SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
washington post
Rights Groups Raise Alarm Over First US City's Broad Use of Facial Recognition Tracking
"This is the facial recognition technology nightmare scenario that we have been worried about," said one civil liberties campaigner.
May 19, 2025
Amid a Washington Post investigation and pushback from civil liberties defenders, New Orleans police recently paused their sweeping—and apparently unlawful—use without public oversight of a private network of over 200 surveillance cameras and facial recognition technology to track and arrest criminal suspects.
On Monday, the Postpublished an exposé detailing how the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) relied on real-time facial recognition technology provided by Project NOLA, a nonprofit organization operating out of the University of New Orleans, to locate and apprehend suspects.
"Facial recognition technology poses a direct threat to the fundamental rights of every individual and has no place in our cities."
Project NOLA's website says the group "operates the largest, most cost-efficient, and successful networked [high definition] crime camera program in America, which was created in 2009 by criminologist Bryan Lagarde to help reduce crime by dramatically increasing police efficiency and citizen awareness."
The Post's Douglas MacMillan and Aaron Schaffer described Project NOLA as "a surveillance method without a known precedent in any major American city that may violate municipal guardrails around use of the technology."
As MacMillan and Schaffer reported:
Police increasingly use facial recognition software to identify unknown culprits from still images, usually taken by surveillance cameras at or near the scene of a crime. New Orleans police took this technology a step further, utilizing a private network of more than 200 facial recognition cameras to watch over the streets, constantly monitoring for wanted suspects and automatically pinging officers' mobile phones through an app to convey the names and current locations of possible matches.
This, despite a 2022 municipal law
limiting police use of facial recognition. That ordinance reversed the city's earlier outright ban on the technology and was criticized by civil liberties advocates for dropping a provision that required permission from a judge or magistrate commissioner prior to use.
"This is the facial recognition technology nightmare scenario that we have been worried about," Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told the Post. "This is the government giving itself the power to track anyone—for that matter, everyone—as we go about our lives walking around in public."
Since 2023, Project NOLA—which was paused last month amid the Post's investigation—has contributed to dozens of arrests. Proponents including NOPD and city officials credit the collaboration with Project NOLA for a decrease in crime in the city that had the nation's highest homicide rate as recently as 2022. Project NOLA has even been featured in the true crime series "Real Time Crime."
New Orleans Police Commissioner Anne Kirkpatrick told Project NOLA last month that its automated alerts must be shut off until she is "sure that the use of the app meets all the requirements of the law and policies."
Critics point to racial bias in facial recognition algorithms, which disproportionately misidentify racial minorities, as a particular cause for concern. According to one landmark federal study published in 2019, Black, Asian, and Native American people were up to 100 times likelier to be misidentified by facial recognition algorithms than white people.
The ACLU said in a statement that Project NOLA "supercharges the risks":
Consider Randal Reid, for example. He was wrongfully arrested based on faulty Louisiana facial recognition technology, despite never having set foot in the state. The false match cost him his freedom, his dignity, and thousands of dollars in legal fees. That misidentification happened based on a still image run through a facial recognition search in an investigation.
"We cannot ignore the real possibility of this tool being weaponized against marginalized communities, especially immigrants, activists, and others whose only crime is speaking out or challenging government policies," ACLU of Louisiana executive director Alanah Odoms said. "These individuals could be added to Project NOLA's watchlist without the public's knowledge, and with no accountability or transparency on the part of the police departments."
"Facial recognition technology poses a direct threat to the fundamental rights of every individual and has no place in our cities," Odoms asserted. "We call on the New Orleans Police Department and the city of New Orleans to halt this program indefinitely and terminate all use of live-feed facial recognition technology."
Correction: This article has been updated to accurately reflect the context of New Orleans Police Commissioner Anne Kirkpatrick's quote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How a Professional Bully Is Winning Control of the Media
Major media outlets from CBS to The Washington Post have “bent the knee” to President Trump’s specious demands.
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is following the authoritarian’s handbook that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used to consolidate power in Hungary. He is attacking the independent institutions that comprise the infrastructure supporting democracy—universities, law firms, culture, and the media.
And he is winning.
Major media outlets have “bent the knee” his press secretary’s preferred phrase for capitulation to Trump’s specious demands. His latest conquest is CBS.
CBS
Days before the 2024 election, Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit accusing the network of bias in broadcasting a “60 Minutes” interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Seeking $10 billion in damages, the complaint claimed that the edited interview and associated programming were “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in Harris’ favor.
