ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAK
1
Candidate NameDesired OfficeDistrict (if applicable)Campaign WebsiteDo you support a city-wide ban on government facial recognition?If no, do you support a ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology?CommentsDo you support any of the following bans on all forms of biometric surveillance technology? Please select all that apply.CommentsDo you support a ban on the use of facial recognition by private companies to monitor their workers? CommentsDo you support a ban on the use of software that automates employment decision-making, including the use of AI in hiring?If no, do you support updating Introduction 1894-2020 to require an independent audit of all automated employment systems?CommentsDo you support banning the NYPD’s “Criminal Group Database” and similar "gang" or "crew" databases?Do you support a banning the NYPD's use of fake accounts to collect social media content?CommentsDo you support a ban on NYPD purchases of geolocation data?Do you support a ban on geofence warrants?Do you support a ban on the use of keyword search warrants?CommentsDo you support a full ban on NYPD drones?CommentsDo you support a ban on NYPD drones armed with weapons?CommentsDo you support a ban on NYPD drones using facial recognition?CommentsDo you support a ban on the use of electronic monitoring for pre-trial detention and as an “alternative” to criminal detention?CommentsDo you support a ban on the use of all data-sharing between the NYPD and other federal agencies with ICE?Do you support a ban on “One Metro New York” program (OMNY) data sharing with police?CommentsDo you support a ban on law enforcement use of predictive policing technologies like PredPol?CommentsDo you support electronic COVID-19 contract tracing services that track their users like COVID Alert NY?Do you support the use of vaccine passports?Comments
2
Aleda GagarinNYC City Council29www.aledaforcouncil.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNoWhile we have very legitimate public health needs in the immediate, I'm hesitant to trust the government with this data, how it will be used, by what agencies, to what ends, and how our personal data will be stored and protected. This is certainly a nuanced issue, and while I am eager to make sure my community is protected and can recover from COVID, I am also hesitant to trade long term freedom for short term security.
3
Aleta LaFargue NYC City Council3Aletalafargue.comYesYesIt’s been proven ineffective and unable to correctly identify people. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesNoNoNoYesNoYesYesYesNoYesYesYesNoNo
4
Alexa AvilésNYC City CouncilDistrict 38alexaforcouncil.comYesYesGovernment facial recognition is an invasion of privacy, done without individuals consent, and has no place in our city. The algorithms this technology is based on is often inaccurate and deeply biased against people of color, women, gender non-conforming people, and individuals with disabilities. Artificial intelligence technologies are largely unregulated, robs people of due process, and stands in the way of social progress. The deployment of facial recognition in our city makes us a testing ground for a new, unknown and largely unaccountable technology. Its use is an experiment on our very rights and liberties as New Yorkers. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Algorithmic justice is a civil rights issue. The most invasive and punitive technologies are always deployed on the most vulnerable communities first, and then expanded to the larger public once normalized. The use of biometric surveillance technology in public schools and housing is an expansion of policing that disproportionately targets and discriminates against people of color and immigrant communities. As a city council member, I will work to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline and expand and better fund public housing. Biometric surveillance technology audimates the practice of punishing the poor and exacerbating inequality. It has no place in our schools or our homes. YesNot only does the practice of monitoring workers through the use of facial recognition trample on workers’ rights to privacy and civil liberties, such a practice could be used to control and impede employees efforts to build solidarity and unionize. Additionally, facial recognition algorithms have been proven to be both deeply biased and inaccurate. Their use in the workplace would serve to create even greater barriers for advancement and an equitable workplace for underrepresented individuals. YesYesAI hiring programs serve to exclude individuals who already face the greatest barriers to obtaining employment. Predominantly designed by white men, AI replicates the prejudices that already exist within our society but lacks the ability for ethical decision making or the ability to recognize bias. Often the results of these algorithms are a sort of ‘black box’ even to the programmers that designed them, making the means by which the conclusion was drawn unknown. This robs applicants of their due process and makes it very difficult to identify where in the system exclusionary bias occurred.
YesYesNot only does the NYPD’s use of fake accounts invade individuals’ privacy and violate civil liberties, such a practice offers a deeply skewed and inaccurate snapshot of an individual’s life showing only how one wishes to be perceived in a particular context. Material individuals present on social media platforms should not be taken as objective truths or be presented as such to build criminal cases. YesYesYesAs technology permeates every aspect of our lives, keyword searches become akin to stream of consciousness thought. Thus, such warrants have the power to turn the utterly innocuous into evidence of criminal activity. YesThe use of NYPD drones are as invasive as camera surveillance with less oversight and no way to inform individuals that they are being surveilled. It makes it impossible for individuals to avoid having their images captured or to obtain consent for such action. YesI have called for the disarming of the NYPD and halving their budget. Armed drones are a further expansion of the militarization of the police, transforming them further into an occupying force. The horrifying frequency of police shootings prove that the very last thing we should do is further facilitate the ease of use-of-force actions. Yes I support a ban on all NYPD use of facial recognition. YesI strongly oppose all cash bail practices and support real pretrial detention reform. However, electronic monitoring is an invasive violation of one’s right to privacy and serves to criminalize individuals who have yet to stand trial and have the opportunity to prove their innocence. Additionally, if the technology were to malfunction, which it frequently does, it could have catastrophic consequences for individuals subjected to this practice who have little recourse if such a problem were to occur. YesYesYesI am opposed to all predictive policing technologies. As we have seen from junk science, broken-windows policing, attempts to prevent crime by anticipating criminal behavior are misguided and inflict undue harm on low-income communities, particularly those that are predominantly immigrant and people of color. The best way to prevent crime before it happens is to fully invest in communities, resources, and services that positively impact residents’ lives. That is why I have called to defund the police and re-invest those resources in our neighborhoods through a people’s budget that works for everyone. NoNoPublic health is a priority at this time, but I have serious reservations about the use and abuse of surveillance technology for public health ends. Communities like mine are hardly served by these apps and are most likely to be left out if we are only focused on using apps to solve problems that do not lend themselves to easy, technical solutions. I am worried that those community members who do participate in programs like these may be priming themselves to accept when their data is used for other, less laudable goals.
5
Althea StevensNYC City Council16althea4citycouncil.orgYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesFor the last three years I have been a part of the Gang Policing Coalition and we have been advocating to bring light to the NYPD secret database that is used to label young people in our community as gang members. The database has clear racial bias. Two-thirds of the approximately 18,000 people listed in the system are Black, and about one-third are Latinx. Just 1.5 percent of people in the database are white. Hundreds in the database are minors, some as young as 13 years old. The public is not generally aware that this database exists, and no one knows a clear process for having your name removed from the list or determining if your name is even on the list unless you are arrested. YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
6
Amoy BarnesNYC City Council49amoybarnes.comNoYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesIf there is no ban workers must have the option to "opt-in" and to "opt-out" at anytime. Workers should own any personally identifiable data. YesYesNoYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesUnfortunately, implicit bias means these technologies encourage over policing in communities of color. YesYesI am open to conversations about vaccine passports though I am cautious about equity and privacy
7
Angela FernandezNYC City Council10www.angelafernandez.nycYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesAs the former Executive Director at Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, we were the first organization in the state of New York to identify that NY State Dept. of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) had entered into a memorandum of agreement under the Secure Communities Program with DHS/ICE to share fingerprints that resulted from local enforcement agencies. We led the statewide campaign from 2009-2011 to compel Governor Cuomo to end that agreement which led to Massachusetts and Illinois to end their agreements as well. YesYesNoI am concerned on how vaccine passports can play an inadvertent role in discrimination.
8
Ben SolotaireNYC City CouncilCouncil District 33https://www.bensolotaire2021.com/YesThis technology has been proven to be biased and flawed. It is invasive and a violation of rights to use in a indiscriminate way.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Much of this data can be collected without someone's knowledge and shared with out someones permission. The technology is still not reliable and will be even move invasive then facial or voice recognition.Heartbeats, scents, microbial detection, indoor movements, are all technologies that push the limits of privacy too far.YesThere are plenty of ways to monitor employees already that using faulty facial programs is a deep violation.YesYesAgain, they are prove to be biased against women and minorities.YesYesYesYesYesthese methods are a clear violation of the 4th amendment, to look for people who have no connection to a crime expect perhaps proximity or some unrelated interest is clearly unreasonable.NoI can see situations such as with bombs or over water, or hostage situations where they could prove the best way to understand what is happening. But any use must be approved by a judge and footage must be recorded and shared publiclyYesway too much probability for mis use or accidental death or injuryYesfor the same reasons given alreadyNoHowever it should be used only in the most extreme cases and not as a work around for bail reform. YesYesYesYou're going to find what you are looking for. And directing resources to where crimes might be can reduce effectiveness of preventing them where they might actually happenYesNowe require proof of vaccinations in many cases such as schools, camps, and some travel but separating people's daily activities based on vaccination seems much too extreme.
9
Blake MorrisNYC City Council40voteblake40.comYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoThey would be an asset in search and rescue missions, hostage situations. So probably the police commissioner would have to approve each deployment. There should not be that many.YesNoThey would be an asset in search and rescue missions, hostage situations. So probably the police commissioner would have to approve each deployment. There should not be that many.NoAnything that can avoid pre-trial detention, keep the community safe and have the defendant return to court I would support.NoNoThis is a much larger issue here than police. An entire protocol needs to be established and the public educated about it. It is shocking we have progressed this far in the program without these basic elements. YesYesYesFor extremely limited time period and purpose.
10
Brandon WestNYC City CouncilDistrict #39westforcouncil.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Yes, I support a city-wide ban on biometric surveillance, and this should extend to schools and public housing. No one should be forced into interactions with law enforcement just for going home or going to school. Faulty facial recognition can result in wrongful arrests and incarceration. More generally, increased surveillance means an increase in interactions with law enforcement. As we saw previously with stop and frisk, over-policing doesn’t make anyone more secure, and instead wreaks havoc on entire communities. YesWe know the technology behind these tools doesn’t work as advertised. But even if facial recognition was reliable and worked without bias, employers already have too much power in the workplace. Additional surveillance tools unfairly shift the balance of power further in the direction of management, when we should be pushing in the opposite direction, to empower workers. YesYesAlthough they claim to prevent bias in hiring by automating the process, these systems often do the exact opposite, reinforcing existing biases in hiring practices. YesYesThe difference between what someone posts on social media and their behavior offline can be vast. Meanwhile, it shouldn’t be up to the NYPD to determine who is or isn’t involved in a gang because of the color of clothes they wear, how they pose in photos, or who they interact with online—especially when that data can be shared with outside agencies, and used to secure stiffer sentencing. The gang database is racist in its premise, primarily targeting youth of color and subjecting them to increased interactions with police, and should be ended immediately. YesYesYesThis type of extreme and unwarranted surveillance is both unnecessary and unconstitutional. New Yorkers should be able to walk the streets or browse online without fear those actions will make them the suspect of a crime. YesI am calling for a $3 billion cut to the NYPD’s budget, and have been clear that surveillance technology should be the first thing to go. The NYPD simply has no need for military grade weapons or spy tools.YesArmed robots have no place on the streets of New York or anywhere else.YesI support bans on both facial recognition tools and NYPD drones, so it goes without saying that I would support a ban on a combination of the two technologies as well. YesElectronic monitoring has been promoted as an alternative to cash bail, but the fact is we can and must do without both. Electronic monitoring is both overly invasive and overly punitive for defendants who are guaranteed the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. YesYesComments
