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.