alliance member Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.). They’ve got a new Advocacy Manager, Kat Phan, and exciting projects are coming down the pike! Kat took some time to share with EFF how things are looking for STOP, their many successes, education & advocacy work, and how people from across the country can plug-in and support.

Can you share how S.T.O.P. came to be, got started, and its mission?   

S.T.O.P. as an organization grew from the belief that emerging surveillance technologies pose an unprecedented threat to public safety and the promise of a free society. Our executive director, Albert Fox Cahn, started S.T.O.P. in 2019 to address the long-ignored threat of state and local government surveillance. While federal advocates spent years at loggerheads over the federal surveillance powers, the growth of local police surveillance, particularly the NYPD, often went unchecked. S.T.O.P. started with an understanding that digital surveillance has played a key role in the historic criminalization of BIPOC, Muslim, and immigrant communities.  Building an intersectional coalition, we began to educate New Yorkers on the disparate and discriminatory impact police surveillance has on Muslim Americans, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, Indigenous peoples, communities of color, and disabled people. These local collaborations, which enable us to share resources for anti-surveillance work and advocate for legislation with the support of impacted community members, form the backbone of our mission – which is to systematically dismantle the local surveillance apparatus here in New York City, as well as to build a model for dismantling local surveillance across the United States.  

What have been some of the issues you've concentrated on and could you walk us through a timeline of some of your early successes to more recent?  

Unveiling the NYPD’s sprawling surveillance systems has been a huge chunk of our work thus far. The department is notoriously opaque about the surveillance technologies at their disposal, obscuring how they disproportionately surveil Black, Latinx, and Muslim New Yorkers. One of S.T.O.P.’s earliest successes was the passage of the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act, which ordered the department to disclose information about their use of surveillance to the public. The POST Act allowed S.T.O.P. and Legal Aid Society to uncover nearly $3 billion in formerly hidden NYPD surveillance contracts. However, the NYPD regularly violates the POST Act, systematically and unlawfully refusing to comply with requests for information related to its use of surveillance technology.  

Our impact litigation extends beyond revealing records to the public. We have also successfully represented survivors of surveillance abuse, suing government agencies and their vendors to end surveillance practices. In 2020, we took the NYPD to court, forcing the department to end its Islamophobic “hijab ban” policy, which required arrestees to remove head coverings for mugshots and fueled the NYPD’s facial recognition database.   

Establishing privacy protections around health and location data has been another major focus of our work. The year following S.T.O.P.’s launch, the Covid-19 pandemic hit. We quickly responded to New York City’s proposed contact tracing system, working to ensure that data collected to “flatten the curve” was not put to other uses or shared with law enforcement agencies or other third parties. In anticipation of the Dobbs decision in 2022, we conducted similar rapid response work, publishing Pregnancy Panopticon: Abortion Surveillance After Roe, a widely-viewed white-paper report warning pregnant people and reproductive advocates of the risks posed by digital surveillance.  

Our other wins include helping outlaw K-12 facial recognition technology, drafting more than 20 bills, publishing more than 140 op-eds, drafting and releasing dozens of whitepapers, testifying before lawmakers in New York and nationally dozens of times, and more.  

S.T.O.P. is getting a lot of visibility online due to your work on Voyager Labs and the NYPD. Can you shed light on this work?   

Our organization found that in 2018, NYPD entered a nearly $9 million contract with Voyager Labs, an AI-based data surveillance firm which scrapes and monitors social media data. Voyager Labs claims its products can predict future crimes by using spyware, creating fake social media profiles, and making inaccurate predictions on suspects for criminal activity based on social media connections, location tracking, and other forms of data surveillance. For instance, Voyager Labs has claimed that its AI can assign prediction scores to social media users on “ties or affinity for Islamic fundamentalism or extremism” or “provide an automated indication of individuals who may pose a risk.”    

In response to this, S.T.O.P. has continued to fight NYPD’s exploitation of social media monitoring and digital “stop and frisk” practices. We are a leading advocate of the “Stop Online Police Fake Accounts and Keep Everyone Safe” (STOP FAKES) Act in New York State. This first-of-its-kind legislation would ban police from leveraging fake social media accounts to surveil New Yorkers. We have also introduced a bill in the City Council which would dissolve NYPD’s so-called “gang database” and prohibit the future use of surveillance practice predicated on association.  