If New York City wants to be serious about providing sanctuary and protection for all New Yorkers, regardless of status, then we must reduce the opportunities for the federal government to get their hands on sensitive data that could lead to interactions between enforcement agencies and our city’s most vulnerable populations.
Yes“Predictive policing” is a term that is meant to provide a sense of scientific neutrality to systems of surveillance and data-driven law enforcement that more often than not reinforce existing biases. CompStat has been a failure, stop and frisk was a failure. Predictive policing uses the same techniques—and repeats the same mistakes—as those earlier efforts. NoNoUnfortunately efforts to use digital tools to track COVID-19 exposure have so far failed to take seriously privacy concerns around data security. This didn’t have to be the case, but these tools were rushed into use without adequate input from privacy and public health experts familiar with traditional contact tracing best practices. Vaccine passports introduce a whole new host of concerns, and raise flags about who has access to the vaccine, when, and how imbalances in roll-out could lead to imbalances in access to transportation, services, or work.
11
Catherina GioinoNYC City Council22http://catforcouncil.com/YesAdditionally, requiring a retroactive committee to look into law enforcement's use of facial recognition in the past and additional checks into the NYPD among other municipal agencies that have used facial recognition to ensure they are in accordance with the ban.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.We shouldn't be living in a surveillance state firstly, and secondly, definitely not in the city's most vulnerable communities where such biometrics are used.YesYes, and this also applies to our State-run court systems which outsource their retinal scan technologies to third-party companiesYesYesYes, this automatic employment software largely is racist and discriminatory towards minorities who otherwise would have been eligible for employmentYesYesYesYesYesKeyword search warrants basically give the police free range to crack down on anyone for any reason and even have a judge's signature to back them up despite their initial for only one suspectYesYesYesYesYesYesYes, and as someone who worked at the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs during multiple ICE raids in the city, I would also crack down on any court raids and investigate officers (in the city and demand Albany do the same for court officers) who divulge private information regarding an undocumented person's case and the court's entry and exit pointsYesYes and ShotSpotter as wellYesNoI was listening to Albert Fox Cahn's FAQNYC interview about this very issue - I agree with him, but also do recognize the usefulness of having such technology exist. I would point less to our state's passport and more so to South Korea's, where my friends live and have been able to maintain their private identity through stringent privacy laws. Otherwise, I think it's a useful tool but our state passports need revising.
12
Cecilia CortezNYC City Council40Ceciliacortez.comNoNoBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYes
13
Cesar ZunigaNYC City Council38www.cesar4council.orgNoYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
14
Chi OsseNYC City Council36osse2021.comYesPrivacy concerns are universal. As much as I support government being a potential solution to many of our problems, facial recognition crosses a line, stripping New Yorkers of the feeling of privacy anywhere outside their own homes. We must be able to live our lives not in fear of being watched. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.These are no places for biometric surveillance technology. Fingerprint access to an iPad is one thing, but being surveilled is wholly something else. YesCompanies have the right to their workers' labor which they pay for, nothing more. YesYesNoYesThe government should not be in the business of deceptionYesYesYesYesYesDystopian and unacceptableYesNoThis is a stopgap measure, and pre-trial detention should be largely eliminated. Until proven guilty, people should be presumed innocent and walk free. However, as of now, if pre-trial detention continues to exist, something that allows people to be home with their families, working for an income, and remain outside of a jail cell, should be allowed. This is not a solution, but it makes sense in the immediate term. YesYesYesThese systems are racially biased. Their use is harmful to individuals and communities of color. YesYesThis is a complicated issue, but ultimately if an airline or store wants to ensure that people entering their spaces and using their services are safe, they should be allowed to require proof of vaccination. Already, schools and colleges require inoculations for enrollment, with very few issues arising. This would be a similar system, only streamlined.
15
Chris SosaNYC City Council5sosafornyc.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
16
Crystal HudsonNYC City Council35https://www.crystalforbk.com/YesAs data increasingly becomes one of the most valuable commodities in our society, many bad actors will find ways to monetize this data, including our own government. Crystal will ensure that we work with our civil rights partners and protectors of the First Amendment, including the New York Civil Liberties Union, to ensure that we do not under any circumstances use personal data for decision-making processes nor use surveillance technology for monitoring purposes, especially in the workplace.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.We already know that Black and brown children are over-disciplined and over-policed in our schools, and that Black and brown folks are over-surveilled and over-policed in our streets and homes, especially public housing. We need to put an end to the carceral system that surveils, profiles, and unlawfully arrests people of color and low-income folks. Therefore, I support a ban on the use of all forms of biometric surveillance technology. YesWe must protect workers from illegal and invasive surveillance like facial recognition. As technology has advanced, employers have found new, increasingly invasive ways to monitor employees -- we need to put an end to this practice.YesYesPlease note that I do support a ban on the use of software that automates employment decision-making.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesI will ensure the city, under no circumstances, cooperates with ICE.YesYesNo
17
Curtis HarrisNYC City Council35www.curtisharris2021.comYesYesI believe this technology will be abused and used against innocent people. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.I also believe this to be a major abuse of the right to privacy.YesThis is an abuse of worker rights to privacy and over reach.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
18
Darma DiazNYC City Council37https://darma4citycouncil37.nyc/YesThe rapidly increasing use of facial recognition and other unregulated surveillance technology is extremely concerning. From a government perspective, it is very difficult to control how this technology is used, leaving a great deal of room for abuse and violations of civil liberties. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.People should not be policed and monitored in their schools and in homes. In a democracy people must be able to live free from state surveillance and over policing.YesThis type of surveillance is a bad idea regardless of who is carrying it out, however, it can become even more dangerous when put into the hands of private companies without any clear system of accountability or regulation of its use. YesYesYesYesThe use of gang databases by the NYPD can have extremely damaging a far reaching consequences for individuals who are included, often from over policed communities of color. There is no requirement that someone have a proven record of criminal behavior to be included in one of these databases, and even the definition of what constitutes a gang and what the parameters for membership are are murky at best. Yet, being placed in one of these databases can have very real impacts on someone's life. The NYPD maintains that these databases are private, however, there have been instances in which they share them with district attorneys and prosecutors. YesYesYesThe use of keyword search warrants is not only a violation of privacy, but it also leaves immense room for mistakes which can have very significant consequences for people falsely accused and implicated by this imperfect technology. YesYesYesI stand strongly against the use of this technology, and all of the ways in which the use of NYPD drones have been proposed. Not only is this yet another example of a dangerous violation of New Yorkers' right to privacy, it is also a huge misallocation of city money. There are New Yorkers living in public housing without heat, who don't have access to reliable high speed internet, and have to travel long distances to work and school on public transportation in desperate need of repair. It would be extremely irresponsible for the city to invest money in things like drones when people are still lacking the basic resources that they need to live.YesYesYesYesPredictive policing technology like this is likely to exacerbate already existing systemic biases in policing, unfairly targeting people of color and people living in low income communities. YesNoThis is a difficult question, and as a community we must be willing to make certain sacrifices to ensure that we are able to stop the spread of Covid-19. However, given the unequal distribution of the vaccine at this point, the use of vaccine passports is likely to disproportionately impact people from low income communities, who have less access to vaccine distribution sites, and may have a more difficult time accessing resources needed to even make an appointment. I think that we should aspire to a version of vaccine passports that also addresses the privacy right of individuals once we have hopefully made further progress in addressing the current inequities in how vaccines are provided and administered.
19
Douglas ShapiroNYC City Council29Shapiro2021.comNoYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesNoYesYesYesYesNoYesYesNoYesYesYesNoYes
20
Edwin DeJesusNYC City Council22https://www.edwinfornyc.com/YesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYES (the form won't let me click YES). I had to enter no but my answer is actually YES. YesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
21
Edwin RaymondNYC City CouncilDistrict 40www.edwinraymond.comYesI stand firm on my opposition of law enforcement exploiting and abusing facial recognition technology that is used against marginalized communities. We need to ensure public safety without violating folks' rights, which is why law enforcement's internal practices need to be regulated and transparent. I have been a vocal advocate to expose the unlawful use of subpoenas to unlawfully surveil civilians, journalists and dissenting officers. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesVaccine passports are to only be issued when our government has provided an efficient system to count the number of vaccinations within the community. We have to consider the current barriers to receiving a vaccine before issuing any document/passport that is needed for travel.
22
Emily SharpeNYC City CouncilD26www.emilyforcitycouncil.comYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesI also would like to ban use of finger print to punch in and out of work.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
23
Hailie KimNYC City CouncilDistrict 26https://www.hailiekimforcitycouncil.com/YesFacial recognition via mass surveillance of our neighbors living peacefully should not be a practice in a free society. We also run the risk of a tool intended for good, being weaponized and used to entrap and oppress black, brown and marginalized people.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Whether you live in a private house or government housing you are entitled to the same level of privacy. The collection of such specific data is invasive. The same applies to our youngest residents. Students should be able to attend school freely without the prying eye of surveillance with intent to collect bio-metric data. The danger is that this data when collected can be searched by law enforcement without warrant. YesPrivate companies do maintain a right to protect both their company and their employees. However, I do not support a level of protection that could endanger the employee. Once the data is collected who is to say that this data won't fall into the wrong hands and become deployed nefariously.YesYesA.I. at its core learns patterns and repeats them. In many instances hiring practices that on the surface seem harmless are really at its core racist and discriminatory. As these patterns repeat the practices only continue. In turn limiting employment opportunities for black and brown candidates. YesYesGang databases are not careful crafted repositories of criminal data. The criteria to enter someone into a gang database is extremely vague. This puts young people who have not been accused of any criminal activity, or arrested in harms way. To compound the problem there is no statute that mandates notification by the NYPD of entrance into the database. YesNoYesThe purchase of Geolocation Data allows the NYPD to forego acquiring a warrant. Per the Supreme Court our location data is so detailed and revealing about what we do and who we do it with, that the NYPD has to get a warrant in order to acquire it.