Prominent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said that “the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation.” Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet called it “ridiculous junk and should be mocked.” Attorney Charles Tobin warned, “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”
A few days later, Trump won the election. And now CBS’ parent company, Paramount, wants to settle the case.
Whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion.
Through her family’s holding company, Shari Redstone who is “friendly with Trump” is Paramount’s controlling shareholder. If the Federal Communications Commission approves its pending merger with Skydance Media, Redstone will reap millions.
On February 6, Redstone told the Paramount board that she wanted to settle Trump’s lawsuit. The next day, Trump doubled his damages claim to $20 billion. As the media reported Redstone’s desire to resolve the case, Trump pounced. On April 13, he asserted on social media that the FCC should impose “the maximum fine and punishment” on CBS and the network “should lose its license.”
The parties have agreed on a mediator, but whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion. The more profound cost is the loss of CBS’ journalistic independence, which became apparent on April 22 when the producer of “60 Minutes” resigned.
In the program’s 57-year history, Bill Owens—who became the “60 Minutes” executive producer in 2019 after 30 years at CBS—was only the third person to run it. Owens’s memo to his staff should be a warning to all of us:
“[O]ver the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”
CBS wasn’t Trump’s first media victim.
The Washington Post
In early November 2024, The Washington Post editorial board had signed off on an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president. But it never ran. Owner Jeff Bezos personally killed it and, for the first time in decades, the paper did not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate.
A few hours after Bezos’s “no endorsement” decision became public, officials from his Blue Origin aerospace company, which has a multi-billion dollar contract with NASA, met with Trump.
After Trump won the election, Bezos flew to Mar-a-Lago where he and his fiancée dined with the president-elect. Shortly thereafter, Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. And another Bezos company—Amazon—paid $40 million to license a documentary about Melania Trump, who personally will receive $28 million.
On February 26, Bezos announced a new rightward shift for the Post: It would now advocate for “personal liberties and free markets” and not publish opposing viewpoints on those topics.
The paper’s opinion section editor, David Shipley, resigned in response to the change. Prominent columnists followed him out the door, and more than 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.
The Los Angeles Times
The Los Angeles Times had an established record of presidential endorsements too—until 2024. Its 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden blasted Trump. But in 2024, billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong quashed an editorial that would have endorsed Vice President Harris. As at the Post, columnists and editorial board members resigned in protest, and the paper lost thousands of subscribers.
After the election, Soon-Shiong killed another editorial set to run with this headline: “Donald Trump’s cabinet choices are not normal. The Senate’s confirmation process should be.”
Self-censorship is the most effective, enduring, and dangerous method of abridging free speech.
More than one-half of Americans “often” or “sometimes” get their news from social media. One-third of all adults in the U.S. get their news from Facebook (operated by Meta). Meta’s president Mark Zuckerberg was among the billionaires who traveled to Mar-a-Lago after the election, met with Trump, and donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund. (With the help of corporate and billionaire megadonors like Zuckerberg and Bezos, Trump raised a record $239 million for the fund.)
Then Zuckerberg gave Trump a bigger gift: Meta abandoned third-party fact-checking of Facebook posts. As his rationale, Zuckerberg repeated Trump’s false talking points that fact-checking was “censorship” and reflected an “anti-Trump bias.”
Asked if he thought Zuckerberg was “directly responding to the threats” that Trump had made to him in the past, Trump answered: “Probably.”
Meanwhile, Meta invited Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a longtime Trump supporter, to join its board of directors.
PBS and NPR
On April 26, Trump will send Congress his request to halt all funding for public media—including NPR and PBS.
Viktor Orbán’s Playbook—The Trump Sequel
Since his return to power, Hungary’s prime minister has used “muscular state policy to achieve conservative ends,” according to conservative activist Christopher Rufo. Orbán is “attempting to rebuild its culture and institutions, from schools to universities to media.”
Orbán began “working with friendly oligarchs to purchase and transform media companies into conservative stalwarts; directing government advertising budgets to politically-aligned outlets;… and pressuring the holdover state media… to provide more favorable coverage.”
