Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration are on a crusade this election season to stop progress and keep in place coercive and unfair laws that control the bodies of Black people in Florida. If they succeed in defeating citizen-led initiatives that would legalize adult use of cannabis and end Florida’s extreme abortion ban, the lives of people who are historically the most impacted by these policies will continue to be at risk: Black people.

It is no secret that the war on drugs started by President Richard Nixon was a continuation of the Jim Crow policies that kept Black people subjugated to second-class citizens. Those same laws, over the last half-century, have significantly contributed to the disproportionate incarceration of Black and Latino men in Florida’s jails and prisons, at some of the highest rates in the U.S. and the world.

The DeSantis administration has revealed its commitment to continuing the failed war on drugs by spending millions in taxpayer dollars to produce anti-cannabis propaganda masquerading as public service announcements, promoting harmful policies that encourage racial profiling and stereotyping that mostly injures the lives of Black men and boys.

In the governor’s advocacy to maintain the state’s extreme abortion ban, he is seeking to control the lives of all women, and Black women in particular, who in the U.S. face the highest maternal mortality rate in the industrialized world. This harmful stance perpetuates the long history of Black women being dehumanized and exploited, their bodies treated as objects to serve the interests of slavery and the advancement of modern medicine.

For generations, Black women have endured this systemic violence, and today’s policies continue to deny them the dignity and autonomy they deserve. These same Black women have faced centuries of systemic racism in the legally permissible and immoral control of their bodies and their offspring.

Examples range from President Thomas Jefferson’s control over his slave and mother to six of his children, Sally Hemings; the generations of brutal sexual violence inflicted on enslaved Black women by white slaveholders; the forced use of enslaved Black women’s bodies by Dr. J. Marion Sims for the study of obstetrics and gynecology; and the disrespect of Henrietta Lacks, whose cervical cancer cells were stolen and used toward the advancement of cancer research and treatment.

In a state that refuses federal support to expand Medicaid for lower-income Floridians – only 10 states still refuse to do so – and takes away children’s health insurance from needy families, Florida’s extreme abortion ban only intensifies the hardship Black families in Florida experience in attempting to access adequate health care.

Abortion bans cause great harm to Black families by forcing some of the most historically underprivileged to parent families that they are unable to afford. Such circumstances can perpetuate some of the most racist generational harms and traumas. Abortion bans are unabashed cruelty to Black people. Compounding this is the state’s continuance of failed drug policies which most heavily impact Black families who, due to systemic oppression, experience the brunt of the criminal legal system.

Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.” The governor has shown Black people who he is by how he governs.

Black people in Florida are endangered by the whims of this same governor who, using the levers of his power, greatly diminished the last citizen-led Amendment 4 campaign to expand voting rights to nearly a million formerly incarcerated Floridians. This is the same governor who chilled Black protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. This is the same governor who used his power to eliminate a Black-access congressional district in North Florida. This is the same governor who removed the only Black woman state prosecutor from office, replacing her with an acolyte. This is the same governor who sought to censor Black history in classrooms and called slavery “beneficial” for Black people.

Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.” The governor has shown Black people who he is by how he governs.

Throughout his tenure, this governor has used the power of his office to subjugate and control the lives of Black people in Florida. The administration of Gov. DeSantis has demonstrated a disdain for Black people and their lives in Florida. His actions as governor demonstrate that under his governance, the lives of Black people are expendable.

But Black voters have a chance to fight back against these continuous assaults on our bodies, our lives, our families, and our communities by using our power to vote “yes” on Amendment 3, to legalize cannabis, and Amendment 4, to end Florida’s extreme abortion ban.

Both of these constitutional amendments will decrease the state’s overreach into the personal lives and decisions of all Floridians. We all want to live in a state where we have agency, and our communities have the resources they need to thrive. Voting “yes” on these amendments will keep the government out of our lives and give us back the power to decide our futures.