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any search warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Keyword Search Warrants are so broad, too broad - that it casts a wide net allowing the collection of data from unrelated persons to the investigation.

Geofence warrants can be a critical investigative tool. However, oversight and scrutiny of these warrants is essential to protecting the privacy of our neighbors and visitors. The radius needs to be specific and tight. The warrant needs to be specific enough about the place and exact person to be searched. Wide sweeping warrants simply allows the police to collect personal data on any person in the vicinity.		YesAs with many of the other forms of mass surveillance we have discussed in this questionnaire, the deployment of drones casts too wide a net and allows for the observation of locations and activities that are protected under the fourth amendment. YesWeaponized drones create a real moral dilemma as it creates a real disconnect between the operator and the targeted person(s). That disconnect turns a situation with dire consequences into a Nintendo game. YesAccording to a wide variety of studies facial recognition has been found faulty in its capacity to accurately identify persons of color. It is tool without certain accuracy whose margin of error is the life of a black/brown person. YesElectronic monitoring for pre-trial detention is punitive when guilt has not been determined. YesYesICE should be abolished. So any cooperation between the NYPD, or any other federal agency with ICE should never happen.

YesRecently the Chicago Police Department disbanded its predictive policing program citing racial bias and transparency concerns. Racial bias is just disqualifying. YesYesThe current contract tracing program in New York City is not mandatory. Should it become mandatory, then my I would no longer be able to support the program.

The current Excelsior program provides access to entertainment venues and events that require either vaccination or a negative Covid Test (PCR - or - Antigen) for entrance and participation. A "passport" is not required for access or entrance to most daily living routine events and locations. Were it to be expanded, I would need to reconsider my support.

