Seattle Moves Forward with Surveillance Expansion Despite Lack of Pilot Data, Raises Federal Access Concerns

Seattle Considers Controversial Surveillance Technologies with Flawed Approval Process from Hacks & Wonks

“Harrell Pushes to Expand Recently Passed Surveillance Camera Pilot Program” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“License Plate Readers Proliferate in Washington, Bringing Concerns over ICE Overreach” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist

“ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows” by Jason Koebler from 404 Media

“CBP Had Access to More than 80,000 Flock AI Cameras Nationwide” by Jason Koebler from 404 Media

“Seattle police say they arrested innocent man in deadly Wallingford fire” by Sara Jean Green from Seattle Times

“D.C. Takeover Shows How Cities Can Lose Control of Surveillance” by Nikki Davidson from Government Technology

“Exclusive: A Washington state agency is sharing drivers' private data with ICE” by Kristin Goodwillie from King 5

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I’m your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work, with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what you can do about it.

Now, back in February 2024, we covered Seattle's proposed surveillance pilot - a package of ShotSpotter, CCTV cameras, and Real-Time Crime Center software. Community advocates and civil rights groups raised concerns that these technologies would do little to improve safety, while creating new risks for abuse. ShotSpotter was eventually defeated, but CCTV cameras and the Real-Time Crime Center moved forward. Now, the City is considering expanding that program. Supporters argue that these tools help police respond faster and investigate crimes more effectively. Critics worry that the expansion could create an infrastructure that federal agencies might use to target vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people seeking reproductive health care, and those traveling for gender-affirming or abortion services. The debate reflects a larger tension between promises of safety and concerns about surveillance, overreach, and harm. To help us sort through how the pilot has gone, what's being proposed now, and what's at stake in this next phase, we're joined by Amy Sundberg, the public safety reporter for The Urbanist and publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, which covers local politics and public safety news in the greater Seattle area. I am a big fan and a consistent reader of Notes from the Emerald City and, of course, The Urbanist, which I'm on the board of. Welcome, Amy - thank you for joining us again.

[00:02:03] Amy Sundberg: Thank you for having me, especially to talk about such an important topic.

[00:02:07] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Now, let's talk about this pilot that was passed and recap a little bit. What was the pilot? What was included? And what was the goal?

[00:02:19] Amy Sundberg: All right. So, the original proposal included three main types of technology. It included a gun detection technology - most famous is ShotSpotter. It included CCTV cameras to be put in three different areas of the city. And it included a Real-Time Crime Center, which is basically a software suite that brings different feeds of information - a lot of camera feeds and then any other data - into one big screen in kind of a central command center hub room that is in SPD. As well, last year, there was a massive expansion of license plate readers within Seattle Police Department's fleet. Before last year, they only, I think, had 11 - and they expanded it to every vehicle in their fleet. Not all of that passed. In particular, the gun detection software - the ShotSpotter or ShotSpotter-like feature - was dropped from the pilot. But we got CCTV cameras, we got the Real-Time Crime Center, and we got all of these license plate readers. The initial stated purpose for this pilot - it was called a crime prevention pilot - and it was meant to specifically prevent gun violence, to prevent human trafficking, and to prevent serious felony crime.

[00:03:46] Crystal Fincher: Now, when it comes to pilots and goals of pilots, this is a Council - and this is the 2024 Council, so think beginning of last year, not this current composition - but a Council that had made a number of statements about the importance of following the data, of wanting to see evidence of success, especially given the limited resources that the City is dealing with and its deficit. That if they are going to spend money, they're going to need to see that it is achieving its stated objectives and goals. And so, given that that was the goal, did they have ways to measure it? Did they say or set benchmarks or timelines for how the evaluation was going to go?

[00:04:32] Amy Sundberg: Kind of. The answer is kind of. They are contracting, I think, with the University of Pennsylvania to do an evaluation. When I last covered this - which maybe about a month ago - I don't think they had quite signed that contract yet. But it was in progress, it was moving along. But I think thus far, they have touted that the Real-Time Crime Center has helped them to answer over a thousand 911 calls, which is not what it was sold to do. They've given some anecdotal stories of ways that they've used the CCTV cameras and the Real-Time Crime Center - and PubliCola has also done some great reporting about this, as well as myself. Their anecdotal stories don't seem to have much to do with gun violence or human trafficking. And then what we saw just before summer recess at the City Council was an apparent effort to move the goalposts in terms of the goal of this pilot. Because, as I stated, it was originally said that its intent was to prevent these very serious crimes. But when Councilmember Rinck wanted to include some language in the University of Penn contract, stipulating that that would be something that they would measure, several of the councilmembers were like - Oh, we don't know, that's not necessarily what we want to measure. Which, to me, was a big red flag that perhaps people have not been as upfront as one would hope.

