September, 12 2019, 12:00am EDT
California Senate Passes Bill to Stop Facial Recognition in Police Body Cameras as Momentum Grows at Local, State, and Federal Level
WASHINGTON
California could become the first state to pass legislation limiting the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. Yesterday, the state Senate passed AB 1215, a moratorium on the use of facial recognition surveillance in police body cameras, with bipartisan support. The bill attracted strong grassroots support from local, state, and national organizations.
Digital rights group Fight for the Future supported AB 1215 and are leading a national BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 organizations, as well as a high profile campaign to halt the use of facial recognition surveillance at music festivals and concerts, supported by artists like Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Thievery Corporation, and Amanda Palmer.
"This is a major victory for civil rights and civil liberties groups on the ground in California who are leading the fight to rein in invasive facial recognition surveillance," said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, "But no one should be subjected to automated biometric surveillance--the ultimate Big Brother surveillance weapon--regardless of where they live. That's why we're calling on lawmakers at the local, state, and federal level to enact an outright ban facial recognition surveillance."
California is not the only state considering reining in facial recognition, a uniquely dangerous form of surveillance technology that has drawn comparisons to nuclear and biological weapons in terms of its potential harm to society. There are two bipartisan bills (HB 4810 and SB 342) moving in the Michigan state legislature that would ban law enforcement use of facial recognition in the state. Massachusetts lawmakers will hold a hearing this Fall on a statewide moratorium bill to "press pause" on the use of the technology. And New York state is considering legislation to ban the use of facial recognition in schools.
Facial recognition surveillance has faced fierce opposition at the local level as well. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley, CA, Cambridge, MA, and Emeryville, CA are also considering bans. Community activists in Detroit have been pressuring the City Council and the Board of Police Commissioners to stop police from using facial recognition.
Fight for the Future has launched an interactive map and activist toolkit to support efforts at the local and state level, and is driving phone calls and emails to Congress pushing for legislators to place an outright ban on law enforcement use of the tech.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Iran Suspends Cooperation with IAEA, Accusing Nuclear Watchdog of 'Complicity' in Trump Strikes
"The IAEA, which did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, has put its international credibility up for sale," said Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf.
Jun 25, 2025
The Iranian parliament approved a bill Wednesday suspending its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The resolution states that weapons inspectors with the United Nations nuclear watchdog organization will not be allowed to enter the country unless it guarantees the security of Iran's nuclear facilities and their ability to pursue peaceful nuclear activities.
Ahead of the vote, lawmakers denounced the IAEA, accusing it of enabling U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday—strikes Iran, as well as other observers of international law, have denounced as a clear violation of its sovereignty.
"The IAEA, which did not even formally condemn the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, has put its international credibility up for sale," said Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. "For this reason, the [Atomic Energy Organization of Iran] will suspend its cooperation with the Agency until the security of its nuclear facilities is guaranteed, and Iran's peaceful nuclear program will proceed at an even faster pace."
In response to the resolution, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said that "the return of inspectors to Iran's nuclear facilities is a top priority."
Independent inspectors have not yet been able to inspect the damage to the three nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—hit by the U.S.
Following the strikes, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that Iran's nuclear sites were "completely and fully obliterated."
However, reporting by CNN and The New York Times on Tuesday, based on unnamed sources familiar with an internal assessment by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, undercut that claim, stating that the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program by a matter of months.
Grossi said Monday that the airstrikes likely inflicted "very significant damage" at Fordo, but that no conclusions could be reached until independent inspectors are allowed to examine the site and account for Iran's uranium stockpile.
The latest IAEA report issued on May 31 found "no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear program" being pursued by Iran—a finding echoed by U.S. intelligence agencies.
However, the IAEA did find that Iran had significantly increased its uranium stockpile enriched to 60%, near weapons-grade, which it said was a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Despite no "imminent threat," according to the most recent intelligence assessments, the Trump administration cited those IAEA findings to justify its attacks.
As a result, Iran's nuclear organization has questioned the IAEA's credibility as a neutral broker, accusing them of "deliberate inaction," following American and Israeli strikes. It said in a statement Sunday that these strikes were carried out "with the IAEA's silence, if not complicity."
