For years, Xinjiang has been a testbed for the Chinese government’s novel digital and physical surveillance tactics, as well as human rights abuses. But there is still a lot that the international human rights community doesn’t know, especially when it comes to post-2016 Xinjiang.

Last Wednesday, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing the inner workings of a mass surveillance app used by police and other officials. The application is used by offiicals to communicate with the larger Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP), the umbrella system for collecting mass surveillance data in Xinjiang.

This report uncovers what a modern surveillance state looks like, and can inform our work to end them. First, the report demonstrates IJOP’s system of pervasive surveillance targets just about anyone who deviates from an algorithmically-determined norm. Second, as a result, IJOP requires a massive amount of manual labor, all focused towards data entry and translating the physical world into digital relationships.

We stand by Human Rights Watch in calling for the end to violations of human rights within Xinjiang, and within China.

What’s going on in Xinjiang?

Xinjiang is the largest province in China, home to the Uighurs and other Turkic minority groups. Since 2016, the Chinese government has cracked down on the region as a part of the ongoing “Strike Hard” campaign. An estimated 1 million individuals have been detained in “political education centers,” and the IJOP’s surveillance system watches the daily lives of Xinjiang residents. While we fight the introduction and integration of facial recognition and street-level surveillance technologies in the U.S., existing research from Human Rights Watch gives us insight on how facial-recognition-enabled cameras already line the streets in front of schools, markets, and homes in Kashgar. WiFi sniffers log the unique addresses of connected devices, and police gather data from phone inspections, regular intrusive home visits, and mandatory security checkpoints.

Human Rights Watch obtained a copy of a mobile app police officers and other officials use to log information about individuals, and released its source code.

The primary purpose of the IJOP app is for police officers to record and complete “investigative missions,” which require officers to interrogate certain individuals or investigate vehicles and events, and log the interactions into the app. In addition, the application also contains functionality to search for information about an individual, perform facial recognition via Face++, and detect and log information about WiFi networks within range.

Who are they targeting? Well, basically everyone.

-more-

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/human-rights-watch-reverse-engineers-mass-surveillance-app-used-police-xinjiang

The First Amendment protects the public’s right to use electronic devices to record on-duty police officers, EFF argued in an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case, Frasier v. Evans, was brought by Levi Frasier against five Denver police officers for interfering with his First Amendment right to record them while arresting another man.

EFF’s amicus brief argues that people frequently use modern electronic devices to record and share photos and videos, especially on social media. These often include newsworthy recordings of fatal police shootings and other police misconduct. Such recordings facilitate police accountability and enhance the public discussion about police use of force and racial disparities in our criminal justice system.

The facts of this case demonstrate why protecting the right to record police officers is essential to local journalism and civilian oversight of police activity. Frasier recorded Denver police officers punching a suspect in the face to get drugs out of his mouth as his head repeatedly bounced off the pavement, and tripping his pregnant girlfriend. The police officers retaliated against Frasier by seizing his tablet without a warrant and apparently deleting the video. Frasier was able to retrieve the video by syncing his tablet with his backup cloud storage.

Frasier shared the video with a local television news station and on social media. The story was covered extensively, including by the Denver Post, which wrote an editorial. In response to the media coverage, the Denver Police Department revised its operations manual to prohibit punching a suspect to get drugs out of his mouth (Sec. 116.06(3)(b)), and to explicitly state that civilians have a right to record the police and that officers may not infringe on this right (Sec. 107.04(3)).

Additionally, the Colorado Legislature passed two statutes. The first created a statutory right for civilians to record police officers (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-3-311). The second created a civil cause of action against police officers who interfere with an individual’s lawful attempt to record an incident involving a police officer, or who destroy, damage, or seize a recording or recording device (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-128).

Six other federal appellate jurisdictions have upheld a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers: the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. EFF wrote amicus briefs in the Third Circuit case and in a similar case in the Northern District of Texas that focused on the First Amendment right to record emergency medical personnel and other first responders.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/eff-tenth-circuit-first-amendment-protects-right-record-police