Policing on the Virtual Frontier: The Potential Dangers of Social Media Surveillance

*In 2016, the SOL program pivoted for the year to focus on political engagement in what was then called the “Political Engagement Pilot Project,” or PEPP. This was an alternative version of SOL that laid the groundwork for the development of the PEP program as it currently exists.

Problem Statement

Currently, 11 cities have pledged to pass laws according to the ACLU’s Community Control Over Police Surveillance guidelines, which clearly lay out eight principles to bring greater transparency on how police are using technology in their investigations. The demands of this initiative center around requiring city council approval for the funding and implementation of surveillance technology and the public release of data on how police are monitoring citizens. So far, the ACLU’s efforts have begun the process on the local government level of creating legislative restraints on police departments so that they cannot arbitrarily tap into people’s information online, or use sensing devices to collect information on them. This is a monumental first step to giving communities control over how police access their private information and restoring the rights intended by the Fourth Amendment.

However, the ACLU guidelines make no mention of the uneven application of technology to different areas within cities, with surveillance most heavily concentrated in communities of color. A study conducted in Lansing, Michigan revealed that following the installation of surveillance cameras in residential neighborhoods, African-American residents were twice as likely to be monitored as their neighbors. Meanwhile in Oakland, research showed that automatic license plate readers were deployed heavily in minority neighborhoods, but appeared far less frequently in white neighborhoods. Additionally, police have monitored teens online in search of criminal activity, such as in the case of Operation Crew Cut, where teens’ posts can be used to indict them in gang-related crimes. In this way, the misinterpretation of reckless social media posts can derail students’ lives by landing them in trouble with the law. The potential for racial profiling and the misinterpretation of online findings leaves room for further advocacy to examine and establish legal and ethical frameworks for the police use of technology in surveillance before and during investigations.

There is no standardized procedure or training process for police officers using technology.

While police have standardized procedures for conducting traditional searches and raids, officers do not receive training on how to handle the information they receive online. In 2014, 75 percent of police officers reported developing methods for investigating social media through their own processes of trial and error. This lack of standardization creates room for bias, profiling, and discrimination by police officers when conducting their searches. Without standardized protocol for how police officers should handle civilians’ private information, there is no way to hold officers accountable when they exhibit racial bias.

Uses of technology which appear legitimate before the city council can still be used to disproportionately target minorities.

Once a technology is approved for use by the police department, law enforcement gains autonomy over how to deploy resources, and this opens the possibility for the disproportionate surveillance of minority communities, as seen by how the NYPD targeted Black communities with the sweeping surveillance measures of Operation Crew Cut. Technology which is necessary and appropriate for one criminal case can be discriminatory in another. For example, police needed to collect evidence from teenagers’ social media posts in their investigation of the Steubenville rape case, and this was widely accepted as a proper use of surveillance technology. However, the same practice of scouring social media posts for evidence in criminal investigations was used by the NYPD to target Black teenagers and inaccurately accuse them of being complicit in an attempted murder, solely based on photos of the boys throwing gang signs. Uses of technology which are necessary for one investigation can still be misused in other cases, so a city council’s blanket approval for a police procedure leaves open the possibility of discrimination.