Can you tell us about some of your other current projects?   

S.T.O.P. juggles a multitude of projects developing anti-surveillance resources for local advocates and directly impacted community members. For example, Guilt By Association, a white-paper report recently released by S.T.O.P. detailing how police databases use non-criminal criteria, such as neighborhoods, peer groups, and clothing, as a reason to surveil Black and Latinx youth, supports our work with the GANGS Coalition to dissolve the NYPD database and prohibit the future use of surveillance practices predicated on association. And our latest report, The Kids Won’t Be Alright: The Looming Threat of Child Surveillance Laws, will inform the curriculum for our youth-focused privacy trainings.   

What's next on the horizon for STOP?   

Our upcoming legislative work will heavily focus on passing a set of anti-surveillance and privacy laws at both the state and City Council level. At the state level, there is “Banning Big Brother: New York’s Surveillance Sanctuary State Blueprint”, a 10-bill package which includes first-in-the-nation bans on geofence warrants and fake police social media profiles. You can learn more about that campaign through its website: https://www.banbigbro.tech/.   

At the local level, S.T.O.P. just relaunched our Ban the Scan campaign to introduce a city-wide ban on government use of biometric surveillance and pass two bills in the Council that would prohibit landlords and places of public accommodations from using biometric surveillance, such as facial recognition technology. You can learn more about that campaign through its website, banthescan.org, when it launches on October 17th.   

Do opportunities exist for people to get involved? How can people contact and support your work?  

Because our team and work thrive when we are connected to community work and can work alongside other organizations or groups similarly invested in privacy protections, S.T.O.P. welcomes collaboration on public and digital events and campaigns. For those who would prefer to be involved in our campaigns in an individual capacity, S.T.O.P. welcomes support as a volunteer, junior board member, intern, or legal fellow. We know that lived experiences are the most informative when it comes to demanding change and encourage folks from all backgrounds to join the fight to abolish all systems of mass surveillance.  

What supports our work is not only direct participation as a staff member or volunteer, but donations and contributions to fuel our fight against mass surveillance (www.stopspying.org/donate). Additionally, community partnerships are key to our sustainment, and working with organizations near and far helps us share our resources and build a network of allies in our mission to end governmental abuse of surveillance technologies.

Recently I got the chance to speak with longtime Electronic Frontier Alliance member Cambridge Community Television (CCTV). Their membership is growing, they’ve got a new Associate Director of Community Relations, Maritza Grooms, and exciting projects are coming down the pike! Maritza took some time to share with EFF how things are looking for CCTV, their upcoming advocacy work, and how people from across the country, not just Massachusetts, can plug-in and support.

Can you share how CCTV Cambridge got started?

Cambridge Community Television is a nonprofit community media organization that formed through the origination of cable television in Cambridge in 1988. CCTV’s mission has evolved over time from providing resources to residents, businesses, and organizations in Cambridge through telecommunication tools and services, to our current mission of nurturing a strong, equitable and diverse community by providing tools and training to foster free speech, civic engagement, and creative expression.

What have been some of the issues you've concentrated on and what were some of your early successes?

Digital equity, access to media training and resources, and giving people a platform to voice their thoughts, feelings, or ideas, have been the issues since the start of PEG (Public, Educational, and Government) Access Media. We implemented a Youth Media Program where teens get paid while developing the skills to become professional media artists that is still going strong today, and have a Foundational Technology program for elders and others who struggle with technology.

Can you shed light on your work through the pandemic and how it impacted the community?

Being fully remote was a challenge for everyone. We kept people informed through our programming, providing the Zoom room for local leaders to address Cambridge residents and businesses, and streaming live town halls and community conversations that provided information about the ongoing pandemic. We provided hotspots, laptops, and iPads for our young people in our Youth Media Program which ended up benefiting entire families who may not have had this technology at home. We continued to provide media training via Zoom as well as our Foundational Tech Lessons for our seniors to help them get situated online in the “new normal.”

Can you tell us about some of your current projects?

