A number of companies have responded to recent horrific mass shootings by touting technology that can ostensibly detect people with guns. Two companies in particular have attracted a lot of press attention for their products: one that makes AI-enhanced metal detectors, and another that sells video analytics software that “watches” surveillance camera feeds and sounds an alarm when the machine vision thinks it sees a person holding a gun.

While such technologies can have their place, we need to think carefully as a society about if, how, and where we want to deploy them. And at the end of the day, surveillance cannot be the answer to our gun problem.

One product, made by a company called Evolv, is a metal detector enhanced with machine learning, which the company claims increases accuracy. Metal detectors and other body scanners are already deployed in various venues in the United States, and in our view, many of these deployments are unjustified and harmful. Still, where scanners nonetheless exist, making them more accurate and less intrusive is a good thing, all other things being equal.

The problem is, all other things are not equal. Evolv is pushing for a sharp expansion of metal detectors in American life, not simply an upgrade of existing deployments. The company, which has raised half a billion dollars in funding, claims that it currently scans over three quarters of a million people each day, and has ambitions to install thousands of new detectors around the U.S. and the world.

Improving current scanners is one thing, but expanding the number of scanning checkpoints is another matter. We don’t want to see America turned into a big airport — a checkpoint society where we have to undergo searches at every gathering, including little league games and up from there.

Credit: AP Images/Mary Altaffer

And metal detectors don’t operate themselves. Wherever a search checkpoint is set up, there are going to be guards. They may bark orders at you, demand you open your bags, remove your jacket, etc. However common such scans may already be, we should never lose sight of the fact that they are a significant invasion of privacy. You may have private things on your person, such as medical equipment, that are nobody’s business but yours. Guards may also engage in racial profiling, or simply gruff and rude behavior.

Perhaps the worst place for these checkpoints to spread further is in our schools, which companies view as a large market. School metal detectors are in keeping with a broken approach to student well-being — the same approach that has led to the U.S. having more police officers than social workers in our schools. Metal detectors are expensive, disruptive, alienating, come hand-in-hand with aggressive police tactics, and have a racially disparate impact on students of color. Like other surveillance methods, they are not good for kids. And ample research suggests that metal detectors don’t improve school safety; even the U.S. Secret Service has concluded that the devices are unlikely to stop school shootings.

The effectiveness of metal detectors is dubious outside schools as well, and for the same reasons. As Motherboard put it, “Security experts broadly believe body scanners and metal detectors do not prevent mass shootings.” Although the independent security analysis publication IPVM found that Evolv is better than traditional (and far cheaper) metal detectors at not alarming at keys and cellphones, Evolv’s overall accuracy claims have been sharply questioned by IPVM. In particular, an investigation by IPVM and the BBC found that the company had worked with an “independent” testing lab to exaggerate the performance of their scanners, which was actually worse than regular metal detectors in some cases.

A company called ZeroEyes is marketing video analytics techniques that can purportedly identify when someone is holding a firearm in a surveillance camera feed.

In many contexts, there is no reason that anybody should ever be holding a firearm, and it is usually legitimate for security staff to be alarmed at the sight of someone brandishing a gun in a public place. (In many states, it may be legal to have a holstered firearm, either in concealed or open carry, but holding a gun in one’s hands in public is typically illegal under state brandishing and assault laws.) So at first blush, many people may see no issues with a system that alarms only when that happens. There are several issues that I see with this concept, however.

First, this concept incentivizes the installation of surveillance cameras everywhere. And because gun detection analytics acts as an add-on to existing cameras, it’s not as if the cameras involved will only be used to look for guns. They can simultaneously be used for the full range of surveillance uses, including face recognition, forensic search, and even marketing and “business intelligence.”

Second, like all alarm systems, and especially AI systems, there will be false positives — potentially a lot of them. Blanketing public spaces with buggy gun detectors may increase the incidence of tragic confrontations sparked by people holding cell phones, toy guns, or other everyday objects that police have mistaken for firearms. ZeroEyes has humans in the loop that review camera images before alarms are sent, which is helpful — but that’s no guarantee against errors. And if this concept is successful, we’re likely to see this company or competitors discard the expensive and complicated element of human review.

Third, as with Evolv’s gun detectors, there are also questions about effectiveness. The system is premised on a gun being visible for some significant period of time before any shooting starts. How often does that happen? In addition, if this technology becomes widespread, future shooters will simply keep their gun(s) hidden from the AI (which might be easier than hiding it from a human) until the last moment. As the industry analysts at IPVM conclude, video analytics “cannot stop [violent] events and will not add significant advance warning time to an event.”

