Boston City Council Hearing on Civil Rights & Surveillance Implications of BRIC - June 4, 2026
Boston City Council Hearing on Civil Rights & Surveillance Implications of BRIC and Related Systems - June 4, 2026
On June 4, 2026, at 2:14 PM, the Boston City Council Committee on Civil Rights, Racial Equity, and Immigrant Advancement, chaired by Councillor Minyard Culpepper, held a hearing on Docket #0409 to examine the civil rights, constitutional, and legal implications of the Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), the Social Violence Information System (AVIS), Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), and participation in federal joint task forces. The hearing was co-sponsored by Councillors Mejia, Santana, and Culpepper. Present were Councillors Flynn, Worrell, Santana, Peppin, and later Councillor Braden. The hearing featured two panels of experts and community members, followed by public testimony.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Alex Matthews (Co-chair of Digital Forth): Highlighted federal pressure on BRIC to target individuals perceived as anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, or critical of traditional gender binaries, and warned that new AI technologies enable analysts to surface entire online footprints to assess threats.
- Susan Moyer (Old Dykes Against Billionaire Tech Bros): Argued that environmental destruction and authoritarianism are bigger threats than domestic terrorism, criticized the uneven distribution of BRIC resources across nine cities/towns, and noted that the Trump administration has labeled “extreme trans ideology” as domestic terrorism.
- Bernadette Murphy (Roslindale resident, retired teacher): Expressed concern about BRIC’s broad social media monitoring without specific policies or documentation, worried that students and young people of color are pulled into databases and labeled, and referenced the danger of giving up freedom for security (quoting Benjamin Franklin).
- Nathan Phillips (Professor, Boston University, virtual testimony): Described an incident where FBI agents visited his home seeking him, and when he called the FBI Chelsea office, they hung up without explanation. He warned that even privileged individuals are not safe from untrustworthy federal actors.
Discussion Items
-
Panel 1: Researchers and Affected Individuals
- Brenda McQuaid (Professor, author of Pacify in the Homeland): Described BRIC as a “spy center” focused on social control, not crime prevention. Noted that 84% of BRIC intelligence products are crime blotters, it tracks protesters and political dissent, fabricates threats (e.g., Occupy, Black Lives Matter, Palestine solidarity), and that $4 million annually goes to Centra Technology—BPD’s largest contract. She argued BRIC is beyond reform and should be abolished.
- Fatima Ahmed (Muslim Justice League): Presented findings from a new Brennan Center report showing BRIC uses aliases to monitor social media without documentation, engages in over-collection, and shares information broadly. She highlighted that Brookline is the first town considering pulling out of BRIC, and that the UASI grant requires border enforcement and election security cooperation with DHS.
- Heather Perez Arroyo (Immigration attorney, MLRI): Explained that DHS’s mass deportation campaign relies on data sharing via BRIC. She cited a client whose single Field Interview Observation (FIO) for being near a suspected gang member led to $15,000 bond and later detention risk. She argued that once information is in BRIC, it cannot be fully removed and continues to harm individuals in immigration proceedings.
- Maya Schaefer (Investigative journalist): Recounted being surveilled by BRIC in real time at the 2015 Boston Marathon for exercising First Amendment rights. Her internal complaint went unanswered for six years and was closed without redress. She stated that BRIC’s privacy council is a fiction and that data once shared cannot be recalled.
-
Panel 2: Policy Experts and Community Members
- Allie Finn (AI Now Institute): Testified that the UASI grant functions as a Trojan horse, diverting funds from emergency services to policing and surveillance. DHS requires 35% for law enforcement terrorism prevention, and the Trump administration now mandates 10% for border enforcement collaboration with ICE. She urged the council to reconsider participation in UASI.
- Sarah Stokes (Clinical Professor, BU Law): Shared the case of Orlando, a Boston high school student put in the BRIC gang database based on a rumor, then arrested by ICE, detained for nearly two years, and deported to El Salvador. She noted that 98% of people in the gang database are people of color, and that fusion centers have not demonstrated public safety benefits.
- Wendy Lazo (Community leader, Nube): Expressed fear in the immigrant community, citing a case where someone called police for a neighbor dispute and was handed over to ICE. She asked that funds for BRIC be redirected to youth programs.
- Reverend Annie Gonzalez (Unitarian Universalist minister): Told the story of Maria, whose son was put in the gang database because of the color of his shirt (a gift from her). He was deported and now lives in hiding in El Salvador. She emphasized that community members are afraid to attend court dates due to information sharing, and that BRIC’s surveillance fuels deportation.
-
Councillor Questions and Discussion
- Councillor Mejia asked about BRIC’s mission evolution, evidence of public safety benefits, types of data collected, transparency gaps, and potential oversight frameworks. Panelists responded that BRIC’s mission drifted from counterterrorism to “all crimes, all hazards,” that no evidence connects BRIC to crime reduction, and that accountability mechanisms are inadequate.
- Councillor Peppin inquired about license plate readers and traffic enforcement. Panelists noted that Flock ALPRs were installed without council approval, and that traffic enforcement should be moved to a civil process to avoid racial profiling and ICE contact.
- Councillor Braden asked about legal authority for BRIC, independent oversight, and control over data shared with federal partners. Panelists explained that fusion centers operate under Code of Federal Regulations Part 23, that informal information sharing between embedded federal agents is impossible to regulate, and that localities lose control once data is shared.