24
Harriet HinesNYC City Council40Hines2021.comYesNoBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesNoYesNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoYesNoNo
25
Jacqueline Painter NYC City Council38https://www.painterforcouncil.com/YesThese tools of surveillance erode our right to privacy, and further cement a police apparatus that vastly disproportionately harm working class people and communities of color.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Yes. These biometric technologies work to further criminalize and oppress our children, the working class, and people of color. Our schools and public housing are already over policed; we must fight to end the school-to-prison pipeline, and remove police from our schools. I will fight to defund the NYPD, and fully fund NYCHA and our schools. YesYesYesYesYesThese databases and social media practices violate people's constitutional rights, and target black and brown New Yorkers. We must end these databases, and ban the police from effectively trying to entrap people on social media. YesYesYesI believe ‘reverse warrants’ like these are unconstitutional. Our rights to protest, privacy, freedom of speech and from unreasonable searches are under direct assault from these practices. They must be stopped. YesYesWe need to fully demilitarize the NYPD.YesYes, I support ending governmental use of facial recognition. YesI want to dramatically reduce all forms of pre-trial detention. YesYesI have a plan to make New York a true sanctuary city, by kicking ICE out of our city, and ensuring immigrant New Yorkers have full rights. There should be no coordination between the NYPD and ICE. YesPredictive policing is dangerous, and used to further police communities of color. We need to end these practices, and stop the use of technology to further cement systems of white supremacy in our city and country. NoNoThere are far better ways to address both problems above. We need to ensure that we fully vaccinate the population, and ensure people are able to stay distanced and protected. The COVID 19 pandemic can not be used as an excuse to to further advance the police and surveillance state. I am against implementing these systems that would be used disproportionately against black and brown people.
26
Jaslin KaurNYC City Council23https://jaslinkaur.nycYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
27
Jesse LaymonNYC City Council26www.laymonforqueens.comYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesNoYesI would like to see AI significantly restricted in labor-related contexts, but I might not want to push for a blanket ban as *some* automated systems have been used to the benefit of job applicants who would otherwise be discriminated against by humans. I've worked with advocates for blind jobseekers, for example, who note that their clients often do better through fully automated hiring processes than through those that include human hiring managers. YesYesI'd go a step further and disband the NYPD's anti-gang unit (we should have anti-gang Youth Services instead at DYCD) and its PR/social media unit.YesYesYesNoI could imagine allowing for very limited use of remote controlled devices as part of the dismantling of other, larger and more intrusive NYPD surveillance (helicopters, for example). YesYesNoI'd again support significant restrictions on the use of electronic monitoring devices, but don't want to commit to a full ban if the use of electronic monitoring in select cases becomes a necessary part of efforts to fully close Rikers Island without building new jails.YesYesYesNoYesI'd oppose any COVID-related surveillance that isn't fully optional - so digital tracking of people infected (obviously not by choice) would be unacceptable to me. I do see the value in digital vaccine "passports" to allow people to attend large events, etc, with collective safety.
28
Jordan HafiziNYC City Council50jordanforny.comYesOnly after serious crimes are committed such as terrorist attacks or serious gang violence. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesrandom answer for 1894-2020, because wouldnt let me submit form without question being filled in. NoYesYesYesYes110% support on bans for geolocation data, geofence warrants and keyword warrantsNoIf drones are used in situations where a life can be saved such as high angle rescues on bridges etc.YesYesNodepending on the seriousness of the crime committed; valuable funds may be saved by not having to house those accused of less serious crimes in holding facilities.NoYesIce should be able receive certain information of people accused of serious/violent crimes.NoData as a whole should be analyzed. Personal information should not be analyzed or targeted. NoNo
29
Joseph PackerNYC City Council47th Council Districtwww.joepacker2021.comYesFacial recognition software has been proven to have significant limitations inherited through the algorithms this software is built upon which skew results toward racial bias that lead to discriminatory actions particularly when used in law enforcement applications.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.If we cannot enjoy the ability to feel safe and the freedom to relax in our schools and homes then that is troubling. Biometric surveillance technology has been used enough to show that the racially-skewed discriminatory results are a product of the algorithms used in the construction of the original software. It means that a person of color would still be more likely to be targeted by such technologies. This technology has been shown time and again to produce troubling results which is why more and more municipalities are not only abandoning their use but outright banning reliance on it.NoYesYesYesYesThe use of fake accounts is the latest online version of undercover policing which, traditionally, has produced racially-skewed results that disproportionately impact communities of color. Commissioner Shea disbanded the NYPD Anti-Crime Unit because these undercover officers consistently produced the highest number of CCRB complaints alleging racial discrimination and abuses of power. Undercover, whether in the form of an Anti-Crime cop or fake accounts on social media, is a policing tactic known to produce racially-skewed results. To dismantle institutional racism requires us to abandon the tools used to build and reinforce the system in the first place.YesYesYesNoDrones, body-cameras, and other neutral surveillance gathering devices can play a part in documenting public activities and behavior. These neutral tools are no in an of themselves the problem. How they are used as tools is something we must all tread carefully around.YesWe need to demilitarize local policing, not escalate it.YesFor all the problems with facial recognition software, we should be banning its wholesale use by NYPD.NoYesYesYesNoNoWith the most stringent monitoring and guidelines in place to ward against discriminatory, racially-skewed abuses that could result from contract tracing and vaccine passports, we still have an obligation to protect the public health. Tools that could help us accomplish that more effectively and efficiently should be used provided that we do not sacrifice our civil liberties and freedoms in the process.
30
Justin KrebsNYC City CouncilDistrict 39justin2021.orgYesYesAs a former board member of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the civil rights and civil liberties implications of how surveillance is used has been on my mind for awhile—in ways that we’ve already seen surveillance, and in new technologies used by governments and private actors.

This has been an important issue for my campaign for a long time, and I’m going to fight to eliminate any use of biometric or facial recognition in every government action. I’ve been a long term proponent of updating and enforcing a Data Privacy Bill of Rights for all New Yorkers. We all deserve a right to be forgotten. All New Yorkers deserve clearer protections against how services like LinkNYC use our data, and how the NYPD uses invasive surveillance.

Outside of government actions, workers deserve these same protections and NYC can follow the lead of some countries in the EU and portions of California provisions to strengthen these protections.
Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.This has been an issue that I’ve discussed for a long time, recently in a campaign event with public school parents from across the district. We need an ironclad approach with rigorous oversight to ensure our students’ data isn’t being commodified, abused or monetized, guaranteeing the right to be forgotten, and putting in place measures so that more than a million students’ aren’t creating a digital footprint that will follow, track, and influence them through life. This should be for all New Yorkers, and a reinforced data privacy bill of rights is one way to do it.

This is a threat to our economy and democracy for a generation. One out of every 300 Americans is currently in the NYC DOE system (plus parents and guardians) -- and their data is hugely valuable as it is being collected, tracked, aggregated and potentially monetized in ways we don’t know or haven’t yet imagined. This impacts all of us now, could impact these students deeply in the future, and is a place where NYC can draw a clear red line that will be a guide for protections across the country.

And while there have been measures to protect privacy before, we know that they are often hidden from parents’ understanding, mired in legalese, and sped past at “crisis” moments like the shutdown.

Right now, most parents can’t tell you what rights they have around their students’ privacy. All they know is they are being asked to sign onto more and more sites and apps. There needs to be a refreshed Student Privacy Bill of Rights that’s easy to find and understand, well promoted, and with clear avenues for remedies where students and parents feel it is violated. Students deserve a right to be forgotten. No vendor should move forward without ironclad agreements against sharing or monetizing data, individually or in the aggregate, without permission from the system, school, and family. Relatedly, I would have supported current councilmember Lander’s KEYs act.
YesI’ve discussed this briefly before, but no worker should be tracked by their employer through facial recognition. I would support a more robust version of Int 1170-2018, regulating the commercial use of biometric data.
YesYesI know that our hiring processes are not perfect -- however, we have seen time and time again that the use of AI in any part of the hiring decision, from screening resumes, to evaluating candidates, is a surefire way to bake bias and discrimination into the hiring process. YesYesYesYesYesWe need to fundamentally rethink how we police and how our budget is allocated.

Fundamentally, tax dollars should not be used for abusive — and often discriminatory — surveillance anyone -- that includes allowing the NYPD to purchase geolocation data, as well as applying for geofence and keyword warrants. If I were on City Council, I would have supported the POST act, in addition to other more dramatic restrictions of police use of surveillance.

