In its arsenal of surveillance equipment, the Boston Police Department has an array of technologies on hand. A “stingray,” or cell-site simulator, used to covertly track the location of cell phones. Automated license plate readers. Body cameras on officers.
And a network of 1,300 cameras on light poles, street signs, and buildings, not including another 400 operated by the city and the Boston Transportation Department. The Boston Police Department has expanded its camera network since early 2023, when it operated fewer than 1,000 cameras.
Those are the highlights of the city of Boston’s first annual report on its use of surveillance technologies, a new requirement under a 2021 city ordinance that gives the City Council approval powers for the acquisition, funding, or use of such tools. The ordinance mandated a yearly report detailing the surveillance capabilities of all city agencies. The report was sent to the City Council in early July, and the council plans to hold a hearing on it on July 31, as well as a discussion on the Police Department’s use of gunshot detection technology.
More than 20 cities and towns across the country have passed similar surveillance ordinances in recent years, as drones, facial recognition software, license plate readers, and other technologies became increasingly accessible to local governments. Among large cities, Seattle, Detroit, San Diego, and Oakland have passed similar measures. Locally, Cambridge, Lawrence, and Somerville have done so.
Civil liberties advocates who pushed for the enactment of the 2021 ordinance welcomed the new measure of transparency, though they added that the report has information gaps that need to be filled in.
“This is a good start,” said Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty Project. “There’s also some stuff that’s missing. A lot of stuff that’s missing.”
For instance, Crockford said, Boston Public Schools reported that it spent $1.8 million last year operating security cameras in its buildings. The agency will share footage with law enforcement in an “imminent emergency” but otherwise requires a subpoena, warrant, or court order, according to the report.
But the school district did not disclose the number or locations of its security cameras and did not provide details about how often it shared footage with law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, in a section that asks whether the technology infringes on the civil rights of marginalized groups, the school district simply wrote “N/A,” or not applicable. Crockford said the subject matter requires deeper explanation, given that the public school system is disproportionately Black. She also said that police use of video footage from schools to prosecute minor incidents could exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline.
“The schools are sensitive places,” Crockford said. “Students and their parents have a lot of privacy interests to be concerned about.”
Meanwhile, the Police Department spent $753,000 on security cameras last year. In 2023, there was one internal affairs complaint against a Boston police officer for allegedly misusing camera footage, according to the report, which does not specify the allegations. That investigation is ongoing.
A city spokesperson told the Globe that technology plays an “essential role” in protecting public safety in Boston.
“Every year, the City looks forward to the opportunity to share how we use technology across departments to keep residents and communities safe while protecting their right to privacy,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement.
The statement did not address questions about whether parts of the report were incomplete.
“Moving forward, the City remains committed to building transparency, accountability and trust with community members to ensure that Boston remains one of the safest cities in the country,” the statement said.
As part of its reporting under the ordinance, the Police Department submitted a memo touting the importance of its surveillance technology for public safety. The memo listed 44 incidents in which its technology proved useful in what the department described as a “representative sample” of its technology use.
Those incidents included the use of drones, video camera networks, license plate readers, the department’s gang database, and the ShotSpotter gunfire detection system to assist with a variety of cases — drug investigations, missing persons, robberies, shootings, and stabbings.
In one high-profile case, Boston police used its surveillance camera network and the gang database to identify the men who allegedly wounded eight people in a shootout at last year’s J’ouvert celebration in Dorchester, according to the memo.
The report does not mention one notable and ongoing surveillance controversy, in spite of a requirement that the city report any community complaints or concerns about technology. In the fall, the Supreme Judicial Court will hear arguments over allegations that an undercover Boston officer violated the state’s wiretap law by secretly recording a conversation with a suspect without obtaining a warrant.
“That’s a significant omission,” Crockford said.
Dan Glaun can be reached at dan.glaun@globe.com. Follw him @dglaun.