[00:06:07] Crystal Fincher: Now, when it comes to the goal of this program, I think it's fair to say that most people do want crime to go down, right? That this is a concern for a lot of people. They're concerned about not just violent crime, but there's a lot of traffic violence that also occurs that there have been many high profile incidences of. So if this can help that, any kind of violent harm, things that happen on the street, I think a lot of people are thinking - Hey, if there's an additional tool that helps us to track this down, that's a positive thing. And aren't we hearing about a shortage of police anyway? So could this stand in the gap? And if there is a problem with not enough police, and there's a tool or tools that they can use to help expand their coverage, reduce response times, clearance rates, really help prevent and solve crime - that sounds great and is something that a lot of people would want to see. Is there reason to think that this will or will not accomplish the goal of what they set forth at the beginning - reducing gun violence, reducing human trafficking and exploitation, and violent crime? Has there been any data and similar examples that this has helped other police departments in that way in delivering on those goals?

[00:07:32] Amy Sundberg: I completely agree that, especially these very serious, violent crimes are so important and people are concerned about it, and rightfully so. I don't think that the evidence thus far backs up that these technologies will really achieve much in terms of reducing that. In particular, CCTV cameras, the studies that have been done do show that they might reduce property crime a little bit. And especially like in parking lots, things like that. But the evidence doesn't show that CCTV cameras reduces violent crime. As well, in terms of clearance rates - so that's how many cases the police solve - having the Real-Time Crime Center has a very minor effect on solving more violent crimes. There haven't been that many studies done, but there has been one study and it was a 5% increase - which is pretty small.

[00:08:31] Crystal Fincher: And I think a lot of people are measuring what they could get for that kind of reduction, given that there are other well-known interventions that are being used by other public safety departments and communities across the country - that may cost less, but accomplish more - and that being part of the conversation. As well as the concern that there's proponents of this talking about the potential or proposed benefits, but not talking about some well-documented harms and concerns that a lot of people have. What are those concerns? And what does make people hesitant or fearful in terms of what has happened with surveillance before?

[00:09:15] Amy Sundberg: Exactly. I do think that often the calculation of harm is left out of the conversation entirely. And even if a technology has minor benefits, you have to weigh the pros and cons when considering whether to use it. In terms of harms that this technology can cause, a lot of privacy advocates and civil liberty advocates are very concerned. And I think up until now, a lot of that concern has felt very theoretical to people or hard to visualize. But we are beginning to see on the ground how that looks in practice. So things people have been concerned about have been, for example, putting at higher risk people who are seeking reproductive care such as abortions, people who are seeking gender-affirming care, immigrants - especially immigrants who might be seeking services, which is pretty common - people who are exercising their right of free speech or to protest can be tracked by this technology. And also, I think it does change the character of a place when people know that they are being surveilled - there are studies about this - so it just, it makes people feel different. With this pilot in Seattle specifically, there's also a real concern that community hasn't really been heard, nor have they been well informed about what's going on. And we can see - I mean, what's happening this year, 2025 - the Council is attempting to expand this pilot, which has only been live for a few months, to be clear. It went live in May. And by the end of July, we were talking about adding more cameras, more zones where cameras could be placed. And also tapping into SDOT traffic management cameras and having those feed into SPD's Real-Time Crime Center as well, which would be huge - it's 365 new cameras, just from SDOT's cameras alone.

[00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: Let's pause for a second right there - because that, I think, is something that may be flying under the radar. That this pilot just started a few months - and especially after making such a big deal of needing to gather data and evidence that shows that this is actually working - we're just getting started. There is no data or evidence collected, doesn't even sound like there's a contract signed yet to get it done. And they're just pushing forward without any evidence that this is delivering on what its goals and promises are, ways to refine it, improve it. They're just looking at an expansion right now.