In 2004, I ran a performing arts space that was home to organizing around and against the Republican Convention. Later, we discovered that we had been infiltrated by police officers—it was absurd they were investing in spying on artists and comedians; but I also know that it’s a privileged position to laugh at this, and for communities of color, immigrant leaders, Muslims across the city, this surveillance has been far more pernicious. It’s a sign of a waste of our taxpayer dollars and one more reason to reduce the NYPD’s budget and this hampers its ability to conduct such abusive practices.
YesYesNo drone, in NYC, should be armed with a weapon. Period.YesYesIt is clear that we need to rethink the way that we approach pre-trial detention. Doing so through invasive electronic monitoring is replacing one problem with another.YesYesAs noted above, all New Yorkers deserve to be free from invasive data monitoring across the board.YesI’m worried that increased use of predictive policing technologies will exacerbate existing racial biases in the criminal justice system. It should be obvious how feeding past, biased, data into a machine learning algorithm will produce biased predictive results and exacerbate the over-policing of traditionally overpoliced communities.YesNoTo question 1, yes -- ONLY if there are ironclad privacy precautions, if data isn’t being aggregated, monetized, or commodified for private purposes, if there’s clarity on how the data will be limited, deleted and produced by public actors, if anonymity is preserved, if there are ombudsmen to oversee the use and prevent abuse, then we can find a way to use public-good, non-commercial, heavily-privacy-oriented services.
31
Kaled AlamarieNYC City CouncilDistrict 32https://votekaled.com/YesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
32
Kelvin RichardsNYC City Council49richardsforcitycouncil.comYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesI'm a Public Defender and I have had few cases with my clients on electronic monitoringYesYesYesYesYes
33
Kim MoscaritoloNYC City Council5www.votekim.nycYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoI don't know enough about this issue to say for certain, but we want to keep as many people as possible out of jail, unless they are a danger to society or have been convicted of a crime. I'm open to learning more.YesYesYesYesYesWhile we must always be concerned with the abuse of surveillance technologies, we must balance those concerns with public health. So long as things like contact tracing and vaccine passports are limited in scope, require confidentiality, and have proper oversight, they can be useful tools in protecting public health and helping governments stop the spread of deadly diseases.
34
Kristin Richardson JordanNYC City Council9kristinforharlem.comYesYesWe should absolutely not be giving more resources to the police. They already abuse the tools they have at their disposal, and I have no faith at all that they won’t abuse this. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology. This is a gross violation of our 4th Amendment rights on unlawful searches. There is no reason for biometric surveillance technology unless you are planning to criminalize public school students, teachers, and staff and public housing tenants. YesThis use of facial recognition technology would be a boon to union busting efforts, and as an unapologetic pro-labor candidate, I oppose this wholeheartedly.YesYesAs AI stands right now, there is no way to make it not act in a racist way given the parameters set by coders. This would inherently disadvantage prospective employees with “ethnic” names, and privilege those with “white” names, so yes I oppose this.YesYes“Gang” databases do not work and serve to only criminalize someone, who may not even be part of a gang, for years because it is difficult to get yourself off of a list you don’t know you’re on. And with social media, if the posts are public there’s no need for fake accounts being used to spy, and it’s absolutely despicable if the accounts are private.YesYesYesThis is a massive invasion of privacy. Tech companies must at the very least let consumers know that law enforcement may collect their search or location histories, but we should push to absolutely restrict the sharing of this data with law enforcement.YesDrone usage by police is concerning because its usage represents a massive invasion of privacy of New Yorkers. I totally oppose this.YesI honestly cannot believe this is being considered by NYPD. This cannot happen and we must act forcefully to restrict this.YesI believe my comments about facial recognition cover this question, but allowing drones, which already represent a massive invasion of privacy, to use facial recognition is an even bigger invasion of privacy.YesThis “alternative” exists because at first glance house arrest pretrial seems more humane than sticking someone in a jail. However, the use of electronic monitoring is dehumanizing and should be opposed.YesYesPreventing data sharing with ICE will better help protect immigrants who are still under attack by the Biden Administration. And the use of OMNY data is yet another massive invasion of privacy and should be opposed as well.YesPredictive policing is inherently racist because it will push for increased police presence in areas that are “high crime”, which actually just means overpoliced. This just serves to reinforce the cognitive biases of police forces.YesYesSo long as this data is not used by NYPD, in the interest of public health this can be a useful tool in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Our live contact tracers are already burdened enough, and we should look at any help to them in keeping New Yorkers healthy, again so long as NYPD cannot access this data.
35
Lutchi Gayot NYC City Council34lutchigayot.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
36
Maria OrdoñezNYC City Council7www.mariaordonez.nycYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesI support banning the use of facial recognition by private companies to monitor their workers because these can be used to racially profile and police people of color in disproportionate amounts. To do that is unacceptable and unnecessary, therefore I do not support it.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoI do not support the use of vaccine passports because before we create barriers to entry we need to ensure that everyone can have equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.
37
Mark SzuszkiewiczNYC City Council47mark4ny.comNoNoThat's how they catch criminalsBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesNoNoFake accounts is how they catch pedophiles and other criminalsNoNoYesNoYesNoNoIn some cases house arrest is better than jail.NoYesYesNoNo
38
Marni HalasaNYC City Council3https://marniforcitycouncil.comYesYesYes. Facial recognition and other biometric surveillance are intrusive and dangerous. They enable generalized surveillance and control beyond anything we have seen in the past.

In addition, the current technology has been found to be severely biased, and presents particular risks to marginalized communities. Biased algorithms racially profile, and would sharply increase false arrests and the harassment of people of color.

Therefore I do not support any of these technologies -- especially when it comes to law enforcement. Often, people believe that such use, if stringently constrained and controlled in public and private sectors, would have some benefit. But because there is a lack of enforcement of the laws, and overreaching by the police in many instances, I do not support this. 		Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.As noted above, I would ban all use of these forms of surveillance, public or private. We need to be particularly vigilant to stop their use on young people of color, or economically disadvantaged people, who are often most harmed. As recently as this week, the NYPD employed a $70K 'robot dog' to debut it in a NYCHA public housing development, while not using such technology in apartment buildings with predominantly white residents. This is disparate impact. (In addition, tenants at this particular development at 344 E. 28th Street have collectively organized themselves to fight vs privatization.) In addition to robot dogs, police already have and are using technology that reads license plate readers, tracks cellphone and uses drones.

I agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, who has expressed concern that without proper regulation, these devices like robot dogs, etc, which often are remotely controlled and rely on artificial intelligence, could eventually become autonomous and make their own decisions that could reinforce police bias. I am also concerned with privacy concerns and the specter of the devices eventually being used as weapons. For these reasons, I am against this.

YesI support a ban on all private use of these technologies. The technological monitoring of workers has already gone much too far and is oppressive and an insult to the dignity of the people subjected to such practices.YesYesAs Cathy O'Neil pointed out in her book, Weapons of Math Destruction, the use of algorithms for hiring and similar use is particularly insidious because it systematizes the biases that exist without meaningful transparency or accountability. Those who are not hired because of these algorithms are usually even aware of the source of the discrimination and, even if they are, rarely have any recourse.

Whenever algorithms are used, there needs to be a genuine independent review, perhaps on several levels, to assure that they do not have a disparate impact or otherwise violate civil rights laws.		YesYesWe have seen all too much abuse and misuse of such practices to allow it. Look at what has happened with improper and illegal surveillance of muslims, activists and protestors. Look at the abuse that peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters experienced at the hands of the NYPD, in addition to the continued murder of BIPOC by white officers across the nation.

Experience has proven that the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted to act responsibly, and prove this time and time again. I do not believe in my lifetime that there will be a thorough overhaul of the NYPD where adequate controls are in place -- but I will vehemently push for this. That's why I have supported the creation of an independent public commission a la Knapp/Mollen to investigate police misconduct and corruption, and if elected, would create this to fully determine how best to reform police practices and the institution itself.		YesYesYesThis technology would effectively result in continual surveillance of all of us.
Courts have found that geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.
Keyword search warrants are another horribly intrusive and unconstitutional practice that must be stopped.		YesCurrently, you have elected officials and mayoral candidates stating that they would use drones to check up on NYCHA repairs. This is the illegal surveillance of black and brown people, of which 90% live in public housing. I would ban the use of drones by the NYPD and create severe consequences for officers or police who ignore these laws.YesDrones without weapons are bad enough. Weaponized drones have no place.YesI would ban NYPD use of drones. I would ban NYPD use of facial recognition.YesExperience with bail reform has shown that pre-trial detention is unnecessary. Most people show up at hearings and when they don't it is usually because of personal reasons such as illness in the family, transportation difficulties, etc. We need better systems to address these issues, not detention.

As an alternative to other forms of incarceration, it is possible that electronic monitoring has a place, but I would be very concerned that it might make it more acceptable to take people's liberty, and so would be very cautious about such use.		YesYesYesAnother extremely frightening technology that embeds existing racial biases and puts them on steroids. Predictive Policing is a scam that police use to harass residents and profile youth. In many cases, police have swarmed homes in the middle of the night, waking families who have commit no crimes. They have also ended up writing tickets for missing mailbox numbers and overgrown grass, saddling residents with court dates and fines. When predictive policing systems have been exposed to scrutiny, auditors have found major problems with their effectiveness and reliability. This result is that it has become a way to harass citizens, is illegal, ineffective and should be banned outright. NoYesThere are legitimate public interests in widespread vaccinations and protecting people from the spread of COVID-19 and other diseases. However, vaccination information, as with all health and personal information, needs to be private and protected as much as feasible. Any such systems need to be created with strong safeguards and a goal of giving people control over their vaccination or COVID-19 status and protections against misuse of that information. I oppose electronic tracing but would support vaccine passports in very limited circumstances where a compelling reason existed, and with extremely strong privacy protections and safeguards.
39
Michael BeltzerNYC City Council18beltzernyc.comYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
40
Michael HollingsworthNYC City Council35m4bk.comYesYesFacial recognition technology has no place in our government, especially not in the hands of law enforcement. This racist technology leads to more racist policing, and more racially motivated arrests, which is the last thing we need. The NYPD already attacks protestors and acts as an authoritarian force beyond its sanction; we cannot let them use racist technology to further target and attack communities of color. We must end the days of NYPD overreach and overfunding.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Schools are a place for learning, not surveillance. It is unacceptable for our children to be policed and surveilled in their schools. We should focus on providing better services for all of our children to learn, not technology that perpetuates the schools-to-prison pipeline. Similarly, people deserve privacy in their homes. Rather than fund unnecessary and indeed harmful technology rooted in suspicion, we should fund repairs to NYCHA’s infrastructure, democratize NYCHA, and build more public housing.YesThe use of this technology is a cruel attack on workers’ rights.YesYesYesYesThis method of surveillance is a massive instance of police overreach and just criminalizes our communities. None of these police surveillance methods actually stop crime at the root. Instead, we need investment in our communities, including increased teachers’ salaries, after-school programs, jobs training, paid internships, social workers in our schools and on our streets, more guidance counselors, and the like.YesYesYesYesThere is no legitimate reason why the police department would need drones. Drones’ only function for the NYPD would be to further criminalize our communities, and to create an even larger police presence—which is the opposite of what we need. Rather than spend on drones, we should spend instead on after-school programs, jobs training, social workers, and youth mentoring programs.YesPolice drones have no place in our city, and armed drones would be even worse. A ban is of the utmost necessity. YesDrones with facial recognition would be another tool for criminalization, mass incarceration, and over-policing, which NYC absolutely does not need.YesYesYesNew Yorkers should be allowed to use public transit without their information going to the police.YesPredictive policing leads to an unfair targeting of Black and working-class communities, and its use should be banned.YesNoNo. We must take strong steps to combat the pandemic and ensure we recover from the resulting health and economic crises, but we should do so by building up our health support infrastructure, not by betraying people’s privacy. We should build more hospitals, hire more nurses and doctors to ensure safer staffing ratios, put New Yorkers back to work by employing them in vaccine supply chains, increase our use of outdoor space for safe social distancing, educate our communities about the vaccine, and make vaccine access more equitable for all New Yorkers.
41
Phelan Dante Fitzpatrick NYC City CouncilDistrict 3www.phelanforcitycouncil.comYesFacial recognition software, albeit a rapidly growing industry, is still very much in its infancy as utilized technology. Law enforcement cannot use facial recognition as a basis for privacy and human rights infringements. It needs to be banned permanently so we can avoid a dystopian society that uses its citizens likeliness against them. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.The idea of facial recognition in schools and public housing is extremely concerning and cause for alarm. Unfortunately we aren’t speaking in hypotheticals, this is and has already been proposed in several housing complexes within New York. In 2019, a Brownsville brooklyn apartment building attempted to install a facial recognition door entry system. Fortunately after significant backlash the plans did not go through. Systems like this create a dangerous gray area in which abuses can occur unchecked. YesSystems like this create a dangerous gray area in which abuses can occur unchecked.
Private entities at this time are able to use facial recognition software without any type of oversight or regulation. We are entering a crucial time where the boundaries of surveillance need to be set in the workplace and public places.
YesYesIndependent audits are a crucial necessity IF the software must be used. Only after cohesive and up to date legislation pertaining to the issue, protecting those most vulnerable is passed. YesYesFor years police departments and even public schools have been wrongfully classifying individuals, especially low-income minority kids, as “gang-affiliated” and therefore a threat to public safety. Not only are these classifications often times discriminatory and incorrect, they are purposefully done with the future intent to overpolice. When nypd creates fake instagram accounts to either entrap or surveill “suspects” they are operating outside of the law. Simply because the law hasn’t been written yet so this gives them free rein under probable cause. This happens very often with graffiti/street artists and even subway performers.
YesYesYesGeofence warrants defies the privacy of all citizens and further creates a surveillance state hell bent on monitoring every individual. This indiscriminate tool can undoubtedly be used to wrongfully implicate citizens in crimes, simply for being in close proximity and a certain time. Which does not fulfill a burden of proof in a court of law.
NoYesYesYesYesYesUnfortunately up until 2018 when Mayor De Blasio made the announcement, nypd had been aiding ICE in immigration arrests. This ordinance needs to go further than rhetoric and be cemented as policy. The sharing of data between these enforcement agencies cannot be allowed because of its huge civil rights violations. Nonviolent offender and unconvicted, undocumented individuals should not be subjected to surveillance based on their immigration status. OMNY additionally cannot be deputized by law enforcement due to its seemingly technologically convenient nature. An application billed as a convenience (even though it furthers the gentrification of public transportation) being used against unknowing citizens is simply wrong. YesAlgorithmic systems like PredPol, now conveniently called GeoPolitica, further darkens this dystopian path policing and our society at large are trotting down with great speed. Predictive policing seeks advance the overpolicing of certain communities as opposed to solving the systemic issues that they face whether they be food insecurity, joblessness, or poverty. This method of crime reduction does not align with restorative justice but increases the disparities between the haves and the have nots.
NoNoWe do not support vaccine passports due the capitalistic aims of the idea in and of itself. Vaccine passports now take the responsibility out of the hands out corporations to keep their customers safe and dumps it on the individual. There should be a cohesive and compassionate campaign aimed to help vaccinate all citizens against this monstrous illness. Especially communities of color who have a justified historical distrust of public health systems. Adding consequences to a seemingly unpopular choice is not how it should be done. If citizens voluntarily opt into the tracking system used by applications that is their decision but it must be one they’re allowed to make. It cannot be forced upon them via cryptic terms & conditions or overnight privacy policy updates.
42
Pierre GoodingNYC City Council09www.goodingforharlem.comYesYesFacial Recognition technology contributes to wrongful arrests among minorities and is unacceptableBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.The civil liberties of my constituents is a top concern and biometric surveillance contributes to infringement of these liberties.NoNoYesYesNoNoYesYesNoNoYesNoYesNoNoYesYes
43
Ranti OgunleyeNYC City CouncilD49ranti4si.comYesYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
44
Regina KinseyNYC City Council35reginakinsey.comYesNoFacial recognition technology is very useful to helping law enforcement capture criminals and improve public safety.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesNoI support the ban on AI hiring, so I don't see the need to require and independent audit.NoNoNoNoNoNoNoI have no position on this as of yet.NoNoNoYesI not in favor of this program. I don't believe that the MTA should be monitoring passenger trips or having access to personal information, especially when they're not providing a free service. People are paying to give up their privacy for a ride on the subway. NoPublic safety is very important to me and I'm in favor of technology that would be used as a preventive measure and or adding additional officers to high crime areas.NoNoVaccine passports is an invasion of medical privacy and a way to pit society against each other. If we're to believe that individuals are self quarantining, then why not believe them when they say they've received the vaccine.
45
Renee Collymore NYC City Council35www.reneecollymore2021.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.It's wrong to invade the privacy of school students and NYCHA residents.A ban on NYCHA residents is systemic racism, if all residents are not being subject to this method, such as brownstone owners and tenants, luxury apartment tenants and the like.YesYesYesYesYesI support banning creating fake accounts because this can be abused, if there is no oversight, to monitor abuse or taking advantage of authority.YesYesYesI support this ban due to the misspelling of someone's name. It happens all the time and the wrong person can be wrongfully targeted.YesYesGlitches in technology can occur and the wrong person could be in danger of getting shot or even fatally wounded by the drone.YesYesYesYesYesAgain, glitches in technology are a regular occurrence and the wrong person can be targetedYesNoWhy force someone to take a vaccine in order to travel, if the vaccine wont stop you from catching COVID and/or dying...as well as cant stop you from giving it to someone else. I think there should be regulation that prohibits travel if and only if you test positive for COVID...you should not travel until you test negative for COVID.
46
Robert Waterman NYC City Council36www.robertwaterman.comNoNoIn recent history, facial recognition technology has been largely discriminatory to the black and brown community. Furthermore, facial recognition technology has consistently mistaken identities and has caused undue harm on individuals. I will not support any measures that will cause this harm. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes
47
Rodrigo CamarenaNYC City CouncilDistrict 38rodrigo4nyc.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Absolutely, 100% in support of banning Biometric surveillance in both schools and public housing, we need to treat residents of public housing and students with respect and dignity. This type of surveillance is intrusive and sends the entirely wrong message to both residents and students. Schools and public housing should be safe and welcoming places and this kind of surveillance makes residents and students feel like they are prisoners in their own homes or schools.
YesFacial recognition in the workplace is tantamount to harassment and should not be allowed. Employees are not robots and should not be treated as such. Amazon or other corporation’s use of facial recognition to track workers is inhumane and needs to stop. YesYesAI has already been shown to include or learn our deeply racist and biased human patterns and learning. We cannot build systems that we assume are unbiased that actually perpetuate the same issues of biased employment decision-making. I understand people arguing that already the current practices of hiring are inherently biased and thats true but we need to investigate and fix that, not just ignore it and build a automated AI system that could potentially replicate the same issues but that could misconstrued as free of human bias. YesYesThis kind of entrapment tactics by NYPD are way out of bounds and demonstrates the pervasiveness of NYPD surviellance state. As an abolitionist, I seek to curtail police involvement in all realms of society whether online or in real life. YesYesYesThere were two recent federal court rulings in 2020 against geofence warrants as being unconstitutional and I agree. Genfence and keyboard search warrants are an incredible overreach of police power and create major security and privacy breach possibilities. YesYes I'm all for taking away drones from the NYPD and have been working with community groups who are involved with crafting and pushing Jessica Ramos's Bill S6435B that prohibits Drone use in recording or collecting data on public in open spaces. That's a state level bill that I will use City Council bully pulpit to push as well as rein in spending on a council level around Drones. YesNo drones period. We have already seen how much drones remove or detach human emotions from the situation of using force. We cannot let that become a common every day occurrence in New York City. YesThis needs to be banned because it will clearly be used against protestors and organizers practicing free speech and their right to assembly. NoThis one is tricky, as a abolitionist I want to see less policing and use of prisons, nobody should be locked up before they receive a fair trial. This is why I supported bail reform and feel like bail should be abolished. In this current system which needs to be entirely overhauled, however, the use of electronic tracking is incredibly problematic and is not a great solution to pretrial detention. Electronic monitoring stigmatizes a person even before they have been given a fair trial. YesYesAs a founder of Sunset Park ICE watch and a immigrant advocate who has seen far too often how ICE has collaborated with NYPD. I'm staunchly opposed to any connection of NYPD with ICE. It's a complete violation and mockery of the Sanctuary city title of NYC. YesJust like the issues of racial bias and other bias in AI learning, predictive policing has similar flaws and has shown to be entirely not accurate. It's dangerous in assuming it's a unbiased computer algorithm that will be free of human error or bias. We are essentially encoding racist policing logic into a machine. YesNoTracking and tracing is incredibly important and if NYC did a better job of it we would have contained the virus initially much better and saved lots of lives. Do we need to do tracing and tracking in such invasive manners as some countries like Singapore that forced travelers to have electronic monitoring, absolutely not! But if people are willing to opt in to services and their data is highly protected and anonymous, then I think these programs can be helpful for stemming COVID-19 spread. In regards to vaccine passports, there's very little science to back up the use of a vaccine passport. We just dont have enough data on vaccines yet to see if and how long they are effective for and also the passport system creates a divided world. It privileges western and richer countries while possibly exposing poor countries to more COVID cases. Vaccine passports would just further the divided the world between the rich and the poor while also not being based right now on much evidence that it's safe or a good idea.
48
Ruth McDanielsNYC City Council9https://www.friendsofruthmcdaniels.com/YesN/ABan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesI agree that the private companies should have the right, but the employees should have an option to opt of it without punishment or retaliation and employment cannot be predicated on acceptance.NoYesYesNoYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYou should not be monitored at all until you've had a right to a fair trial.YesYesYesYesNo
49
Sara LindNYC City Council6https://www.saralind.nyc/YesBiometric surveillance will end anonymity as we know it. We cannot allow government agencies to have free reign over our right to privacy.Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesRather than expending resources to criminalize mass groups of people - namely young men of color - we should be focused on preventing crime by investing in communities.YesYesYesNew York is a sanctuary city. Given this data is widely reported as being used to track undocumented immigrants I do not believe we should be spending money on infringing on the rights of people we are trying to protect.YesYesYesYesJust to be clear, I support alternatives to detention, but believe we can do this while still protecting privacy.YesYesYesYesYesWe must be careful with this and ensure that it does not exclude communities that have not yet had the opportunity to be vaccinated.
50
Shahana HanifNYC City Council39www.shahanafrombk.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
51
Stacy R. Lynch NYC City Council7www.stacyforcitycouncil.comYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Seems like a basic violation of human rights and privacy right. I will not support any policy or administrative policies that is counterproductive to an individuals right to privacy. YesAgain a clear violation of someone's right to privacy and labor practices. Doesn't like a workplace that encourages a safe and healthy environment. YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesI think I would support banning but I would to learn more. Due process is incredibly important to me as well as public safety.YesYesYesNoNoWhile I agree we need contract tracing during the height of the pandemic but this seems high evasive and again of intrusion of privacy. We need to move away from this form of tracking.
52
Steven RagaNYC City Council26https://www.ragaforqueens.com/YesYesWe are in full support S.4084 - 116th (2019-2020) in the limited use of biometrics and that no federal, state, or city government agency has the right to acquire, posses or use such information in the US. Government surveillance and facial recognition technology poses a direct threat to communities of color who often Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.We support Senate Bill S5140B and hope to see it revoted on and continue past the July 1,
2022 deadline. As mentioned in the bill there is the possibility of more cost effective alternatives to screening students and family members when entering schools. There may also be more efficient way in student discipline that do not rely on the use of technology that may be placing the child in more harm than with security issues. The collection and use of biometrics always has the built in risk of privacy and security data breaches. Such technology is too new for common use especially when involving minors who are not able to make lifelong decisions in protecting their identity. We should not allow their privacy to be breached or violated because they are minors.