Fourth, it’s also important to understand a larger context here: Video gun detection is part of a larger trend of using machine vision as a cheap replacement for humans in enforcement and monitoring work. We’re already starting to see AI-enhanced cameras being deployed to monitor driving behavior and cell phone use, for example, and (as we explored in this report) that’s likely just the tip of the coming iceberg that could lead to intrusive and oppressive levels of monitoring throughout our lives.

Finally, both ZeroEyes and Evolv raise questions about transparency. It’s hard for policymakers and the public to make decisions about technologies if they don’t have accurate and complete information about their false negative and false positive rates. Evolv has actually refused to let IPVM buy a scanner for independent accuracy testing.

At the end of the day, ubiquitous surveillance is not the solution to gun violence. Americans should say no to intrusive technologies that threaten privacy, bring dubious benefits, and have negative side effects such as racial profiling and disrupting education.

After over a hundred years of total or near total exclusion of Black students and other students of color, the University of North Carolina and Harvard began admitting larger numbers of students, including students of color, in the 1960s and 70s. For decades, Harvard, UNC, and other universities have had the ability to consider a student’s race along with a wide range of other factors — academic merit, athletics, extra curriculars, and others — when it comes to deciding whether to admit a student. But now, the Supreme Court could change all of this.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear two cases concerning affirmative action today. If the court strikes down affirmative action — also known as race-conscious admissions policies — it would make it unconstitutional for universities across the country to consider a student’s race as one factor in a holistic admissions review process. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions earlier this year.

Below, we answer some of the key questions that you need to know about how race conscious admissions policies work, how students and universities benefit from them, and what’s at stake at the Supreme Court.

Q: What is affirmative action, or race conscious admissions policies?

A: Race conscious policies, such as affirmative action, aim to address racial discrimination by recognizing and responding to the structural barriers that have denied underrepresented students access to higher education. Race-conscious admissions practices allow universities to consider a student’s race as one factor in the admissions process in order to help create a diverse student body that enriches the educational experiences of all students.

Q: What cases are before the Supreme Court concerning race conscious admissions policies?

A: There are two cases in which the Supreme Court will consider whether to uphold universities’ ability to consider race in college admissions: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. In both cases, the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), led by anti-affirmative action crusader Edward Blum, is once again, after previous failed efforts, seeking the elimination of all race-conscious admissions practices. Twice already, the Supreme Court has rejected Blum’s arguments and ruled that universities can consider race in admissions to promote diversity on campus and enrich students’ learning experience.

Q: What legal rights do universities and colleges have to consider race in the admissions process?

A: Colleges have an important interest in student body diversity that furthers the values of academic freedom and equal protection. A holistic, race-conscious admissions process is the extension of a university’s academic freedom to assemble a diverse student body. Removing the consideration of race in admissions conflicts with the ability of a university to select its student body.

Additionally, the consideration of race in college admissions furthers the values of equal protection under the Constitution by helping to diminish stereotypes, promoting integration on college campuses, and improving the ability of students of all races to participate in the academic community.

Q: Has the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action before?

A: Yes. In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that diversity is a “compelling governmental interest,” permitting schools to consider race as a contributing factor to admissions in higher education. Time and again, lower courts and the Supreme Court have recognized this.

Q: How do colleges, universities and students benefit from affirmative action?

A: Race-conscious admissions policies help create a diverse student body, promote integration on college campuses, and create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students. Students from diverse backgrounds who learn from each other and are exposed to a variety of experiences, backgrounds, interests, and talents are better prepared to be successful in our society. Banning any consideration of race would hamper the growth of generations of students who will be unprepared for an increasingly diverse nation.

Q: What’s at stake if the Supreme Court moves to block race conscious admissions policies? Will this impact affirmative action efforts in other areas, suchs as workplaces?

A: A decision blocking universities’ ability to consider race will almost certainly mean a significant drop in the number of students of color being admitted to selective universities. In fact, that’s what lower courts in both cases found after closely studying several race-neutral alternatives like a class-based affirmative action or plans similar to Texas’s top 10 percent plan, which guarantees Texas students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school class automatic admission to all state-funded Texas universities. Less diverse campuses will harm students of color and white students alike, and take us backward in our efforts to overcome the country’s shameful legacy of racism and racial inequality.

A decision outlawing consideration of race in college admissions could also make it harder for employers to take steps to promote equity and diversify their workforce. Dozens of government programs that address past and current discrimination, advance racial equity, and seek to close the racial wealth gap, such as business incubator programs, could also be jeopardized.

Q: What actions can colleges and universities take if the Supreme Court does rule to block race conscious admissions policies?