Right now, we’re working with community partners and the City of Cambridge to host two new Digital Navigators in 2024.The aim of these Digital Navigators is to assist in bridging the digital divide in Cambridge by assessing the needs of our community and acting as something like a technological social worker. We’re lucky in Cambridge that we have lots of tech—laptops, cameras, hotspots, etcetera—spread around many great local organizations such as CCTV, the Cambridge Public Library, and the Cambridge Senior Center. What we can do better is outreach, assessment and community connection. The navigators will be focused on wellbeing—how can we improve your access to tech in a way that would improve your life and your family’s well-being? We see people getting by with what they have; we want to see them thriving.

Other current projects include expanding access and education around our podcast studio. We’re also expanding our programming and outreach to people who speak languages other than English, like offering media production classes in Haitian-Creole. Finally, we’re working with funders to establish more paid opportunities for creators aged 18-24.

Are you looking to do more advocacy in the future?

We are a big advocate for digital equity in Cambridge and will continue to be a hub in that area. We are also a main collaborator in an advocacy group called CREATE Cambridge. This group of arts and culture organizations got together, and applied for and received ARPA (American Rescue Plan) funding to advocate for the arts in Cambridge. We will regrant directly to artists and creators, and CCTV will lead the effort to create awareness around the challenges artists and arts organizations are facing, such as high rents, lower ticket sales, etcetera. The arts are one of the things that make Cambridge cool so we want to make sure people know how to support and engage with it. Finally, we are always looking for ways to advocate for the community media sector. The revenue model for the sector has always been based on cable subscriptions—with the steep drop in subscription happening across the country, community media needs to find new ways to survive and thrive. We’re doing that work at CCTV and also advocating and educating for the whole sector and the communities who love our spaces and resources.

What are the technological challenges for CCTV Cambridge?

Our infrastructure is aging out. Our last capital campaign was about 12 years ago, so we’re working with cameras, lighting, and other studio technology that is starting to break down. Our playback system that brings programming to our cable channels needs updating, and that will cost multiple thousands of dollars. We’ve continued to invest in certain mobile technology like the equipment our members borrow, but the studios that are also available to our members are becoming outdated. We don’t own our building, so a challenge we face is whether to invest in new technology infrastructure, like lighting grids, studio cameras and other non-sexy systems. If so, where do we find the funding?

Do opportunities exist for people to get involved? How can people contact and support your work?

There are always opportunities for folks to get involved! We’re hiring Teaching Artists for our Youth Media Program which are two newly funded positions through the Shout Syndicate. You can become an intern or apprentice, depending on your skill and experience level. You can become a member with our pay-what-you-can fee structure. And of course, people can always support by making a donation at cctvcambridge.org/support. Follow us on social media @cctvcambridge!

Network neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services. It is a principle that must be upheld to protect the open internet. The idea that ISPs could prevent access to certain sites, slow down rates and speeds for certain users, isn’t just horrendous— it’s vastly unpopular. When ISPs charge tolls or put up road-blocks, it comes at the expense of all segments of society, and undermines internet access as a right.

The FCC will meet on October 19th to vote on proposing Title II reclassification that would support accompanying net neutrality protections. Based on a draft version of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC will propose to reestablish the Commission’s authority to issue net neutrality rules for broadband internet access service by classifying it as a “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. If the FCC issues the notice as expected on October 19th, the next steps would be a public comment phase followed by issuance of a final rule. This process could result in a final rule restoring net neutrality requirements around spring of 2024.

We’re glad that the FCC is finally taking steps to bring back net neutrality. Title II provides a clear avenue for the FCC to exercise authority to enact net neutrality rules that will stand up to a challenge in court. For years, the FCC incorrectly classified broadband access as an “information service,” and when it tried to impose even a weak version of net neutrality protections under that classification, they were struck down in court. We’ve had victories in the past on this issue thanks to the overwhelming support of millions of Americans, and we need the FCC to do the right thing now.

The classification of broadband as a Title II “telecommunications service” is not only correct as a factual matter and proven to be legally defensible, it also provides the FCC the tools it needs to issue narrow regulations that address the proven need for net neutrality rules, while forbearing from any provisions of Title II that might be unnecessary.

The internet should live up to its history of fostering innovation, creativity, and freedom. When ISPs act as gatekeepers, making special deals with a few companies or privileging their own services, we all lose. Hopefully, on October 19th the FCC will show all Americans that it knows how the internet works, and will put people over ISPs once and for all.