Police departments all over the country are buying a lot of new technology. They say that new camera systems and better software driven by generative AI will make the public safer. Everyone was welcome to learn more about the Portland Police Department’s new virtual reality system in the spring.
Officers posed with the awkward headsets and fake stun guns, bragging about how useful a training system is that costs more than a teacher’s first year’s pay.
AI transcription software for body cameras is being tested in Portland and a few other city offices right now. CCTV drones are the next big thing in tech toys. The Portland Police Department is asking for one drone right now because they are short-staffed and think the monitoring devices are technologically superior.
The plan was sent to the full City Council earlier this month by a split vote of 2-2 in the Health and Human Services Committee. The whole council is likely to vote on it in October.
The companies that make body cameras, drones, and the software that runs them make big claims about how well they work. They probably do this to make the technology seem like it will always work, even though it hasn’t been tried much.
Maine surveillance policies inadequate
As Maine’s police departments buy and use new technology for policing, the laws and rules that govern it are woefully lacking. Seriously, high-tech police equipment can be used to make fake proof, spy on people, and cause people to be wrongfully arrested and sent to jail.
The rules that govern how police can use drones in Maine were written in 2015, a long time before most of this technology became commonplace. There are some good rules in the law itself about how to use drones, but there aren’t many ways to make sure people follow them.
There are a lot of reporting, tracking, and fancy research tools built into the technology, but none of this information has to be shared with the public or the Maine Legislature. When did these organization’s fly drones? Where did they go? What did they record? We don’t even know if it was necessary to use a drone.
In reality, it’s hard to say what “success” means, and there aren’t any tools that let you compare how different departments use drones. There isn’t even a weak statewide policy on the use of AI in law enforcement. There isn’t a policy that tells departments how, when, and where they can use AI properly.
An ever-expanding suite of services
The state’s tech skills are still stuck in the 1990s, with paper forms, PDFs, and websites that look like they haven’t been updated since then, even though these companies say they need modern technology right away. In the public interest, I’ve organised and worked to improve and make software for over ten years in the field of civic technology.
Some might say that the State of Maine’s tech skills have gotten worse over the years, including its ability to hire and keep qualified product managers, software engineers, and designers, even though huge tech contracts with outside vendors are still being accepted.
It’s like buying a brand-new car without knowing anything about them, how to drive them, or what dangers they can cause. That’s how many local governments buy and keep tech software these days. You believe that the dealer will help you choose the right model. You trust the provider to give you all the extras you want.
If they charge you, you’ll trust them to teach you how to drive. There’s one catch, though: the car costs only half as much as everything else. Instead of just getting the equipment, you trust the dealer to give you a maintenance and software plan that they are the only ones who can offer.
The plan isn’t expensive right now, but it should last forever since it renews every three years. What might go wrong?
The fact that the Portland Police Department already has the money to pay for the drone makes their case for getting it stronger, just like with the nearly $70,000 virtual reality VR headsets! The federal government will pay for it with grants and forfeiture funds, so local people won’t have to pay anything.
However, that’s only to get the gear. There is also a lot of software and training that comes with drone services. More money is made from their services and software than from the gear itself. The Portland Police won’t be able to fix or update their own gear: Software companies make their money by offering a suite of services that keeps growing. They pay for all of the costs of maintenance, training, and software.
At the local and state levels, governments are not at all ready to control and police tech like drones and AI transcription. The Somerset County Commissioners just signed a huge $840,000 deal with Axon, the same company that makes the drones that Portland wants to buy. Axon also makes body cameras, which are now used by most police forces in the state. Maine doesn’t have many basic rules, which is good for Axon.
Who gets surveilled?
When it comes to how police use drones, the city of Chula Vista, California, is a good example. They have 29 drones on their team. 10,000 police drone flight records were looked at by Wired in June.
The article said that “drone flight paths trace a map of the city’s inequality, with poorer residents experiencing far more exposure to the drones’ cameras and rotors than their wealthier counterparts.”
Police drones have cameras that can clearly see people’s faces and record large parts of the city on a daily basis. People who lived in Chula Vista neighborhoods with too many police officers said they felt like they were always being watched.
This line of thinking is sound: if you look for crime, you’ll find it. Then, use that proof of crime to back more surveillance. In this case and many others like it, white, wealthy parts of the city are the only ones who can be private.
A way forward
If you want to use technology in towns in a smart way, don’t buy drones. Do not let AI be used in body cams. Do not buy glasses for augmented reality.
You shouldn’t buy cameras, sensors, or even “smart streetlights” until the state of Maine and all the cities and towns that want to use this technology can show that each and every policymaker who votes on these kinds of bills knows what an Application Programming Interface (API) is, how AI models are trained, and how a data standard works.
Then we need a whole bill of rights for data privacy that protects everyone in the state. Privacy shouldn’t depend on race or income, and everyone should be able to defend and enforce it. To regulate technology in the public interest, people should know how to use it and how to fix problems with it.
Policymakers and agencies that use this technology should know more than just what’s in a sales brochure about how it works and what it means for how it’s used. We shouldn’t go into any technology without knowing much about it, but especially technology that can be used to spy on people and jail them.