A: Higher ed institutions will still be able to do outreach and recruit students from all backgrounds. Universities will still be able to stop considering factors that have been proven to create unjustifiable barriers for historically underrepresented students of color. For example, many schools have already stopped considering SAT and the ACT.

No matter what happens, we continue to advocate for race conscious admissions and ensuring higher education is accessible to all.

Last Sunday marked a historic and joyful day in DeSoto County, Mississippi. The county’s first mosque, the Abraham House of God, finally broke ground in the City of Horn Lake. While the occasion was celebratory, it was also a relief to the mosque’s founders, who were forced to sue last year after city officials — motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice — denied them a critical zoning authorization.

Represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Mississippi, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, the mosque and its founders argued in a 2021 lawsuit that the zoning decision violated both the First Amendment, which prohibits singling out one faith for discriminatory treatment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that provides heightened protections for religious groups seeking to establish a house of worship or to use property for other religious purposes. In a decisive victory, our clients quickly won a consent decree (a court order to which the parties agree) requiring the city to approve their construction site plan and prohibiting further discrimination against them.

Yoselin Moreno

But that didn’t stop Horn Lake from once again trying to thwart our clients’ right to develop their property. In April, our clients applied for a conditional-use permit to establish an Islamic cemetery next to the mosque. Although the city’s Planning Commission staff “strongly and categorically” recommended approval of the application, some commissioners balked. Echoing the biased sentiments expressed nearly a year before by a city Alderman who voted against the mosque’s site plan, one planning commissioner complained, “I am assuming that Muslims nationwide will be coming to Horn Lake to bury their dead.”

It was only after we intervened, yet again, and reminded the city that it must comply with the First Amendment, RLUIPA, and the consent decree, that the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the permit. And, last week, the Board of Aldermen voted in favor of the recommendation, ensuring that the mosque will be able to offer vital funeral and burial services for the local Muslim community.

The Horn Lake matter is not the only recent incident in which minority-faith groups or houses of worship have faced discriminatory hurdles in zoning proceedings. In some instances, as in Horn Lake, the prejudice is overt and unmistakable. In others, the bias may be more veiled, cloaked in vague — and unsupported — allegations that the proposed land use will cause problems with parking, traffic, or noise.

Yoselin Moreno

This past summer, the ACLU and the ACLU of Rhode Island stepped in to represent the Horn and Cauldron, Church of the Earth, a small Wiccan church located in Coventry, Rhode Island. Wicca is a nature-based religion, and the church’s religious services, educational classes, and other faith-based activities focus on the relationship between the earth and the divine. As in Horn Lake, the Coventry Planning Commission staff recommended approval of our clients’ permit application, noting that the application met all requirements and that “the church has been holding activities on the property for many years and the Planning and Zoning department has not received any complaints since the church’s founding.”

Nevertheless, during a public hearing, members of the Coventry Zoning Board of Review declined to approve the permit, citing inaccurate parking concerns (the church has more-than-adequate parking for visitors) and unsubstantiated allegations about fire safety (the church follows all fire-safety laws, and the facilities comply with the fire marshal’s directives). When we became involved, it was clear that town officials either were not aware of, or did not care about, their obligations under RLUIPA, let alone under the First Amendment. Earlier this month, in response to our advocacy, the zoning board granted the church’s permit.

Unfortunately, some zoning discrimination matters are not resolved so quickly. In 2016, the Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, a Buddhist religious organization, filed suit after the City of Mobile repeatedly stymied its attempts to develop a meditation center on a 100-acre parcel of property. The complaint argued that’s the city’s denial of zoning approval bowed to community animus against Buddhism — to some, an unfamiliar faith. The case has dragged on for years, with a court recently finding that city officials made deceptive statements, violated local ordinances, failed to account for the religious nature of the proposed use, and “manipulated the reasons that the planning approval was denied,” including by drafting false meeting minutes. As the lawsuit proceeds, the ACLU and a number of other civil-rights and religious-freedom groups recently filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, supporting the Association’s claims.

Yoselin Moreno

Even if the Association ultimately prevails, however, it will come at great cost, as we have seen with our own clients. Challenging discriminatory zoning decisions often requires religious groups to tap into limited financial reserves. Moreover, every day that zoning approvals are wrongfully denied is another day that the religious groups or houses of worship are prevented from fully exercising their faith in fundamental ways. And because zoning matters are deeply rooted in and tied to the local community, the distress and dignitary harm that minority-faith applicants suffer from discriminatory denials hits that much closer to home.

That’s why we’ll continue to defend the right of all faiths — especially those that may be unfamiliar to some or unpopular in the eyes of others — to be free from unfair treatment in zoning proceedings. It’s not only the law; it’s the right thing to do.