In regards to public housing, low-income New Yorkers shouldn't be subjected to additional surveillance and data collection because they are in public housing. It is the City's obligation to provide housing to its residents without breaching their privacy. 		YesSuch technology would violate an individual’s privacy as the technology also permits affect recognition where emotions and personality traits can also be extracted from such data. It would force employees to work in an unnatural state if there are concerns that their employer is constantly monitoring them. It may also cause the employee distress while working. Furthermore, employers shouldn't be able to utilize surveillance to keep their workers submissive and afraid of being fired. YesYesThe use of AI in hiring raises many concerns we should be aware of. Although the initial use of AI technologies for hiring may be to automate the process and seek the most qualified
candidate in a timely manner such actions can hazily contribute to biases and discrimination in the work force. Studies have shown specific genders and races have been targeted specifically in the process. According to the Guardian, studies have shown women are more likely to be targeted advertisements for lower income jobs. Such technology would discriminate those of different education backgrounds and income levels, leaving those to have a harder time breaking the threshold of class mobility. 		YesYesThe Criminal Group Database has shown that the use of such database has disproportionately affected Black and Latinx New Yorkers. The Gang Database shows concerning similarities as stop-and-frisk policing which has been overused and shown drastic racial disparities and often targeted people of color regardless of low or high crime areas. As long as the Criminal Group Database is in use, we will not achieve justice for all New Yorkers who have been victims of over-policing. YesYesYesGeofence warrants are often aided by search engine Google’s supervault. By allowing a private company to track moderate, store your data severely violates one’s privacy. It also is not able to provide a full picture of the situation, just a location and time stamp. Which is not merely enough evidence to issue a warrant. There are cases in which devices are used by other persons providing very little evidence otherwise. Also, it is concerning that a person can be tracked at places that are meant to be a place for freedom of speech such as at a protest or house of worship. It can also track someone who is at a medical facility, leaving them vulnerable. So the use of geolocation data and geofence warrants just aids in overpolicing rather that contributing to public safety. YesInstead of spending money to further support the police department, those funds need to be reallocated to supporting community needs; building job outreach, family care and mental health programs. These drones are said to have 4k resolution cameras which help support unlawful spying. If drones like these were to be out into the streets, there would be no privacy permitted to community members and there is no legislation that protect our resident’s rights. Additionally, drones use facial recognition tools, which are prone to error. There is no telling how long the footage would be kept and how the data will be handled. The NYPD has stated that footage will be kept for a maximum of 30 days, but also alludes to keeping it in cases for civil litigation, subpoena production, FOIL requests or other legal processes, which gives reason to believe that such footage may not have reason to be erased within the expected 30 day limit. Again, this tech only adds to the NYPD's ability to overpolice and not to public safety. YesThere are many concerns with the use of armed drones. This leaves room harmful error and for an increase of police violence. Such technology could lead to very harmful results. YesAbsolutely. For similarly mentioned reasons, there is no transparency or protections built in for residents who are surveilled. We need to end overpolicing, and expanding the NYPD's ability to surveil communities does the exact opposite. If we want to implement community based approaches to policing, we need to end current NYPD practices and limit their ability to breach the privacy of New Yorkers. YesYesYesNew York is a sanctuary city and we should keep it that way. If we support and allow for technology to provide information to ICE then New York can no longer be considered a Sanctuary City. Not only must we ban any data sharing between the NYPD and ICE but we must also ensure that all immigrants--documented or undocumented--have the same data privacy rights of all New Yorkers.

Residents who are using the subway, and using the OMNY program deserve to have their privacy respected and not shared with the NYPD. Using public spaces, utilities, and transportation systems should not mean you are forgoing your privacy. Furthermore, any data sharing with the NYPD is the exact opposite way to end over-policing and state violence. 		YesNoYesWhile contact tracing is incredibly important in being able to limit additional exposure of COVID-19, we don't believe that the COVID Alert NY app as it stands, is the best approach. If the program was user to user encrypted, then we can ensure better safety of its users.

We support the use of vaccine passports to a certain extent. There are many uncertainties within the scope data privacy that have yet to be answered by NYS. While we are glad that no personal data is stored, the definition of personal data is unclear. If we can ensure that geolocation data is not stored, along with not sharing the data to any enforcement or policing agencies, then we can support the use of vaccine passports to a more fuller extent.
53
Susan DamploNYC City CouncilDistrict 1https://www.damploforcouncil.com/YesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.NoUnder the Constitution we hold government actors to a higher standard with respect to privacy issues. That said, from a labor management relations perspective, I don't think facial recognition should be used wholesale simply because the technology may be available.NoYesYesYesYesYesYesNoI could see use of a drone in active pursuit of a violent felony situation as outweighing the risks of their use generally. For example, an armed dangerous perpetrator actively being pursued in a remote area such as the Jamaica Bird Sanctuary where use of a helicopter would endanger the pilot. NoA full ban would be over-broad. I could see use of a drone in active pursuit of a violent felony situation as outweighing the risks of their use generally. For example an illustration where it might be appropriate:a hostage situation in the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge where the police have cut off access at each end.YesNoElectronic monitoring allows a pre-trial detainee or convicted individual greater freedom of movement and engagement in our open society. That issue is independent of any views I have on the substance of restrictions imposed for supervised release or probationary restrictions.NoNoI support a ban on warrantless data sharing between the One Metro New York program and the NYPD. I also support a ban on warrantless data sharing between the NYPD and ICE. NoI support regulating these technologies so that there is a nexus between the data used and the state action. Any regulation would require rigorous auditing to eliminate systemic bias. NoNo.
54
Tamika MappNYC City Council8www.mapp.voteYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoNo
55
Vickie PaladinoNYC City Council19VickieForNYC.comYesYesWidely and publicly-deployed facial recognition technology is a slippery-slope to Orwellian authoritarianism. This isn't about any single political party or ideology, as the technology is destined for abuse regardless of who's in charge at any given time. There are definitely arguments to be made in favor of public safety -- a key issue in this city to be sure -- but we cannot allow ourselves to mortgage our future liberty on the back of short-term benefit. I fully support the NYPD and support aggressive crime-fighting tactics to get our city back on track, but I feel that facial recognition technology deployed against the general public is FAR too easy to abuse by government at all levels. I realize this technology has already been deployed on a large scale in New York, and I don't know that we can realistically get that genie back in the bottle, but it is not something I can support. Ban on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology., Ban on public housing use of biometric surveillance technology.Again, this is a question of individual liberty and the amount of power we give the government. I am simply not convinced that these technologies should be in the hands of the government, or that they will not be abused. We may realize short-term benefits to safety, only to see the technology (and associated mandates) morph into something far more questionable. I just don't trust the government enough to support this at the moment.YesCorporate dehumanization of the workforce is becoming a huge problem, and as these biometric technologies expand, it only makes sense that corporations would want to implement them for their own benefit as well. In theory I would like to limit that power for the sake of privacy and human rights in the workplace, although I do admit that I'm not sure what the regulatory mechanism would be to set those limits on a private company at this time. I'm sure this will be a constitutional issue moving forward. YesNo1894-2000 is a poorly-designed bill that only seeks to regulate automated filtering/hiring software against alleged racial bias, but does not address the root of the issue -- the overall dehumanizing effect on the workplace that AI is bringing. It is a much larger and more philosophical issue that must be addressed quickly, but sadly one which our current City Council is completely ill-equipped to even understand. YesNo"Gang Databases" have existed in one form or another for as long as gangs have, and they are an invaluable tool for law enforcement. They should be made efficient and effective. I also have no problem with the NYPD making fake social media accounts to collect information on investigative targets. That seems to me like standard detective work. I of course want to make sure all proper procedure is followed, with warrants issued as necessary, but by-and-large there is virtually no expectation of privacy on social media whatsoever, and the police have every right to use these platforms to their advantage. NoYesYesGeolocation data can be used in any number of legitimate law enforcement capacities, so I can't support a ban on its purchase by the NYPD. However, geofence and keyword search warrants present highly questionable fourth amendment implications, and at this time I cannot support them. NoAs much as we may wish it weren't so, the fact is that drones are going to be just another tool for the NYPD as cars and helicopters. As long as they're used in a reasonable and lawful manner, we cannot ban them arbitrarily. YesI do not want to see militarized drones operating in New York City or anywhere else in America. YesPlease see my comments on the first facial recognition question.NoElectronic monitoring or 'ankle bracelets' have been around for a very long time, and as per my understanding safely give prosecutors and judges flexibility in how to handle pre-trial defendants and others for whom jail may not be warranted but still require supervision. NoNoNew York needs to fully cooperate with all federally-mandated law enforcement activities, including and especially immigration enforcement. I also don't have a problem with transit programs like OMNY making their data available to the NYPD. While privacy is important, we cannot tie the hands of the NYPD either.NoFrankly, I think a lot more data is required before I could form an opinion on PredPol either way, much less support a ban on it. I know there is a lot of activist noise around it right now, but I don't particularly trust most of them to believe their hysterics. At this time I don't necessarily see a problem with an algorithm that uses data to try and figure out where crime is likely to happen, and then sending police there accordingly as a precaution/deterrent. It seems like a fairly benign use of technology. My only question is how well it works and whether we'd become too dependent upon it, and both of those questions have yet to be answered. So as it stands now I'd have to support it's use/ NoNoContract tracing and vaccine passports are unconstitutional and immoral, even when implemented by private enterprise. Period, full stop. There is absolutely no room for discussion or debate on this.
56
Winton TranNYC City Councilhttps://www.facebook.com/wintontran4citycouncilYesBan on public schools use of biometric surveillance technology.YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNo
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100