[00:12:04] Amy Sundberg: I have to admit, Crystal, my mind was blown. We got the news that the Real-Time Crime Center went live. And it must have been two or three weeks later that I got the news that new paperwork had been filed for this expansion. And then it's taken a little while to trickle through the system, but it was not even a month later that I first heard that this was a possibility. So, yeah, I have to say - in spite of the fact that I feel like I am a somewhat cynical person at this point due to the reporting I do, I was shocked.

[00:12:39] Crystal Fincher: So what is the justification that they're giving for moving forward prematurely on a pilot whose goal is to get data and they haven't gotten any data? How are they addressing that?

[00:12:52] Amy Sundberg: I think that this crime prevention pilot has been packaged as a way to deal with crime and disorder in the city. And so, more is better. At least that's kind of the message that I've gotten listening to all these meetings and what various elected officials are saying. And I will say that it only grows from here. The person at SPD who's kind of in charge of this initiative - his name is Captain Britt - he said to the Council a few weeks ago that this is just a start and that he wants to ultimately talk to as many City departments as he can, who might be operating cameras already, about pulling in their feeds into the Real-Time Crime Center as well. And that he listed the possibility of using Parks Department cameras, Seattle Public Library cameras, and government partner cameras such as the Port of Seattle and the King County Sheriff's Office, including their partnership with Sound Transit. SPD is also looking into potentially feeding in private cameras from businesses and individuals who would give them permission to tap into that live footage. So we're talking about a big expansion as it is, and it can just continue to grow. There was not very much time given to let community know about this proposed expansion. And I actually spoke with someone from Whose Streets? Our Streets! who - they've been doing community surveys all summer of, particularly people of color, talking with them about surveillance. And one of the main findings that they have discovered is that a lot of people just have no idea that it's even happening, or they don't understand it. And the other finding was that people are scared.

[00:14:48] Crystal Fincher: Which makes sense. I think when people think of surveillance cameras, they sometimes think about their own context for it. So, hey, I can put a Ring camera or whatever camera on my front door, see everything there. And people are finding that helpful, and finding that as an extra layer of both security and comfort - that they can keep an eye on things while they're gone, that it's been helpful. And most people are only looking if something happens that they're looking for, if something directly pertains to them. And so if they're thinking in that same context, they're going - What's the big deal? We'll have more eyes on things. We'll have some evidence. But I don't think, to your point, that people realize that this means if you get in a car, or are in a car at any time in Seattle, you're being tracked. And your whereabouts, your origin and destination are being tracked and known under what's being proposed. And so where you are going, who else goes there, what occurs there - can put together a web of information about you specifically that is then potentially able to be accessed by a variety of people and organizations at a time when we know that federal authorities are using this to track down immigrants, to track down and seeking information about people going out-of-state to seek abortion care, gender-affirming care, and collecting information on people associated with them. And so if someone goes somewhere, it's not just that they're tracking that person going to, say, a health clinic, but everyone else who goes to that health clinic also - and identifying places and networks of people. And what can be done by that - by people who have nefarious intentions - is very concerning now that we see people on the streets with power and access to data that have nefarious intentions, that are seeking access to more. How is this concern being addressed? How is it being brought to the Council?

[00:17:11] Amy Sundberg: I would say that it is not being meaningfully addressed. People have been coming and giving public comment. Like I said, this has been less publicized, so it is not a huge number of people who are doing so. But certainly, every time it's being discussed, there are people that are showing up and bringing up these concerns. Councilmember Rinck has been trying to add some amendments to try to, I would say, do some harm reduction in this space. It's tough, though, for a number of reasons. If you speak with a lot of experts, like I have done, what you end up hearing a lot is - if the data is collected at all, it is really hard to protect it and make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. I heard someone call data - It's inherently leaky, they said. Like, it's really hard to contain it. Once it's collected, it's just, it's a kettle of fish.

As well, I've heard a lot of people say - Well, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you're going to be fine. Unfortunately, that is not actually the case. And we have a recent case right here in Seattle that illustrates that. There is a young man who was arrested in an arson case due to CCTV camera footage. And he ended up being held in jail for about a month. And he worked for Amazon - he had the money to hire a lawyer. So this was someone who, in some ways, was in a better position than the most disadvantaged people in our city - because he could hire a lawyer, right? And still, he was held in jail for a month. And then they found that the actual footage of whoever it was that perpetrated the arson didn't really match how he looked at all. And there were all these things that didn't fit together, but it took his lawyer to eventually convince the police and the lawyers to drop the case. Meanwhile, he's in jail for a month, which is a big deal. Like, that completely disrupts your life. It's very traumatic. If he had any medical conditions, it's very hard to get proper medications and treatments when you're inside jail. So that can be the beginning of a tailspin for a lot of people. And yet, as it turns out, this man appears to have been completely innocent, didn't do a thing wrong - and still having this camera footage really, really damaged his life.

[00:19:52] Crystal Fincher: Well, and that's the concern - is that - what is this actually resulting in? Which we could find out a lot more information if we completed a trial before trying to move on with a very broad and wide and costly expansion here. I think that there are other examples of - that people have - when they're looking at this. One of them that comes to mind is the example of a hit-and-run on Lake Washington Boulevard of a teenager who was hit. The driver drove away - we've talked about this on this show before - and the bike was stuck underneath the car. The driver just continued to drive. And they were trying to figure out who it was and what happened. They sought CCTV footage - that was found. And so it was like - Okay, we've had several hit-and-runs. Here's one that we are actually getting the information from. And it resulted in nothing - no charges were brought. And so people are going - Well, what good are these cameras for? What good is touting this all for? When, if we get evidence, it's not actually resulting in any justice and any accountability? And wondering - Okay, so what are we spending this money for, if we're not using it to solve and to address the things that are actually harming people on the streets, what is going on? There was another comment by someone else the other day going - There is a CCTV there that they're supposedly monitoring, and it didn't keep my car from getting broken into. And so I'm sure there are anecdotes that happen - but we're getting a smattering of anecdotes, many of them troubling. It would be great to apply some firm data, based on some firm and clear metrics of progress or success. But they aren't even doing that. And so, given that there is such a mixed experience, it seems premature to move forward with this. But it looks like that is happening. So what is this timeline that the Council is considering for this expansion?

[00:22:06] Amy Sundberg: Well, it is mostly over. They've already done most of their process. And we are anticipating a final full Council vote, I think, on September 9th, which is a Tuesday, at 2.30 p.m. It's already passed out of committee. So that would be the last vote that is necessary to kind of push this forward. This expansion of cameras into three new areas, which include kind of around the stadiums, around Capitol Hill - around Cal Anderson Park to the west and south - and then around Garfield High School. There'll be new cameras put there, and that will cost about a million dollars to do that. And yeah, they're set for a final vote on September 9th.

One of the things that I found, again, somewhat incredible was that at the last Public Safety meeting, where they voted this out of committee - that took place the day after President Trump took over Washington, D.C., and took over their police department. So this discussion happened literally the next day. So maybe people hadn't had time to process kind of the greater implications of what that could mean. But I'm happy to share that here, which is that D.C. is a blue city. And they have a brand new, shiny Real-Time Crime Center, similar to our shiny, new Real-Time Crime Center - although with many, many more cameras, because D.C. is quite large. And as far as we know, at this point, the feds potentially have access and control over that surveillance system. If you've been following what's happening in D.C. right now, we know that they're cracking down and arresting a lot more immigrants than before they took over. And not only that, but I heard an interview with the head of the D.C. police officers guild - I think he's the chairman, maybe not the president, but the chairman. He gave an interview and he's like - Yeah, we're welcoming the feds in. We're happy that they're here. Like, thank goodness, they're coming and they'll clean up this mess. So the police department is actually cooperating, or at least many of the members of the police department are happy this is happening. So D.C. is a bit of a special case because it is not its own state, so there are some special rules that apply to D.C. that wouldn't apply to a city like Seattle. But, I mean, what we've been hearing since the D.C. takeover, which was a few weeks ago, is Trump and his cronies threatening to take over police departments in other blue cities, specifically. They've called out Chicago. They've called out New York. Donald Trump Jr. has specifically called out Seattle. So we're kind of dealing in an environment where things are maybe not as predictable as they normally are. They're a little bit more chaotic. And things are possible that maybe people are not used to thinking about as being possible, including federal takeover of police departments.

