The Post-Dispatch’s attempt at painting the desire and need for oversight of the surveillance technology deployed as wild-eyed and paranoid [Overblown Fears of a Brave New World], dismisses genuine issues that need to be taken seriously. There has been a history of government surveillance being used to stifle Black voices and dissent. And a history of window dressing measures costing millions thrown at issues in our communities without our voices and oversight that have failed.
Just weeks ago, the same editorial board wondered if our high-tech gun-detection system, Shotspotter, was a waste of money. A study by the head of SLMPD’s Data Analysis Unit found that it solved very few crimes and frequently hindered evidence collection. Advocates for persistent plane surveillance, a program that has now been deemed unconstitutional by the courts in Maryland, have ignored the study of Baltimore’s spy planes that unveiled its dismal success rate and abuses by its employees. A few years ago, a local case was thrown out of court when using a cell tower simulator to collect phone data was deemed unconstitutional. Is any of that effective crime-fighting?
It’s time that we deploy a system of oversight that looks at the millions of dollars spent on surveillance technology to examine if programs are worthwhile. Throwing money at ineffective programs when we could be investing in community solutions that prevent crime is an irresponsible way to spend tax dollars that is akin to a wet bandaid. It’s there, we see it but is it even protecting the wound? Board Bill 31 would give the city the ability to know if that money is spent well and if not we can redirect funds into solutions that work. If it is working, we have the data to show and prove why this is something we should invest in and where it was effective.
And yes, many St. Louisans are concerned about privacy rights. For example, a 2014 report by the ACLU provided evidence that a St. Louis alderman used ward cameras to identify and condemn political opponents on Facebook. The report chastised him for “seeking to enhance political power by using a government surveillance device, funded by taxpayer dollars.” Those types of abuses must be prevented, not ridiculed, and ignored. Unfortunately, that former alderman now is a member of the Post-Dispatch editorial board.
The dismissive tone of the Post-Dispatch editorial is deplorable. We need serious discussions around this critical issue and real, constitutional, fiscally responsible solutions to crime, not reactionary, law-and-order rhetoric.
Kennedy Moore is a community activist and Reproductive Freedom Organizer with NARAL Pro Choice Missouri.