Divisions au sein de la mouvance anti-Technopolice aux US (réformistes v. abolitionnistes)
-
À lire cet article d'un des animateurs de la Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, qui critique les initiatives de l'organisation phare de défense des libertés au États-Unis, l'ACLU, qui promeut à travers le programme CCOP () davantage de transparence et des audits publics autour des technologies de surveillance. Ce débat pose des questions importantes pour nous aussi. Extraits (en VO):
The Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) campaign—promoted by the ACLU, the nation’s largest civil liberties organization with a budget of over $300 million a year—is just this type of compromised initiative that undermines organizing efforts against police surveillance. Various forms of CCOPS laws have now been enacted in 15 cities, and the ACLU and others are promoting this reform across the country. Some are even encouraging the Biden administration to make adoption of these laws a requirement for local funding grants.
CCOPS requires police to publicly disclose certain information and data about surveillance programs they intend to use. Of course, this means police can use these rules to selectively frame their surveillance in the terms most favorable to them. These disclosures then form the basis for public hearings to approve or disapprove the programs.
These hearings wrongly assume that politicians and their appointees will effectively represent those most harmed by the surveillance programs. In reality, hearings like this will be stacked in favor of approval and will marginalize voices of opposition. In January, over 98 percent of respondents rejected the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)'s proposed facial recognition system during a request for public comment—but the department adopted the program anyway.(...) Unfortunately, reform organizations like the ACLU are often on the wrong side of this struggle. For example, in 2015 the ACLU office in Los Angeles worked in conjunction with LAPD to draft a prototype of the CCOPS ordinances that the organization is now trying to push nationally. ACLU lawyers did this without consulting communities and people harmed by surveillance or organizations in those communities working to build power.
Proponents of CCOPS say that completely opposing surveillance structures is not politically expedient, at least compared to passing oversight and transparency laws. But it is always easy to win political success supporting initiatives that do not challenge police power. This kind of “success” harms the community by diverting attention from fighting for meaningful change and helping entrench the structures we seek to dismantle.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgzj7n/police-surveillance-cant-be-reformed-it-must-be-abolished -
@felix Super intéressant l'article merci beaucoup. Dit moi tu pense à quelles orgas lorsque tu fait référenec à des divisions similaires dans le contexte français ? J'ai pas d'exemple en tête mis à part des acteurs plus institutionnels et/ou européens (genre il me semble que le rapport Villani était ultra libéral sur la question de l'IA appliqué à 'la sécurité')
-
@felix Je comprends carrément les abolitionnistes.... Plus de transparence sur ce genre de programme, c'est bien, mais c'est arrêter le combat bien tôt et bien facilement....
-
@felix merci intéressant !
