Summary

In this handbook, researchers from Morgan State University and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) expose how New York City has become a pervasive surveillance state that tracks residents' every movement through public and private spaces without consent. Rather than enhancing public safety, this vast network of surveillance technologies threatens civil liberties, reinforces racial inequities, and undermines democratic freedoms while operating with minimal oversight or transparency.

Key Findings Include:

• Pervasive surveillance without consent: New Yorkers are tracked from the moment they leave their homes through an extensive network of CCTV cameras, license plate readers, facial recognition systems, ShotSpotter gunshot detectors, and data collection from transit cards, bike shares, and WiFi kiosks; most without their knowledge or consent.

• Systematic racial bias and overpolicing: Surveillance technologies are disproportionately deployed in communities of color, creating feedback loops that perpetuate overpolicing.

• Vulnerable populations face heightened risks: Justice-involved individuals, undocumented immigrants, public housing residents, and those seeking reproductive or gender-affirming care face amplified surveillance threats that can result in re-incarceration, deportation, eviction, or prosecution for accessing legal healthcare.

• Inaccurate and unaccountable technologies: ShotSpotter alerts result in evidence of actual gunshots only 20% of the time in NYC, yet the city renewed its $21.8 million contract. The NYPD has used facial recognition in 22,000 cases between 2017-2021 despite documented accuracy problems and racial bias.

• Weak oversight and transparency: New York's POST Act provides limited oversight only over NYPD surveillance, with no enforcement power. Unlike other jurisdictions with comprehensive surveillance ordinances, New York lacks meaningful public input, independent oversight, or restrictions on surveillance technology procurement and use.

• Threats to democracy and civil liberties: Surveillance of activists and protesters chills free speech and assembly. The technology enables tracking of individuals seeking abortion care, attending religious services, or engaging in political activities; fundamentally threatening democratic participation.

• Public-private surveillance partnerships: Companies like Amazon (Ring), Cubic (OMNY), and others collect vast amounts of personal data that can be accessed by law enforcement, extending police surveillance capacity through private networks while avoiding public accountability.

In the handbook, we call for comprehensive surveillance oversight ordinances, community engagement in technology decisions, and a fundamental shift toward privacy-protective data collection practices that prioritize civil liberties over mass surveillance.

By John G. Russell

Seventeen investigations in and an undissipated miasma of suspicion continues to envelop Donald J. Trump. And yet, if his defenders are to be believed, the actions which prompted those investigations are neither technically crimes nor even impeachable offenses. Meanwhile, a U.S. district judge has condemned Michael Flynn’s behavior as “treasonous” and Michael Cohen has been sentenced to three years in prison, but their boss remains free to stalk the halls of power unimpeded, as America hurtles from one “constitutional crisis” to another.

January 3, 2019 In articles 2015,Leading Article |, 4p.

By Lark Mulligan

The police murdered Alton Sterling on camera. They also murdered Eric Garner, Laquan McDonald, and many others; the videos of their deaths garnered millions of views. Information about some horrors of the criminal legal system is spreading widely, yet White mainstream media outlets frequently dismiss, erase, or demonize Black, Indegenous, and People of Color (“BIPOC”) communities who protest and organize to demand justice through the abolition of or radical changes to the policing and prison systems. In response to these racist atrocities and within the broader context of criminal legal reform, activists and academics frequently craft ethical arguments such as: “Solitary confinement is immoral because it inflicts psychological and physical torture” or “Incarceration is unethical because prisons are inherently violent places.” Many ethical arguments center on the racist injustices and harm that affronts human dignity and agency caused by prisons and police. Others critique the racist and retributive ethics of “law and order” rhetoric. Each argument is well-supported by accessible data that can be found in numerous studies, books, articles, and media. However, people often erroneously dismiss these data-driven, logical, ethical reasonings as factually inaccurate, or many respond with a deeply racist ethical-legal rationale, for example: “While there may be abuses in prisons, some people need to be put in solitary or prison and deserve it because [insert classical legal rationales for punishment: deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, etc.].” Ethical and legal arguments are severely limited, however, when they lack an epistemological interrogation into the power structures that determine what qualifies as “knowledge” within the ethical-social conversation. This article demonstrates why anti-prison activists’ ethical arguments generally do not receive the due credibility and weight they deserve unless they pair critical liberatory epistemic practices with material, institutional, and social transformations. Abolitionists claiming to fight the confines of carceral epistemologies cannot merely sit back and point out the already-existing logical contradictions in the criminal legal system—it is not enough.

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice, Vol. 27 [2025], No. 2, Art. 1

By Youngmin Yi

The prevalence, consequences, and unequal distribution of parental and own incarceration in the United States are well documented. However, much of our knowledge of the reach of the carceral state into family life is focused on incarceration of a parent, romantic partner, or child, to the exclusion of other important relationships. Using data from the Family History of Incarceration Study, a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (N=2,029), this study introduces novel descriptive measures that provide a more comprehensive picture of the demography and racially unequal distribution of family incarceration: degree, generational extension, and permeation. This analysis shows that Black adults in the United States are not only more likely to have experienced family incarceration but are also more likely to have had more family members incarcerated (5.3 members vs. ≤2.8 members for adults of other racial/ethnic groups) and to have had family members from more generations ever incarcerated (1.7 generations vs. ≤1.1 generations for those of other groups). Further, the stability of these estimates across model specifications underscores the importance of interrogating long-standing approaches to the analysis of linkages between race, the criminal legal system, and family life and the investigation of racialized systems and social inequality more broadly

Demography (2023) 60(1):15–40