Some critics have argued that the IAEA's decision to declare Iran in violation of the NPT was the result of significant U.S. arm-twisting and that the IAEA has not applied similar scrutiny to Israel's nuclear weapons program.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and that strikes upon its nuclear facilities violate the NPT, which grants countries an "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy for nonmilitary purposes.
Nuclear experts warn that the U.S. strikes on Iran have undermined the credibility of the NPT, prompting some factions in Iran to call for the nation's exit altogether.
Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, suggested Monday that U.S. attacks may only embolden Iran and other nations to violate the treaty and pursue nuclear weapons, perceiving them as necessary for their protection.
"From a nonproliferation perspective, Trump's decision to strike Iran was a reckless, irresponsible escalation that is likely to push Iran closer to nuclear weapons in the long term," Davenport said. "Politically, there's greater impetus now to weaponize."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Mamdani Victory, Progressives Call for Primary Challenges to Democratic Establishment
"The establishment has never been more weak than they are now," one advocate told potential progressive candidates. "You need to run."
Jun 25, 2025
New York state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani's victory over disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary was quickly dismissed by some commentators as one that likely wouldn't be replicated in federal elections and that said little about the views of Democratic voters at large.
But the news that Cuomo had conceded on Tuesday night left many progressives eager to continue the momentum started by Mamdani's (D-36) campaign—one characterized by a laser-sharp focus on making life more affordable for working people, a rejection of the outsized influence of billionaires and corporations on elections, and a demand for the Democratic Party to end its insistence that popular economic justice proposals are impossible to achieve in the United States.
Instead of viewing Mamdani's victory as an aberration, said journalist and organizer Daniel Denvir, the left should treat it as "an earthquake" that threatens the entire Democratic establishment—and its prioritizing of wealthy donors over the needs of ordinary voters.
"The left everywhere must dedicate itself to an insurgency against Democratic incumbents," said Denvir. "The Democratic establishment has lost credibility with its base in the face of a fascist threat. The base is looking leftward for new leadership. We are the opposition party."
Several progressive observers urged potential primary challengers to look to other upcoming races in New York, with several expressing hope that New York City Comptroller Brad Lander—another mayoral candidate who was widely praised for boosting Mamdani's campaign by cross-endorsing with him—will continue his political career by fighting for a U.S. Senate or House seat.
New York Democratic centrists including U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were named as lawmakers Lander could challenge in a primary. Goldman is up for reelection in 2026, and Schumer could face a primary in 2028.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who has angered progressive advocates during President Donald Trump's second term by complaining about their demands for the Democrats to act as an opposition party, and Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), a vehement supporter of Israel who attacked Mamdani and accused him of antisemitism when he spoke out in support of Palestinian rights, were also mentioned as incumbents who should be challenged.
Mamdani won both Jeffries' and Goldman's House district, according to political analyst Armin Thomas.
Organizer Aaron Regunberg pointed to an article published by Politico last week detailing how 40% of Cuomo's endorsements came from lawmakers who had previously called for his resignation when he was accused of sexually harassing more than a dozen women.
"Politico ran this very convenient piece listing out every New York Democrat who needs to get primaried!" said Regunberg.
All the centrists named would likely have vast financial resources at their fingertips should a progressive vie for their seats, with powerful groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) liable to spend heavily on their campaigns—but so did Cuomo, who benefited from a super political action committee that raised $25 million, including from right-wing billionaires.
"But if all of Cuomo's advantages led to a thorough election thrashing, perhaps they weren't advantages," wrote Jeet Heer at The Nation on Wednesday. "Mamdani proved to be a superb campaigner with a message about affordability that resonated with voters... Mamdani's victory is a sign that the Democratic Party establishment is in trouble, and the party is ready for a wider revolt. The next move of progressive Democrats is to start running insurgent candidates in primaries to harness the anger of the moment."