- Councillor Santana questioned whether Boston can accept UASI funding while protecting immigrants. Allie Finn responded that the city’s allocation of the required 10% under BRIC already aids immigration enforcement, and there is no safe way to accept the grant.
- Councillor Flynn asked about the relevance of a knife attack in Paris to BRIC. Panelists stated BRIC acts as a “third-rate news aggregator” chasing headlines, and that such reports serve to justify Islamophobic surveillance.
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes were taken, but Councillor Mejia announced she will request a second hearing with the administration and BRIC representatives to further discuss the findings before any decision on the UASI grant.
- Panelists and multiple councillors consistently called for the abolition of BRIC, citing irreparable harm to civil rights, lack of transparency, and the impossibility of reform.
- The hearing emphasized that all 13 city councillors are responsible for votes that affect the entire city, and that oversight of BRIC and related surveillance must be a priority regardless of district.
- Written comments may be submitted to ccc.civilrights@boston.gov for inclusion in the record.
Meeting Transcript
Could we have all the panelists for the first panel? Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Minyard Culpepper, District 7th City Councillor, and I'm chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Civil Rights, Racial Equity, and Immigrant Advancement. Today is June 4th 2026, and the exact time is 2.14 p.m. The hearing is being recorded. It is also being live streamed at Boston.gov slash City Council TV. Broadcast on Xfinity Channel 8, RCN Channel 82, BIOS Channel 964. Interpretation will be available today in Spanish. For those attending in person, interpretation headsets are available to the right near the podium. Public testimony will be taken at the end of the hearing. Individuals will be called in the order in which they have signed up and will have two minutes to testify. Written comments may be sent to the committee email at ccc.civilrights at Boston.gov. And we will be made part of the record and available to all counselors. If you're interested in testifying in person, please add your name to the sign-up sheet near the entrance of the chamber. If you're looking to testify virtually, please email our central staff liaison Megan Cavanaugh at Megan.cavernot at Boston.gov for the link and your name will be added to the list. If you need interpretation services to testify, please sign up at the sign-up sheet by the front of the chamber and check the box for Spanish interpretation. If you have any questions, please see the interpreter who will be near the signing sheet. Today's hearing is on docket number 0409, order for a hearing on civil rights, constitutional, and legal implications of the Boston Regional Intelligence Center, otherwise known as BRIC, the Social Violence Information System, Avis, the Automated License Plate Readers, ALPR, and participation in the federal joint task forces. This matter was sponsored by Councillor Julia Mahia, Henry Santana, Minyard Culpeper, and was referred to the committee on February 25th, 2026. Before we begin, I'd like to remind my council colleagues and our panelists to please speak so that you can be heard and to ensure the interpreters can properly convey your remarks. Today I'm joined by my colleagues in order of arrival, Counselor Flynn, Councillor Warrell, Counselor Santana, and Councillor Peppin. Council just stepped out. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank my colleagues for being here, especially my vice chair, Councillor Mejia, who filed this hearing order, and for her work on these issues, as well as Councillor Santana for co-sponsoring this hearing order, and for his work on these issues. I want to thank the panelists and members of the public for joining us for this important hearing. The purpose of today's hearing is not to debate whether public safety matters. Public safety absolutely does matter. The question before us is how we balance legitimate public safety objectives with the constitutional rights, the civil liberties, and due process protections that every Boston resident is entitled to under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution. As technology has evolved, so too has the ability of government to collect, store, analyze, and share information. Systems as a Boston Regional Intelligence Center, the associative violence information system, the automated license place readers, and information sharing partnerships with federal agencies, provide law enforcement with unprecedented access to data and surveillance capabilities. But with those capabilities comes an equally important responsibility to ensure transparency, accountability, oversight, and respect for civil rights. Today's discussion is ultimately about public trust. Residents deserve to know how these systems operate, what protections exist against errors and abuse, and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that individuals are not improperly labeled, not improperly monitored, or subjected to government scrutiny without appropriate safeguards. Counselor, you will have five minutes for open remarks. And with that, Council Mahia, you have the floor. Okay. All right, so good afternoon, everyone. And for the record, we don't usually get five minutes for an opening remark. So I hope my colleagues don't think we're getting five minutes. We're getting a minute to speak because we're here really to listen to people. Just so you know. All right. I want to thank uh you, uh Counselor Culpepper, for hosting today's hearing on Docket 090 uh 0409, which has was filed by my office to examine civil rights and civil liberties implications of the Boston Intelligence and Surveillance Infrastructure. As many people know, our office has been clear about our concerns regarding BRIC and the expansion of surveillance technologies. We've worked alongside organizations including Digital Ford, the Muslim Justice League, the ACLU of Massachusetts, Old Dykes, and many others who have consistently raised concerns about transparency, accountability, and the impact these systems have had on our communities. With the recent announcement of 13.47 million in UIC funding, the Metro for the Vetro Boston region, we know discussions about future investments in intelligence and surveillance infrastructure will continue. While that funding has not yet formally uh come before the council, we want to hold this hearing now and lead with community voices and advocates, researchers, and those who are most impacted, so that we have a better understanding before the funding decisions are in front of us. This hearing is an opportunity to better understand BRIC, its impact on our communities, and what oversight and accountability should look like moving forward. I look forward to today's hearing um and learning from the experts who are living the realities and or doing the work, and I want to thank them for their expertise.
openpublica.com