The Los Angeles Police Department will now aerially record protests and store the subsequent footage following unanimous approval from the city’s police commission on Oct. 27, per the Los Angeles Times.
The police commission voted to accept a donation of recording equipment from the Los Angeles Police Foundation valued at $2,150. The LA Times said the foundation is a “private philanthropic entity that has long bankrolled equipment desired by the LAPD but not budgeted for or prioritized by the city.”
Annenberg Media reached out to the Los Angeles Police Foundation but did not receive comment by the time of publication.
“This is an old dodge that skirts democratic accountability,” Alex Marthews said. Marthews is the chair of Restore the Fourth, an advocacy group that opposes unconstitutional surveillance methods conducted by the government.
“If police foundations want to donate funds for retirement gifts and ice-cream socials, fine, nobody’s going to take issue with it,” Marthews said. “But gifts of technology that will be used to surveil LA residents should be reviewed and approved or denied by the City Council.”
The LA Times asked Deputy Chief Peter Zarcone about surveillance concerns linked to law enforcement aircraft with recording capabilities. He was quoted as saying, “If the privacy concern is that that should not be done, then that would preclude what we’re trying to do.”
Protest surveillance and Zarcone’s response are concerning to civil liberties advocates like Marthews.
“Unlike Deputy Chief Zarcone, we think Los Angelenos should have a choice about whether they get surveilled, and that the city should offer that choice routinely, for any current or proposed use of surveillance technology,” Marthews said.
Marthews proposed that LA could take after cities - such as San Francisco and Oakland - that have passed surveillance oversight ordinances that institute communal overview of pre-existing and potential future surveillance technology.
Brian Hofer is the chair of the City of Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission and the executive director of Secure Justice, a nonprofit that advocates against government overreach and abuse of power. He echoed Marthews comment on the foundation’s donation, explaining that such private financing is problematic to transparency and public input. Hofer helped draft the ordinance that currently prohibits facial recognition in San Francisco.
“At the local level, citizens can have the most meaningful input into whether and how such technology should be used in their own community,” Hofer said. “Without community outreach and the ability to voice any concerns, the conversation and policy writing becomes one-sided — law enforcement unilaterally decides how they will use the technology and information collected by it.”
Annenberg Media was not able to receive further comment from the LAPD at the time of publication.
Hofer explained that the addition of eyes in the sky adds to the cumulative chilling effect that license plate readers, cell phone surveillance and facial recognition technology may have on protesters.
Last month, the LA Times reported that the LAPD used facial recognition software over 29,000 times in the last decade, an action that the police department has both denied and openly admitted to on separate occasions.
Hofer said, “To those that are afraid, if you’re not going to act now, when will you?”
This article has been updated to correct a misspelled name. The article also previously stated that Hofer drafted an ordinance in San Francisco instead of saying that he helped draft it. Annenberg Media apologizes for the error.