CNN political analyst Harry Enten also acknowledged that "the Democratic establishment" will likely feel threatened by Mamdani's victory, which follows "poll after poll showing Democratic voters fed up with their leaders in Washington."
In his victory speech, Mamdani himself suggested broader lessons should be taken from his campaign, during which he walked the length of Manhattan to talk directly to New Yorkers, spoke to Trump voters in the outer boroughs about their concerns over the cost of living, and advocated for fare-free buses and no-cost universal childcare.
"This is a victory for every New Yorker who has been told they don't have a voice," Mamdani said in his victory speech. "It's proof that organized people can beat organized money."
In a column at Common Dreams Wednesday, writer David Andersson wrote that "Mamdani's win signals a seismic shift in the balance of power between entrenched political institutions and a new generation demanding change. The sheer scale of resources the establishment mobilized—and still fell short—reveals the depth of their fear of losing control over the city's financial and political machinery."
"New York City, and perhaps the nation, is at a turning point," he added.
David Hogg, the anti-gun violence activist who was recently pushed out of his position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee after he advocated for primary challenges to "asleep-at-the-wheel" Democrats in blue districts, urged young progressives to consider launching their own campaigns.
"It has never been more clear—the establishment has never been more weak than they are now," he said. "You need to run."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm as Trump Reportedly Plans to Send Tens of Millions to Israel-Backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
"People have been killed almost daily while trying to get food," said one top U.N. official.
Jun 25, 2025
The anti-poverty group Oxfam America has issued a forceful response to reporting that the Trump administration plans to give tens of millions dollars to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an Israeli-backed aid organization which uses private U.S. military firms and whose rollout the United Nations and international aid groups have strongly objected to.
Reuters was first to report on Tuesday that the Trump administration plans to give $30 million to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). A document reviewed by the outlet shows that the amount was authorized last week under a "priority directive" from the White House and the U.S. Department of State. Per Reuters, $7 million has already been dispersed. Sources told the outlet that the administration may approve separate monthly grants for the entity.
Oxfam America president and CEO Abby Maxman said in a statement on Tuesday that the Trump administration is poised to shell out for an aid organization "formed to distribute food parcels without any grounding in the reality of the crisis in Gaza."
Maxman accused GHF of delivering only a fraction of the number of meals that the population needs and alleged the group is distributing food that families can't prepare without fuel and clean water. She also said the organization has pushed aid further out of reach for the vulnerable populations who can't walk long distances to its distribution sites.
"We urge the Trump administration and Congress to instead put its full support behind funding and ensuring safe access for established humanitarian organizations to do the work that is proven to save lives," added Maxman.
She also highlighted that the distribution sites have been marred by violence.
The U.N.'s human rights office said on Tuesday that at least 410 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces "while trying to fetch from controversial new aid hubs in Gaza—a likely war crime," according to a U.N. News article posted that same day.
Jonathan Whittall, the head of U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, told journalists on Monday that since Israel's total blockade was partially lifted in late May, "people have been killed almost daily while trying to get food."
In a statement shared with CBS on Tuesday, GHF pushed back on what it called "false allegations of attacks near aid distributions sites." The group also said that the "Hamas-affiliated Gaza Health Ministry is not a credible source of information, as it fails to report any U.N. convoys or distribution sites that are linked to violent incidents," according to CBS, whose story focused on comments from the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East commissioner general decrying GHF.
In that same story, CBSreported that the Gaza Ministry of Health said 79 people had been killed in Gaza over the last day. Fifty-one of those people had died near GHF sites, per CBS, citing the Gaza Ministry of Health.
And on Monday, over a dozen human rights organizations sent a letter to GHF calling for an end to the "privatized, militarized" GHF aid model and urging any parties involved with GHF and the international community in general to press for aid to be distributed through established international relief operations.
"Individuals and corporate entities involved in the planning, financing, or execution of the GHF scheme may incur criminal liability—including under universal jurisdiction statutes—for aiding and abetting war crimes such as the forcible displacement of civilians, starvation as a method of warfare, and denial of humanitarian access," the letter warned.
The groups behind the letter include the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Applied Legal Studies, and others.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular