Data is difficult. Data of marginalized community is even harder due to the consequences of a disclosure. Generally, there are 3 prongs I'm thinking about today:
- Liability to a) the city by data disclosure/protection statutes and b) to the community by information sharing agreements that exist with the sheriff, the JTTF, and fusion centers
- Ethically it seems unwise at a point in time where data creates an accurate map of peoples lives & networks that LAPD should attempt to further errode privacy. There's also the ethical issue of LAPD being able to abide by its own rules being even a heavier lift by adding another tool that can be easily abused (e.g. for stalking an ex or investigating someone who is not subject to a legal investigation).
- Materially LAPD is the only recession proof department but that doesn't mean it should spend on a money pit of intelligence gathering software. NYPD's experience regarding the unexpected costs should serve as a severe warning to Los Angeles. Many activists suggest, and I support, reducing, not increasing, the LAPD budget and shifting the reduction to libraries, parks, summer job programs, or gang intervention workers
- NYC shows us that once data is collected and stored by a municipal entity, destruction of that data store is not simple even if it could put people in jeopardy. Once collected, data would be subject to California statutes related to data retention, some of it very specific for data related to minors, and some of the retention statutes and policies could be at odds with 28CRF part 3.
What's proposed could be seen as a constructive data-driven deporation force. This is dangerous because the threat is hidden rather than overt. Also, justice for some, is justice for none: the "justice fund" needed to include all for its namesake.