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.

Election Day is less than two weeks away. Right now, the race remains tight and, while we may have a clear winner on November 6th, that day could also mark the start of a prolonged period of uncertainty while votes are counted, recounted, contested and certified.

At the ACLU, we know that our country was built on the freedom to vote and elect leaders who govern in our name. Right now, however, certain politicians are spreading lies and putting in place deliberate barriers to voting. We’re dedicated to ensuring that every voter is able to cast a ballot that is both counted and respected.

Our elections have built-in checks for accuracy. Teams of people from both parties work together at every step of the voting, counting, and reporting process to ensure that results are verified before they are officially certified. We take pride in having held reliable elections through times of war, economic depression, and social unrest. Today, the ACLU is in the courts and on the ground to ensure that every voter's voice is heard, every ballot is counted, and the elections are certified accurately.

Georgia, where early voting began in record numbers this month, is one of seven battleground states likely to determine the presidential race.

In Georgia, the ACLU and its partners successfully argued before the courts to permanently block the Georgia State Election Board’s new rule requiring the hand counting of ballots in the upcoming November election.

We argued that the rule would invite error and cause delays, making it much harder for the state to meet the certification deadline and risking uncounted votes. A state trial court not only blocked this disruptive rule, it also blocked several other unlawful changes to election rules that were recently adopted by the Georgia State Election Board. While the case is on appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court denied an attempt to put these rules back in place before the November election. This is a huge victory for Georgia voters who can now turn their focus to casting a ballot in this election.

The ACLU and the ACLU of Michigan filed a lawsuit against Kalamazoo County Board of Canvasser Robert Froman, who, in a Detroit News article, reportedly indicated that he would refuse to certify the election if it unfolded in the same way as the 2020 election.

The Michigan Constitution and a state statute require canvassers to certify election results within 14 days after the election based solely on the total number of votes reported from each location within their jurisdiction. The law does not allow them to withhold certification.

Vote Your Rights | Voting Rights

This election, our rights are at stake and we must all do our part. I know you're with me — head to aclu.org/vote to start the conversation.

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

Although he told the ACLU that he didn’t make the statements attributed to him in the Detroit News article, Froman refused to contact the paper and request a retraction. With the paper standing by its story, the ACLU filed suit to ensure election law would be followed. In September, Froman signed a sworn affidavit stating that he will certify the November presidential election results.

In filing this lawsuit, the ACLU was not only seeking to ensure Froman lawfully performed his duties, it was also sending an important warning to election officials throughout the state that the civil rights group and other pro-democracy organizations will take immediate action if it appears voters’ rights will be violated. Froman’s alleged statements were in line with a widely reported anti-democratic trend of election denialism in which local officials in Michigan and throughout the country have threatened to interfere with the election certification process. Concerns about potential refusals to certify election results have also been reported in swing states such as Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, and Arizona.

This month, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that Nebraskans with past felony convictions can vote.

The ACLU and its partners represented individual Nebraskans and Civic Nebraska in challenging a directive issued by Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen that ordered county elections officials to defy state law by refusing to register Nebraskans with past felony convictions. The state’s highest court ordered Evnen and all county officials to comply with state laws and give those with previous felony convictions access to the ballot.

For nearly 20 years, Nebraskans with past felony convictions had been able to register to vote and vote two years after completing all terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. This April, an overwhelming bipartisan majority of state senators ended the two-year waiting period. Yet shortly before it went into effect, Secretary Evnen issued a directive instructing counties not to enforce the law and prevent Nebraska's roughly 7,000 newly eligible returning citizens from registering to vote. Today, after the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in our favor that the Secretary's directive was unlawful, all Nebraskans can register and vote upon completion of their felony sentence.

As Election Day draws near, we must continue to condemn and challenge efforts to overthrow the will of the people — from threats against election workers to baseless claims used to deny the true winners from taking office and block our freedom to vote. At the ACLU, we will fight any efforts to intimidate or silence voters through legal maneuvers or violent acts. We will expose these lies and demand that every vote be counted and every validated result be certified to protect our freedoms.