Surveillance Tactics Under Heightened Scrutiny, 'Destructive' to Muslim Communities
Government programs and tactics designed to track Muslims in communities around the United States may face heightened scrutiny in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the use of cellphone data in criminal investigations, and a high-profile settlement reached in a lawsuit targeting a New York City Police Department program.
July 20, 2018 at 05:33 PM
4 minute read
Government programs and tactics designed to track Muslims in communities around the United States may face heightened scrutiny in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting the use of cellphone data in criminal investigations, and a high-profile settlement reached in a lawsuit targeting a New York City Police Department program . Advocates at a conference hosted at Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, The Color of Surveillance , said this week that efforts to monitor Muslim communities create a destructive and discriminatory environment reminiscent of past government efforts targeting Jewish and black Americans. In New York City, the police department reached settlements that include reforms and stricter guidance in investigating religious or ethnic groups. New York University graduate student Asad Dandia and U.S. Army Sgt. Farhaj Hassan, lead plaintiffs in separate lawsuits filed against the NYPD, said the impact of surveillance on Muslims continues to run deep in their communities. In these cases, police used video surveillance, informants and community mapping. Under the settlement, the department is barred from launching investigations if race, religion, ethnicity or national origin, among other limitations, is a substantial or motivating favor. A recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carpenter v. United States, creates a higher privacy standard in investigations by limiting the use of cellphone records. It could have sweeping implications for other types of digital information. The opinion, however, added it “does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security.” In Dandia's case, the NYPD used an informant and other techniques to track him and his friends' nonprofit, which donated food to the hungry through their local mosque in Brooklyn. Even with the settlement and changes, distrust grew in the community and it became more difficult to raise money at the mosque, he said. “A lot of people cut off communication with one another,” Dandia said. “We reached a settlement in the lawsuit and we were pleased with the support of the local community. It's just one step closer to a broader process of seeking justice.” Other government programs have been launched that led to divisions within communities, according to a panel moderated by Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law. The discussion became heated at times, with some people criticizing the programs as divisive and discriminatory. Ayaan Dahir with the Young Muslim Collective spoke out about a Countering Violent Extremism program launched in Minneapolis, one of several around the country that mark Muslim people in the community and track them in schools and their communities. “You see a community, a population of people who are already very vulnerable, the impact that this type of monitoring would have on places that should be safe,” Dahir said. “In this program, the constant equivocation of Muslims as terrorists, or inherently and uniquely susceptible to radicalization, has really put a target on our backs from the larger community.” Supporters argue the programs can serve to create better communication between government and communities. William Braniff with the University of Maryland's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, speaking in favor of the programs, said these efforts, which are also in cities including Boston and Los Angeles, have room to improve and do not necessarily only use surveillance, but collect data to prevent terrorism. “The reason I'm a staunch supporter is because I believe is it the ability to minimize polarization if done correctly,” Braniff said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Zero-Dollar Verdict: Which of Florida's Largest Firms Lost?
- 2Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 3SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 4Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 5Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250