Rufo insists that Hungary “has a media environment at least as competitive as that of many Western nations.” Experienced observers disagree:
Human Rights Watch found that the government is using its near media monopoly to strengthen its hold on democratic institutions… The government’s increased control over the media market is linked to its broader assault on rule of law in Hungary, including undermining judicial independence and state capture of public institutions…
Trump’s attacks on universities, law firms, culture, and the media are all of a piece. Viktor Orbán’s Hungary provides a roadmap of his battle plan and a preview of his end game.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cuts to the Bone': Leaked Trump Doc Shows Feds Plan to Slash Up to 50% of Agencies' Staff
"How does this help the economy become great again, MAGA?" asked one writer. "I'll wait..."
Mar 27, 2025
The Washington Postreported Thursday that a White House document shows U.S. officials are preparing to cut 8-50% of agency staff in "the first phase" of President Donald Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk's effort to gut the federal bureaucracy—eliciting a fresh wave of outrage directed at them and their Department of Government Efficiency.
The document only covers 22 agencies and, according to the Post, "several people familiar with the document stressed that planning remains fluid," a sentiment echoed by Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, in an email.
"It's no secret the Trump administration is dedicated to downsizing the federal bureaucracy and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. This document is a pre-deliberative draft and does not accurately reflect final reduction in force plans," Fields told the newspaper. "When President Trump's Cabinet secretaries are ready to announce reduction in force plans, they will make those announcements to their respective workforces at the appropriate time."
When Trump took office, there were around 2.3 million federal workers. The leaked document—last updated Tuesday—includes the following potential personnel cuts:
- 30% at the Department of Commerce;
- 50% at the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
- 25% at the Department of the Interior;
- 8% at the Department of Justice;
- 30% at the Department of the Treasury;
- 10% at the Environmental Protection Agency;
- 33% at the Internal Revenue Service;
- 43% at the Small Business Administration; and
- 28% at the National Science Foundation.
"Cuts have already been announced at some agencies, including the Education Department, which said this month that it would be reducing its staff by half. The document did not list those reductions among its totals," according to the paper. "It also did not specify staff reduction goals for certain agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs."
Trump and Musk's "DOGE-Manufactured chaos" is already impacting both federal employees and Americans who rely on them. At the Social Security Administration—which aims to oust roughly 7,000 staffers, bringing the agency down to 50,000—beneficiaries are dealing with website problems and hourslong wait times for phone services.
Responding to the Post's reporting on social media, writer and podcaster Wajahat Ali asked: "How does this help the economy become great again, MAGA? I'll wait..."
Cuts to the bone: “the Department of Housing and Urban Development as cutting half of its roughly 8,300-person staff, while the Interior Department would shed nearly 1 in 4 of the workers…the IRS would cut nearly 1 in 3.” @ELaserDavies www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Rocky Kistner (@therockyfiles.bsky.social) March 27, 2025 at 4:17 PM
Brian Donlon, the retired head of programming at Scripps News, tied the looming job cuts to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led agenda for a far-right takeover of the federal government, from which Trump unsuccessfully tried to distance himself while on the campaign trail.
"I have been rewatching Trump campaign rallies (I watched most live while running programming at Scripps News)," he said. "I can't find any references to an austerity budget or a downsized federal government. Project 2025 however does. Will keep looking."
Bluesky user J. Offir, who has a Ph.D. in social psychology, said that "my main concerns are health, education, and the environment (all of which relate to public health) but the casualties of this war are everywhere."
Offir also noted "the hell" at agencies under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—which is now led by conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who earlier Thursday announced a major restructuring and 20,000 job cuts, including employees who took the administration's infamous "Fork in the Road" offer.
Take a look at the size of the federal workforce to help contextualize today's news about planned layoffs at HHS.
[image or embed]
— STAT (@statnews.com) March 27, 2025 at 2:42 PM
"This announcement is shocking. There is no way that HHS will be able to continue providing the lifesaving services and research it is mandated to provide after losing a quarter of its workforce between the layoffs and early separation packages," said Jennifer Jones, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.
Jones explained that "these are people who ensure our medications and food supplies are safe, help protect us against infectious diseases, and conduct research to treat disease and help people live longer, healthier lives. HHS staff also oversee Medicaid and Medicare, the health insurance programs critical for low-income and elderly Americans as well as those with disabilities."
"Keep in mind, these cuts are brought to you by a man who has made a career out of peddling fringe conspiracy theories and misinformation. He is part of an administration that is incompetent and corrupt. He's known for his debunked anti-vaccine rhetoric, and his response to the deadly measles outbreak in Texas, which has spread to other states, has been nothing short of inept," she added. "Secretary Kennedy minimizes this action as 'a painful period' for the agencies, ignoring the pain that will be inflicted on everyone in this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular