On March 5, San Franciscans will have the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would decide whether or not to make them into guinea pigs for surveillance experiments by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD).
Proposition E purports to streamline the SFPD, with sections on community engagement, recordkeeping, and the department’s vehicle pursuit and use of force policies. But its portion on department use of surveillance technology is troubling.
Under an existing ordinance passed in 2019, the SFPD may only use “surveillance technologies”like surveillance cameras, automatic license plate readers, or cell site simulatorsthat have been approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the city and county legislative body. The process requires that the SFPD, like any other city or county agency, submit a policy to the board for approval before using any new technology. The 2019 ordinance also banned the use of facial recognition technology.
But Prop E adds a clause stipulating that the SFPD “may acquire and/or use a Surveillance Technology so long as it submits a Surveillance Technology Policy to the Board of Supervisors for approval by ordinance within one year of the use or acquisition, and may continue to use that Surveillance Technology after the end of that year unless the Board adopts an ordinance that disapproves the Policy.”
In other words, the SFPD could roll out an unapproved method of surveillance, and it would have free rein to operate within the city for up to a year before ever having to ask city officials for permission. And until the city passes a statute that specifically forbids itthat is, forbidding a technology that is by that point already in usethen the SFPD can keep using it indefinitely.
“Let’s say the SFPD decides they want to buy a bunch of data on people’s geolocation from data brokersthey could do that,” says Saira Hussain, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “They could use drones that are flying at all times above the city. They could use the robot dogs that were piloted at the border. These are all surveillance technologies that the police doesn’t necessarily have right now, and they could acquire it and use it, effectively without any sort of accountability, under this proposition.”
If those scenarios sound implausible, it’s worth noting that they’ve already happened: As Hussain notes, the Department of Homeland Security recently tested robot dogs to help patrol the U.S./Mexico border. And in 2012, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department enlisted civilian aircraft to fly over Compton and surveil the entire area.
Not to mention, federal agencies already routinely purchase people’s cell phone geolocation information and internet metadata without a warrant.
In a sense, Prop E would make San Franciscans into guinea pigs, on whom the SFPD can experiment with all manner of surveillance technology. If that sounds hyperbolic, a member of Mayor London Breed’s staff told the board of supervisors in November 2023 that Prop E “authorizes the department to have a one-year pilot period to experiment, to work through new technology to see how they work.”
The San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee’s description of the proposition notes that it would “authorize the SFPD to use drones and install surveillance cameras without Commission or Board approval, including those with facial recognition technology.”
The ACLU of Northern California calls Prop E “a dangerous and misleading proposal that knocks down three pillars of police reform: oversight, accountability, and transparency.” Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at the EFF, wrote that under Prop E, police could “expose already marginalized and over-surveilled communities to a new and less accountable generation of surveillance technologies.”
Despite these concerns, Prop E has its share of support. Breed defended the proposal, saying “it’s about making sure that our police department, like any other police department around the country, can use 21st century technology.” By January, groups supporting Prop E had raised more than $1 millionten times the amount raised by opponents and considerably more than has been raised for any other proposal on the March ballot.
It also seems to be popular among the public: A January survey released by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce found that 61 percent of San Franciscans favored Prop E, with only 37 percent opposed. (One possible explanation: The same survey found that 69 percent of those polled feel that crime has gotten worse. Recent data indicates that violent crime rose during 2023 even as it declined nationally, and while the rate of property crime fell, state and national rates fell faster.)
San Francisco is no stranger to potentially abusive surveillance practices. In 2022, the board of supervisors passed an ordinance that would allow the SFPD to request and receive real-time access to citizens’ private security camera feeds. While city officials like Breed and newly-appointed District Attorney Brooke Jenkins touted that the ordinance would help crack down on smash-and-grab shoplifting rings, a recent city report detailed that in the third quarter of 2023, the vast majority of requests were for narcotics investigations.
It is rare for art to imitate life quite so literally as Conclave does in the wake of the death of Pope Francis.
The papal drama, which is based on Robert Harris’s book of the same name and directed by Edward Berger, is a fictional take on the closed-door process of appointing a new pontiff, known as a conclave, which is set to begin for real in the Vatican on 5 May.
Cardinals from across the world – depicted in the 2024 film by stars including Ralph Fiennes, John Lithgow and Stanley Tucci – will descend on Rome, where they will be cut off from the outside world until a new pope is chosen.
As with anything given the Hollywood treatment, some elements of the film were added for dramatic effect. The biggest twists (don’t worry, you are safe from major spoilers) were read by some as anti-Catholic propaganda.
But on the whole, Conclave – which took home four BAFTA Awards, including best film, and best adapted screenplay at the Oscars – now feels bizarrely prescient, having been released months before cardinals first became concerned for Pope Francis‘s health.
So how accurately does it depict the highly secretive conclave process?
Image: A conclave to elect Pope Francis’ successor will begin on 5 May. Pic: AP
The basics
On the basics, the film does an accurate job of depicting what we know an actual conclave involves.
Cardinals are seen living, eating and socialising together at a version of the purpose-built Casa Santa Marta, a guesthouse on the grounds of the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican City, which is what will happen at the beginning of next month.
Image: The film’s depiction of cardinals in the Sistine Chapel. Pic: Focus Features/Shutterstock
The film also shows the Sistine Chapel – the famous Vatican hall decorated with the works of Michelangelo – being swept for listening devices before the start of the highly classified morning and evening voting sessions, where cardinals write down the name of the person they wish to become pope.
Berger’s thriller also accurately depicts cardinals putting their votes inside a sealed container – which in real life is a silver urn. Once all votes have been cast, a Vatican dignitary reads the votes aloud.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:38
Cardinals assemble to plan pope funeral
If a two-thirds majority has not been reached, the votes are threaded together and burnt with an additive to produce black smoke, only showing white smoke when enough cardinals agree on a candidate to take over the papacy – details also true to the real process.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:13
The pope’s apartment has been sealed
Internal politics
The film shows clear factions within the group of voting cardinals, with some clearly backing particular candidates more than others, largely depending on their beliefs.
Cardinal Aldo Bellini (played by Tucci) is depicted as the leading liberal candidate, who seeks to reform the church and follow in the footsteps of the late pope. Whereas Cardinal Goffredo Tedesco (played by Sergio Castellitto) is an Italian who represents the church’s conservative wing.
It is true that every pope will have their own beliefs, some of which are seen as more liberal or conservative than others. Pope Francis in fact diverged from his predecessors on many contentious issues within the Church.
He more openly embraced LGBTQ individuals (although stopped short of full acceptance), decried climate change, and called publicly for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Image: Fiennes as Cardinal Lawrence and Stanley Tucci as Cardinal Bellini. Pic: Focus Features 2024
Speaking to Sky News’ Katie Spencerin February after the film’s release, Fiennes said it is “human” how the cardinals are seen positioning themselves for the top role.
“They’re full of pride, ambition, things they’ve kept hidden and I think that’s what’s great [is this film] is not cynical and that’s what drew me to it.”
But Bill Cavanaugh, a professor of Catholic Studies at DePaul University, told The Guardian that the politicisation of the process in the film is likely “a little bit exaggerated”.
He said cardinals do not often fall “neatly into progressive and conservative camps”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:33
‘It’s not a facile takedown of the Catholic Church’
The character of Cardinal Lawrence
Central to the film is Fiennes’ character Cardinal Lawrence, a key dignitary within the Vatican who is tasked with overseeing the fictional conclave.
Cardinal Lawrence is depicted in the film, at times, as fulfilling the roles of both the camerlengo, the person who traditionally takes over the Holy See – the central governing body of the Catholic Church and Vatican City – after the death of a pope, and the dean of the College of Cardinals.
But in reality these are two separate roles.
Image: Pic: Philippe Antonello/Focus Features 2024
After Pope Francis’s death on Monday, Irish-born American Cardinal Kevin Farrell took over the Holy See as camerlengo. The traditional role involves helping to organise the conclave but also includes announcing the pope’s death, sealing the papal apartment and breaking the pontiff’s fisherman’s ring – a sign that there is a vacancy in the Vatican.
Cardinal Farrell will also play a key role in the pope’s funeral, which will take place in Rome on 26 April.
This differs from the dean of the College of Cardinals, who is seen as the “first among equals” – essentially the head of the body of cardinals who elect the new pontiff.
Image: Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell is the camerlengo. Pic: Reuters
Image: Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re is the dean of the College of Cardinals. Pic: Reuters
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re has been in the position since 2020 and will now preside over the general congregation meetings, the gathering of the cardinals currently in Rome, which finalises the details of the pontiff’s funeral and upcoming conclave.
Once a new pontiff is chosen, Cardinal Battista will also be the person to accept the election and ask the newest pope what name he will take.
One of the film’s main characters, Cardinal Vincent Benitez (played by Carlos Diehz), is described as a cardinal in pectore, which refers to the real process of a pope appointing a cardinal in secret.
A pope is entitled to keep the name of the newly elected cardinal secret for various reasons, but they are not officially recognised as a cardinal until their name is known publicly.
Contrary to what the film depicts, cardinals who have only been named in secret cannot take part in a conclave.
A league table of foreign criminals and their offences is set to be published for the first time.
The plans, due to be announced on Tuesday, will reportedly focus on those offenders awaiting deportation from the UK.
The latest data shows there were 19,244 foreign offenders awaiting deportation at the end of 2024, a rise from 17,907 when the Conservatives left office in July and 14,640 at the end of 2022.
Despite more offenders being deported since Labour came to power, the number waiting to be removed from the UK has been growing.
Factors are understood to include the early release of inmates due to prison overcrowding, instability and diplomatic problems in some countries and a backlog of legal cases appealing deportation.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the decision to publish the nationalities of foreign criminals showed Labour had “buckled” under pressure from the Conservatives to disclose the data.
The latest government statistics show there were 10,355 foreign nationals held in custody in England and Wales at the end of 2024, representing 12% of the prison population.
More on Crime
Related Topics:
The most common nationalities after British nationals were Albanian (11%), Polish (8%), Romanian (7%), which also represented the top three nationalities who were deported from the UK in 2024, according to Home Office figures.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is understood to have ordered officials to release the details by the end of the year, according to The Daily Telegraph.
The newspaper reported Ms Cooper overruled Home Office officials, who previously claimed it was too difficult to provide quality data on foreign criminals.
A Home Office source said: “Not only are we deporting foreign criminals at a rate never seen when Chris Philp and Robert Jenrick were in charge at the Home Office, but we will also be publishing far more information about that cohort of offenders than the Tories ever did.”
The source added that ministers wanted “to ensure the public is kept better informed about the number of foreign criminals awaiting deportation, where they are from and the crimes they have committed”.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
Foreign nationals sentenced to 12 months or more in prison are subject to automatic deportation, but the home secretary can also remove criminals if their presence in the UK is not considered desirable.
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick welcomed the news, saying: “We will finally see the hard reality that mass migration is fuelling crime across our country… Frankly, the public deserved to know this [detail on foreign criminals] long ago.”
Sir Keir Starmer and Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke about ending Russia’s “brutal war” on Ukraine in their latest phone call on Easter Monday, as Vladimir Putin said he was open to bilateral talks.
The prime minister and Ukrainian president spoke on Monday afternoon, when Sir Keir “reiterated his iron-clad support for Ukraine“.
A Downing Street spokesperson added that the prime minister “said that the UK supports Ukraine’s calls for Russiato commit to a full ceasefire and that now is the time for Putin to show he is serious about ending his brutal war”.
“They discussed the latest developments on the Coalition of the Willing, and looked forward to further progress towards a just and lasting peace,” the spokesperson added.
Mr Zelenskyy later said on social media that he had a “good and detailed conversation” with the prime minister, and added Ukrainian officials will be in London for talks on ending the war with Russia on Wednesday.
“We are ready to move forward as constructively as possible, just as we have done before, to achieve an unconditional ceasefire, followed by the establishment of a real and lasting peace,” he added.
The Ukrainian president added that the 30-hour Easter truce, which both Kyiv and Moscow accuse the other of violating, showed that Russia “are prolonging the war”.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
It comes as Mr Putin proposed bilateral talks with Ukraine on a longer ceasefire, which would mark the first time Russia held such talks since a failed peace deal soon after the invasion in 2022.
Speaking to a state TV reporter, the Russian president said: “We always have a positive attitude towards a truce, which is why we came up with such an initiative (the Easter truce), especially since we are talking about the bright Easter days.”
When asked about Mr Zelenskyy’s calls to extend the 30-hour ceasefire into a 30-day pause on civilian targets, he added: “This is all a subject for careful study, perhaps even bilaterally. We do not rule this out.”
The Ukrainian president said on Sunday evening that the Russian army had “violated Putin’s ceasefire more than 2,000 times” during the day, and accused Russia of “failing” to “uphold its own promise of a ceasefire”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:17
From Saturday: Why Putin offered an Easter truce?
It also comes after Donald Trump has said he hopes Russia and Ukraine “will make a deal this week,” after he and his secretary of state Marco Rubio warned that the US will walk away from efforts to broker a peace deal unless there are clear signs of progress soon.
The US president said on his Truth Social platform that both countries would “start to do big business” with the US after ending the war.
Last month, Ukraine accepted Mr Trump’s proposal for a 30-day truce, but Mr Putin refused to back a full 30-day ceasefire, saying crucial issues of verification had not been sorted out.
He then said he would agree not to target Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. However, both sides have accused each other of breaking the moratorium on attacks on energy targets and at sea.