The governor cannot control our lives. Slavery ended here in 1865, and the time of us asking for our freedom is over. We’re taking it.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is investing resources in what it calls protecting “soft targets,” which include crowded places that aren’t subject to “hardened” security measures. Examples include shopping areas, transit facilities, and open-air tourist attractions. We are all used to going through security checks at airports and some other venues, but the vast majority of events and spaces in the United States don’t have that kind of security. The question is: Do we want DHS having a role in all of those spaces?

DHS counts protecting soft targets as one of four goals in its mission to counter terrorism and homeland security threats. The agency says that it’s working to “assess soft targets and address security gaps, and investing in research and development for technological solutions.” Many measures to increase the security of soft targets are uncontroversial and probably beneficial. There’s nothing wrong with assessing risk, for example, and we all want our government to be well-prepared to respond to emergencies of all kinds. But other parts of the agency’s efforts in this area raise serious questions about mass surveillance and the maintenance of an open society, including those that use AI or other technological solutions to generate or share domestic intelligence, attempt to measure “suspiciousness,” or monitor and track people in public places.

One way that DHS has begun work in this area is through the funding of an industry or academic research and development center called the Soft Target Engineering to Neutralize the Threat Reality, or SENTRY, which aims to create “resources and tools for anticipating and mitigating threats to soft targets and crowded places.” Among the center’s research areas is “advanced sensing technologies” that aims to develop “new sensing capabilities to detect threats,” in particular, “to establish new stand-off sensor concepts for detecting concealed threats in crowds.”

Part of SENTRY’s research includes developing AI tools “for data mining of social media, geospatial data platforms, and other sources of information to extract insights on potential threats.” Another part is looking at the application of AI “to risk assessment, quantitative threat deterrence, development of layered security architectures; and providing methods for fusing data and other information.”

DHS’s Silicon Valley Innovation Program, which funds private companies to research and develop products that DHS would like to see, also has a Securing Soft Targets program. It funds companies that are aiming to “build AI algorithms that link objects (e.g., unattended baggage) to people and track them,” to “identify motion of interest from security video feeds,” and to create an “anomaly detection system that leverages activity recognition and tracking to capture multiple data points per subject.”

DHS has also been testing various sensors and detectors intended to be used on people in non-secure public spaces. For several years the agency has been carrying out public tests of thermal cameras designed to spot weapons underneath people’s clothing and identify medicines or other substances that people may have on their person. Various at-a-distance AI scanner technologies are also being researched by participants in the SENTRY program.

Most of these efforts are targeted at people going about their business in public places, mostly unaware of the AI technologies that are being trained upon them, raising significant privacy and constitutional issues. At their worst, efforts to secure soft targets may lead to the “airportization” of American life by encouraging local authorities to increase the use of security perimeters, searches, and surveillance at an ever-widening group of public gatherings and events. Such efforts could lead to the emergence of a checkpoint society, an enclosed world where people are scanned, vetted, and access-controlled at every turn.

Of course, security technology does not operate itself; people will be subject to the petty authority of martinet guards who are constantly stopping them based on some AI-generated flag of suspicion. And, inevitably, doing so in discriminatory ways. AI-facilitated surveillance of public venues may lead to the harassment, investigation, and arrest of people who are already disproportionately singled out for scrutiny, such as protestors, communities of color, and immigrants. The use of AI machine vision to monitor people, even when done in an ostensibly anonymous manner, has the potential to significantly change the experience of being in public in the United States.

Such efforts may lock down American life in ways that impose not only direct costs — the price of equipment and personnel – but also introduce inefficiencies – wait times and efforts by members of the public to avoid false alarms. These efforts also perpetuate the intangible social and psychological costs that come from surveillance, submission to authority, and the lack of an open society.

We recently filed comments with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), an agency created by Congress to serve as a check and balance on our security agencies, urging the agency to keep a close eye on these activities, among others. Given the sensitivity around surveilling people in public places, those activities bear close watching — something we will be doing as well.