

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that it will not bring federal charges against the six police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray.
AP reports:
The officers were charged by [Maryland] state prosecutors after Gray's neck was broken in the back of a police transport wagon in April of 2015. The 25-year-old was handcuffed and shackled at the time, but he was unrestrained by a seat belt.
Three officers were acquitted at trial. Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby dropped the remaining state cases.
The Gray family's attorney, Billy Murphy, says the Justice Department informed him on Tuesday that no charges would be filed.
Five officers face internal disciplinary trials, scheduled to begin Oct. 30.
The investigation into Gray's death has been ongoing since 2015.
A report released by the Justice Department last year in the aftermath of Gray's death found that the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) "routinely conducted unlawful stops and used excessive force, disproportionately targeting black residents."
In a statement on Tuesday reacting to the news, Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said: "We know that spines do not break without cause, and the DOJ and BPD's credibility to make change a reality in Baltimore hinges not just on their ability to institute much needed reforms to police training, policies, and practices, but also on their success in bringing to justice officers who abuse their power and take the lives of innocent residents."
"The onus is now on the BPD to hold these officers accountable at their disciplinary trials this fall and winter," Ifill concluded. "Baltimore will be watching."
Since January, the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) has been using small aircrafts to spy on residents for as much as 10 hours a day, without informing the public, in a project financed by a private donor and facilitated by a private company, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
The BPD, Bloomberg's Monte Reel wrote, has been using aerial surveillance to investigate "all sorts of crimes, from property thefts to shootings." The cameras capture an area of roughly 30 square miles and transmit images to analysts on the ground, while footage gets automatically saved to hard drives for later review.
The technology comes from a company called Persistent Surveillance Systems. Its president, Ross McNutt, developed a similar tool for the Pentagon while working for the U.S. Air Force in 2006. Over time, he modified the technology for commercial use. McNutt eventually pitched the service to the BPD after his company had faltered in finding a department for a long-term contract. He opened his office in Baltimore in January, above a parking garage, denoted only by a piece of paper taped to his door that reads, "Community Support Program."
The Cessna used for the surveillance project circled overhead crowds of protesters chanting for justice after the death of 25-year-old black Baltimore resident Freddie Gray, whose spine was severed in police custody, on the day the verdict came in not guilty for Caesar Goodson--the only officer involved in Gray's death facing a murder charge.
Reel described the day of June 23, when it became clear that a protest over Goodson's verdict would not break out: McNutt became "frustrated," Reel wrote. "He wanted to please the cops."

The BPD became the first police department to contract with McNutt, but it was not the first to test drive the technology. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's office approved a nine-day trial run in 2012 in Compton, California, a majority-black city near Los Angeles, but would not sign a contract over concerns about image quality. The secret program led to outcry from residents, as well as the mayor, when they finally found out about their constant surveillance--a year later.
"There is nothing worse than believing you are being observed by a third party unnecessarily," Compton Mayor Aja Brown told the Los Angeles Times in 2014.
After Compton came Dayton, Ohio, as McNutt improved the technology. Finally, Bloomberg reports, there was Baltimore:
[In 2015] McNutt got an e-mail on behalf of Texas-based philanthropists Laura and John Arnold. John is a former Enron trader whose hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors, made billions before he retired in 2012. Since then, the Arnolds have funded a variety of hot-button causes, including advocating for public pension rollbacks and charter schools. The Arnolds told McNutt that if he could find a city that would allow the company to fly for several months, they would donate the money to keep the plane in the air. McNutt had met the lieutenant in charge of Baltimore's ground-based camera system on the trade-show circuit, and they'd become friendly. "We settled in on Baltimore because it was ready, it was willing, and it was just post-Freddie Gray," McNutt says. The Arnolds donated the money to the Baltimore Community Foundation, a nonprofit that administers donations to a wide range of local civic causes.
Reel's revelations come as the city is already grappling with a damning report from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which found "systemic deficiencies" at the BPD that included explicitly discriminatory directives, such as orders to "arrest all the black hoodies" in a certain neighborhood, and a pattern of targeting black and minority residents for unwarranted stops and searches.
And just a week ago, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that said the BPD's unlicensed use of a different surveillance technology known as the Stingray, which tricks mobile devices into connecting with it by mimicking a cell phone tower, is racially discriminatory and willfully impedes emergency calls.
Despite all this, according to Reel, the rest of the city, from officials to residents, was not even aware that they were being spied on from the air.
Reel concludes: "McNutt says he's sure his system can withstand a public unveiling and that the more people know about what his cameras can--and can't--do, the fewer worries they'll have. But the police ultimately decide who and what should be tracked. In a city that's struggled to convince residents that its police can be trusted, the arguments are now Baltimore's to make."
In response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request, the FBI has released more than 18 hours of video from surveillance cameras installed on FBI aircraft that flew over Baltimore in the days after the death of Freddie Gray in police custody in 2015. The videos, which were released to the ACLU before being posted online by the FBI this week, offer a rare and comprehensive view of the workings of a government surveillance operation. While the release of the footage addresses some questions, it leaves others unanswered.
Last year, the ACLU obtained records from the FBI showing that the agency had flown at least 10 surveillance flights over Baltimore from April 29 through May 3, 2015, when the streets of the city were filled with people protesting and mourning Freddie Gray's death just days before.
Records from the Federal Aviation Administration showed that the FBI's aircraft, which were registered to front companies to conceal their ownership, carried sophisticated camera systems on board, complete with night-vision capabilities. FBI evidence logs showed that the agency had retained copies of surveillance videos and perhaps other electronic surveillance information from the flights, but the agency initially declined to release the actual videos. To its credit, the FBI reconsidered, and the footage is now a part of the public record.
We have been able to review most of the footage. Here are some of the most significant questions and observations we have after viewing it.
1. What was the FBI watching and why?
The FBI's cameras captured hours of protests, from major marches and rallies on city thoroughfares and public squares, to smaller gatherings on sidewalks and in neighborhood intersections. At times, the cameras followed individual people walking or cars driving through the city. There are undoubtedly situations where aerial surveillance by law enforcement is appropriate, but there should be protections against mass surveillance of people engaged in First Amendment-protected protests and gatherings. At a time when the Movement for Black Lives is urgently mobilizing across the country, community members and activists shouldn't have to worry that the government eyes in the sky will be capturing images of everything they do during a protest.
2. Oh, government, what big eyes you have!
The FBI's planes weren't flying low; when zoomed out, their cameras captured large swaths of the city at once. But the cameras' magnification capability is strong, and they frequently focused on a single intersection, followed a single car, or tracked the movements of small groups of people on the streets. Because the planes were so high in the sky, they probably escaped the notice of most people on the ground. But the cameras on board could quickly pan from one spot to another, even toggling between street corners in different neighborhoods. The cameras could also switch instantly to infrared mode, allowing high-resolution nighttime recording. The infrared video does not appear to have captured information about people inside of buildings, but it did clearly capture people and cars moving around in public spaces.
3. What happens to the footage
The FBI has retained (and now released) what it says is the "Complete collection of aerial surveillance footage of Baltimore protests from April 29, 2015 to May 3, 2015." What are the retention rules for these videos? And are there limits on FBI agents revisiting them in the future, as part of specific investigations or just at their whim? The videos show people engaged in First Amendment-protected activities, people entering and exiting homes and other buildings, images of private back yards and roof decks, and other similar scenes and spaces. The videos sometimes track individual drivers as they traverse city streets.
This footage can reveal a great deal of potentially sensitive information. Moreover, these videos are just the tip of the iceberg. A recent BuzzFeed News investigation tracked more than four months of FBI and Department of Homeland Security surveillance flights, identifying nearly 2,000 flights by FBI aircraft alone. The camera footage from those flights adds up fast, and could create a detailed catalogue of people's activities in cities across the country. This quantity of surveillance requires strong controls.
4. Whose drones are those?The FBI videos come from traditional aircraft, with pilots and other law enforcement personnel on board. But, incredibly, on numerous occasions, the videos capture small drones flying over the streets of Baltimore. At one point, the frame zooms out to reveal what appear to be three drones simultaneously flying over one Baltimore neighborhood. Most of the drones are captured on infrared camera feeds, obscuring some of their details, but they appear to be a mix of quad-rotor and helicopter-style devices. Because drones generally fly relatively close to the ground, the potential for privacy violations can be even greater than with video captured from traditional aircraft.
Who was flying these drones? Baltimore Police? Curious city residents? Journalists? What were they looking for? And were the flights legal? FAA rules require drones to remain within the line of sight of the operator, and to fly at relatively low altitude.
5. What comes next?
The FBI's videos show a lot, but the magnification isn't enough to identify individual faces. Existing and developing technologies raise concerns about even greater invasions of privacy. An aircraft-mounted surveillance camera with higher magnification or greater resolution, coupled with facial recognition technology, would give the government the power to easily identify and follow any protester or pedestrian. More sensitive infrared and thermal sensing technology can see through the walls of houses, apartment buildings, and other private spaces. Electronic surveillance devices like Stingrays can vacuum up data about many people's cell phones at once (and have already been used aboard surveillance planes). Automated license plate readers, through-the-wall radar arrays, and other gear give additional cause for concern.
Strong controls should be placed on these surveillance flights now, to ensure that developments in technology don't outpace the protections that are in place. We must be wary of encroaching surveillance that can chill protesters from exercising their First Amendment rights and violate the privacy of innocent people on the ground.