any people think of racism in America as something strictly historical, like that collection of dusty Ku Klux Klan robes found in the closet of the Mississippi Public Safety Department, a discovery that sparked some outrage last spring, but for some felt like only relics from a long-gone era. While it’s important to consider how past events set the stage for today, these narratives, when isolated, can lead some to assume that prejudice is long gone. But new technological advances expose racism as something that changes. It does not disappear, like steam escaping after you take the lid off a pot of rice, but lingers like the smell of fried catfish, even after the meal is over.

The uncomfortable truth is that Black people are not given an equal opportunity to survive and thrive in this country. And those whose eyes are trained to see racism in only its explicit, most extreme forms, such as someone using racist slurs, hanging “whites only” signs in front of their businesses, or committing a violent hate crime, may miss all the subtle ways in which prejudice persists in modern times. In terms of technology, consider the rising popularity of Flock cameras and other automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems that collect identifying information, such as license plate numbers and the vehicle's color, make, and model. While seemingly neutral, Flock cameras have helped to streamline the process of racially profiling Black people.

For example, data from Oak Park, Illinois, showed that 84% of drivers stopped in Flock-related traffic incidents were Black, which is outrageous given that they make up only approximately 19% of the local population. An Electronic Frontier Foundation report suggested police officers use language when searching through Flock video logs that “mirrors long-standing patterns of discriminatory policing.” For instance, officers used phrases such as “suspicious behavior” or “high crime area” to justify additional surveillance in predominantly Black, Latine, and Native communities. They also found that officers targeted ethnic minorities, such as Romani people, by using terms such as “Roma” or “g*psy.”

Mass surveillance is concerning in its own right, but when used in a society where prejudice against Black people persists, it’s a recipe for disaster. For example, law enforcement agencies are growing increasingly dependent on facial recognition software. Before this technological advancement, investigators relied on eyewitnesses, but White people frequently misidentified Black people, contributing to wrongful arrests and convictions. In one high-profile case, the author of Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold, wrongfully identified a Black man as someone who raped her in 1981, causing him to spend 16 years in prison. This is not an isolated problem, and research suggests racial bias among White people “can increase the false identification of Black faces in simultaneous lineups (Vitriol et al., 2019).

Now, with law enforcement increasingly relying on automated facial recognition technology, Black people are at an even greater risk of being misidentified. While companies have marketed facial recognition software as reliable and trustworthy, these flashpoints overlook the high rate of inaccuracy of facial recognition software when these models are used to identify Black people and other people of color. For example, one investigation showed that three unique algorithms developed by IBM and Microsoft “performed the worst on darker-skinned females, with error rates up to 34% higher than for lighter-skinned males.” Some may assume that using an automated facial recognition system can take the guesswork out of identifying those suspected of committing a crime, and that it would eliminate the risk of racial bias or outright racism associated with eyewitnesses. Yet, facial recognition technology tends to misidentify Black people, particularly those with dark skin tones, at a much higher rate than other racial groups.

Black people have already experienced injustices due to automated facial recognition software. In fact, nearly all of the victims of false arrests due to the use of this technology so far are Black people. A couple of high-profile cases include Michael Oliver, a 25-year-old Black man arrested by Detroit police officers in July of 2019 after a program claimed he was a thief who stole a teacher’s cell phone. The system confused him for a student, so officers dropped the charges. During the following January, a Black man named Robert Williams was arrested by the same police department and charged with stealing a luxury watch, but after thirty hours, officers discovered the automated system had confused him with another Black man with a similar body type. Given that Black people in America are more likely to be wrongfully accused and convicted of crimes, this technology could worsen the problem.

Modern-day racism is streamlined by surveillance technology. Consider, for instance, how ankle monitors worn by individuals as instructed by state and federal law enforcement agencies are reminiscent of the shackles worn by enslaved Africans. Both devices were designed to confine an individual and prevent them from leaving an assigned area, but with the Global Positioning System, satellite-based technology better known by its acronym GPS, law enforcement agencies can locate someone with great precision. While the enslaved could escape under the cover of night, and with the right sense of direction, luck, and support from others, this technology makes it nearly impossible for someone to evade authorities. Some would argue that this technology is needed, without considering the racial injustices within the criminal justice system.

Evidence suggests ankle monitors are disproportionately used on Black people. A 2020 report found that in Marion County, Indiana, approximately half of the people in the pretrial program, individuals required to wear an ankle monitor, were Black, despite making up approximately 29% of the county’s population. In Cook County, Illinois, the disparity was even worse, with 70% of the electronic monitoring (EM) population being Black, despite making up 29% of the county’s population. To give one more example, in San Francisco, where Black people make up roughly 5% of the population, approximately 44% of those subjected to electronic monitoring were Black. It’s not the technology itself, in this case, that’s causing the problem, but how it’s used that perpetuates racist outcomes.

Just as law enforcement agencies are more likely to keep tabs on Black Americans by using ankle monitors, the same can be said about federal immigration agencies keeping tabs on Black immigrants. For example, after the Trump administration removed the temporary protected status from thousands of Haitians living in Ohio, immigration enforcement agencies have targeted Haitians for deportation. And many of those who stayed were required to wear ankle monitors. Placing digital shackles on Black immigrants provides a startling contrast to the treatment of White immigrants, such as those White South Africans welcomed by the Trump administration, who were practically given red carpet treatment, without the presumption that they represented a security threat.

Racism is not only a historical phenomenon. Indeed, law enforcement using Flock cameras to locate and stop Black drivers at a disproportionate rate, facial recognition software proven to misidentify dark-skinned people more frequently than White people, and electronic ankle monitors used more readily on Black people than members of other racial groups demonstrate that racism and bias have evolved with technological advancements. This technology has also been cited in cases where women faced harassment, as illustrated by the dozens of officers accused of, in some cases, being charged after misusing Flock video footage by stalking or monitoring individuals for personal reasons. The use of mass surveillance technology is a problem in its own right, especially in a country where the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects people from “unreasonable searches,” but it’s important to acknowledge that this technology leaves Black people and other marginalized groups uniquely vulnerable. In a society where racism persists, the constant watchful eye of authorities presents a security threat to black communities.