image description
During deliberation on Sept. 8, it was revealed that PPD has been piloting a new drone software since the beginning of the year without a policy.

How Is Pittsfield Being Surveilled? Councilors Want to Know

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass.— Two ward councilors want to know exactly how Pittsfield residents are being surveilled. 

Ward 2 Councilor Cameron Cunningham and Ward 7 Councilor Katherine Moody have asked for reports on the surveillance technology Pittsfield uses.  Earlier this month, the City Council rejected a $31,000 police drone grant following a broader discussion about surveillance and responsible data storage. 

Cunningham asked that the report cover all surveillance technology used by the Pittsfield Police Department, including the drone program, within 30 days.  Moody asked that surveillance technology used by police and fire departments, the Department of Public Services, the city, public safety and emergency management agencies, or contractors be disclosed. 

During deliberation on Sept. 8, it was revealed that PPD has been piloting a new drone software since the beginning of the year without a policy. 

"Police Department personnel confirmed that LiveU real-time video streaming technology has been in operational use for approximately nine months, without a Surveillance Use Policy having been submitted to or approved by this Council as required under Chapter 18½," Cunningham wrote. 

"This Council has not received a surveillance technology impact report or use-policy update covering this technology or the Department's drone program." 

He added that Chapter 18½ exists to ensure surveillance technology used by Pittsfield is reviewed and approved before deployment, not after the fact, and asked the council to use its oversight powers to "get a full accounting of current use and bring police practices into compliance."

Moody's request includes "any system, device, software, platform, service, or capability used to observe, monitor, record, track, identify, analyze, collect, retain, share, or process information about persons, vehicles, devices, locations, communications, or activities in public or private spaces."

Her petition asks for the name and description of the technology, its purpose and use, who has ownership and access, details about data collection and retention, and several other categories of information. 

"This petition is submitted to promote transparency, public accountability, informed Council oversight, and public confidence regarding the City's acquisition and use of surveillance technology," she wrote. 


"The Council and the public should have a clear understanding of what technologies are being used, why they are being used, what information they collect, what risks they pose, what they cost, and what safeguards govern them."

On Sept. 8, the council rejected $31,167 from the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, for the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. For about two hours, councilors dug into the U.S. Department of Justice contract, found grammatical errors, and what they described as abnormally worded conditions and red flags. 

Open microphone speakers said provisions in the contract violate the Massachusetts PROTECT Act, which Gov. Maura Healey signed last month to establish statewide limits on state and local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement.  

"Simply saying no to drones is a small first step-a small, and a first step. Very late in our last evening together, much much later on than the jingoistic sales pitches on the effectiveness and use of the drones, the council learned that the Pittsfield Police Department was unaware of local ordinances that y'all passed about that exact technology they wanted you to accept money for," resident Kamaar Taliaferro said on Tuesday. 

"Now I'm sure to some of you that was a surprise, but in my 33 years of living in Pittsfield, the surprise, if there was any, was the willingness to admit in public that the police department, our police department, isn't following local laws." 

He added that, according to an employee at the Berkshire County House of Corrections, 30-40 percent of the population in the jail is Black.  He insisted on the necessity of civilian oversight of the police department, and that the former civilian oversight board "was ethical, stood on their values" and resigned after being barred from reviewing the report on the fatal police shooting of Miguel Estrella. 

"The most important one, I think, is: Have there been any cases in which footage that was drone deployed by PPD, the footage was used in a case that's been dismissed, where the accused was found not guilty, or a pre-trial plea deal was agreed to, or in which the accused was held without bail or could not pay the amount bail was set at?" Taliaferro asked. 

"If that data isn't being tracked, whatever words that may be said about disagreeing with mass incarceration are moot." 

Cunningham's petition was referred to the mayor and city solicitor, and Moody's petition was referred to the mayor. 



 


Tags: drones,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Berkshire County Sheriff's Office Warns Public of Phone Scam

PITTSFIELD, Mass. —Berkshire County Sheriff Thomas Bowler is warning members of the community about an ongoing phone scam involving individuals falsely claiming to be employees of, or affiliated with, the Berkshire County Sheriff's Office.

The Sheriff's Office has received an increased number of calls from community members reporting that they were contacted by someone claiming to be a member of the Sheriff's Office from numbers with 413 area codes that sometimes show up on a caller ID as Berkshire County Sheriff's Department. During these calls, the caller claims the resident owes money for various reasons and attempts to collect payment. Scammers may request money orders, cashier checks, gift cards, or other items. Sometimes scammers will say a courier will come to a house to pick up the item or will request that account or gift card information be read over the phone.

The Berkshire County Sheriff's Office will never call a community member to demand or collect payment, request gift cards, or ask for. The Berkshire County Sheriff's Office will never send a courier to a resident's house. Residents should not assume a call is legitimate simply because the Sheriff's Office number appears on their caller ID.

Residents should not assume a call is legitimate simply because the Sheriff's Office number appears on their caller ID. The scammers are also spoofing the Berkshire County Sheriff's Office phone number, causing the legitimate number to appear on the recipient's caller ID in an effort to make the call appear authentic. Spoofing is when a scammer disguises a phone number, email address, or website to look like someone they know or a trusted agency's number.

"Scammers use fear, urgency, and the credibility of law enforcement to convince people that their demands are legitimate," said Sheriff Thomas Bowler. "If you receive a call like this, hang up. Do not provide personal or financial information, and do not send or transfer money."

Residents who receive a suspicious call should independently contact the Berkshire County Sheriff's Office at (413) 443-7220 to verify whether the call was legitimate. Do not use a phone number provided by the caller to verify their identity.

Sheriff Bowler urges residents to share this information with family members, friends, and neighbors, particularly those who may be more vulnerable to these types of scams.

 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories