In some regards, it offered a previously unseen account of the city’s surveillance capabilities.
However, some transparency advocates, City Councilors and residents found the city’s first annual surveillance report lacking in other aspects.
In one particular area — how the Boston Public Schools used security cameras — they felt the report left unclear which areas of the school buildings are being filmed, how the footage is used, and when the videos can be shared with police.
All were necessary details to share with the public, Kade Crockford, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said.
“We believe technology is totally appropriate in many situations,” Crockford, a staunch privacy advocate, said. But in this case, the lack of clear policies shared by school leadership troubled the ACLU.
Were cameras used to deter graffiti, theft and other misbehavior? Crockford asked. Were they to provide a video feed during an emergency? Or were they also open to other functions? For instance, if administrators wished, could they keep watch on how teachers spent their preparation periods?
In search of more information on the schools’ security camera policies, the City Council will seek answers from school officials at a hearing on Dec. 5.
“We recognize the concerns related to privacy and equity and are taking every precaution to ensure that the security technology is used responsibly with our students’ and staff’s best interests at the forefront,” Sujata Wycoff, a district spokesperson, said in a statement to MassLive.
The surveillance report required city departments to disclose how they used surveillance technologies in the year prior. It was the first time the city shared some of the information, fulfilling a push for transparency and oversight backed by Mayor Michelle Wuwhen she served on the council.
Much of the technology and software addressed in the report naturally fell under the scope of the Boston Police Department, including drones, wiretap equipment, the gunshot detection system, GPS trackers and a database of suspected gang affiliations.
The Boston Public Schools reported using only one surveillance technology — security cameras, devices that are installed in more than 90 percent of American schools, according to one study. School officials said the cameras are placed outside schools, near building entrances, in certain areas indoors and on school buses “for deterrent and security purposes.”
“Our highest priority is the safety and well-being of our students and staff,” Wycoff said. The district “takes a holistic approach to student safety and security cameras are one part of our comprehensive and multi-layered safety strategy to maximize the security of our buildings and ensure a safe learning environment across Boston Public Schools.”
The district’s responses raised a host of questions from advocates, including the ACLU, where Crockford runs a program focused on new technology and its implications on civil liberties.
“When we talk in vague platitudes like the ‘cameras are for safety purposes,’ we miss a conversation about whether it’s appropriate for school administrators to track how often teachers use the restroom during the day,” Crockford said, suggesting how surveillance cameras might hypothetically be used without established constraints.
“We forgo a conversation about whether the community thinks it’s appropriate for the administrators to look at which students participated in a walkout against, say, school budget cuts, or who was the leader,” Crockford added.
BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS SPENT $1.8M ON CAMERAS, CABLES
In the report, school officials said they spent more than $1.8 million “on security cameras and cabling installation” last year. They referenced local policies and state and federal laws that govern how the cameras are used, who can access the footage and how the district protects student privacy. However, advocates still found the responses overly vague.
The report as a whole shed “important new light” on surveillance technology in Boston, Crockford wrote in a July letter to the mayor.
Yet the report still had aspects — the school security cameras included — that led city councilors, the ACLU and other transparency advocates to seek more detailed information.
They also heavily scrutinized the police department’s gunshot detection system, ShotSpotter, which monitors for the sound of gunfire and alerts officers to its location.
Advocates and some researchers criticized the technology as inaccurate and said it risks bringing Boston Police to neighborhoods already facing significant law enforcement presence.
At a council hearing in July, police representatives defended the technology as an essential public safety tool that could immediately direct officers to the location of gunfire, potentially saving lives in situations where seconds matter.
At-Large City Councilor Henry Santana said the hearing shed light on why police use ShotSpotter and helped him understand community concerns about the technology. The focus on the school security cameras is part of a similar fact-gathering mission, he said.
“We just live in a world where everything is being surveilled,” Santana told MassLive. “We want to make sure any privacy and civil liberty concerns, we have a conversation about them and get some of these questions answered.”
LACK OF CLEAR DATA-SHARING PROCEDURES
For multiple years in the last decade, the schools lacked clear data-sharing procedures, allowing information about Boston students to reach federal immigration authorities, said Sabrina Barroso, of Stories Inspiring Movements, an advocacy organization for young immigrants.
From 2014 to 2019, more than 130 school incident reports were shared with police and made their way to other law enforcement officials through a regional intelligence-sharing network, a lawsuit brought by the nonprofit Lawyers for Civil Rights and other organizations uncovered in 2020.
The city enacted significant reforms to surveillance and student information laws in 2021.
But Barroso said advocates recognized the need for continued lobbying for clear policies on surveillance measures and technology.
“That’s what this whole question is about because BPS is not sharing how they’re using the cameras, how the data is being stored and what sort of data they’re collecting,” Barroso said. “It should be a question for all of us.”
“We have to scrutinize technology like this to make sure it does what it’s reported to do,” said Leon Smith, the executive director of the advocacy group Citizens for Juvenile Justice.
In addition to concerns for student privacy, Smith — the son of two public school teachers — said educators should be comfortable knowing that surveillance cameras aren’t used to scrutinize their job performance.
“I don’t think any of us would be comfortable having eyes over our shoulder as we do our jobs,” he said.
©2024 Advance Local Media LLC. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