[00:25:31] Crystal Fincher: Exactly. Just last week, Tom Homan, the border czar for the White House, visited Seattle. They've stated that this is an intention. And they've also, from the federal perspective, stated and have acted and pursued contracts to make use of, to collect and analyze this surveillance data. And to build dossiers, particularly targeting immigrants. But we've seen states like Texas and others also indicate the desire to do that to enforce a variety of their laws and initiatives, including going after people seeking reproductive care, seeking gender-affirming care, and just participating in whatever behavior they decide that they want to classify as criminal in the current context. So, this is a real and present concern. And once you set up this data apparatus, it's hard to keep the horses in the stable and them not escaping when it comes to other entities accessing that data. And that's another lesson that we've learned locally, because the Department of Licensing was discovered by King 5 to be giving ICE and other Homeland Security Departments access to driver's license and vehicle information. Even though we have a state law that says that's not supposed to happen, it happened. The Urbanist - you - reported that license plate reader data has been shared across the country by the King County Housing Authority, with an audit suggesting that the data has been used to assist ICE. So it's not theoretical that this data currently being collected in the state, in King County, is being accessed by federal authorities. And that the guardrails that people have the confidence in to prevent this are not always proving to be sufficient.

Which I also think is concerning people - that Seattle has some guardrails that they've talked about that are supposed to make sure this isn't doing harm to communities of color, to vulnerable populations, that this is being implemented in an equitable way. And statements from councilmembers and timelines, especially an accelerated expansion before a pilot has even completed shortly after it was started, that make people think that - Wow, they aren't even taking the guardrails very seriously, so that this is being implemented in a way that is not assured to be safe, while we already know that these guardrails sometimes aren't enough. Just seems like there's a lot of justified concern, a lot of breaches of trust in the law and data that has happened here in Seattle and King County, specifically with so many more examples of this across the country - that it just seems very premature, very concerning, and setting a lot of Seattle residents up for potential harm by pressing forward with this in this way right now.

[00:28:57] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, the timing is very interesting. When this pilot was first being discussed last year, I personally thought - Well, we don't know what's going to happen with the presidential election. Like, what's the hurry? Why don't we just wait and see and then maybe make some decisions? We did not do that, clearly. But now, even though we have Trump in office and we have ICE very well-funded, through the Big Beautiful Bill, and building up this huge surveillance apparatus that I have been tracking on Notes from the Emerald City and at The Urbanist as well. It is surprising that this isn't being brought up as part of the conversation - in some ways. In other ways, perhaps not, because when the original pilot passed in 2024, there was a lot of resistance to it. There were, I don't know, hundreds of pages of community comments from people who were worried about initiating the pilot. The Community Surveillance Working Group for the City - which is a voluntary board, basically, who evaluates surveillance in the City of Seattle - did not recommend that the City go forward with this pilot. There was only one member out of all the members on that group that thought it was okay. So it was very strongly - it wasn't like, divided. And the Office of Civil Rights, Seattle's Office of Civil Rights, also looked into it - and they did not think it was a good idea either. In spite of all of this, which all took place last year before that final vote on the pilot, the pilot passed. And here we are. This time, there has been even less done - because it's an expansion, instead of putting in a bunch of new technologies - but it is really worrisome.

And we also have to remember that Seattle Police Department - it had the most members who attended the January 6th insurrection of any police department in the country. And Mike Solan, who is the president of SPOG, the police officers guild union - that's for the rank-and-file officers of SPD - he actually was the person who was interviewing the head of the D.C. police guild on his podcast. And he said, on that podcast - this is Mike Solan, he's in Seattle, he was elected by a majority of the rank-and-file SPD officers. He said, "Pay attention to what's happening in the District of Columbia, because it is the blueprint of what you're going to see nationwide when it comes to the Trump administration's public safety actions." So I think from that, we can extrapolate that at least some number of our officers at SPD would - like the D.C. police officers - welcome the feds in and welcome ICE in. I don't really see how else you could construe that statement.

[00:32:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And not only welcome them in, but even potentially before they're officially in, just welcome the sharing of data. They don't have to necessarily be here on the ground to use this data, collect this data, integrate it with the tools of surveillance that they already have and the dossiers that they're trying to build, particularly on immigrants - to use that for targeted actions and leverage and pressure on the City of Seattle. It just seems like it's not theoretical when the head of Seattle Police Officers Guild is saying this. And, to your point, so many officers seem to be aligned. And yet, we're powering forward and accelerating a pilot before we have any data. You know, it just kind of makes me think of a number of issues that we've talked about at length here, whether it be attempting to lower the minimum wage for gig drivers, whether it is defunding the Equitable Development Initiative programs - a number of things - trying to reduce renter protections here in the city. That seem to run counter to both public sentiment - if you judge by polling and election results, in the ways that we see tangible expressions of public sentiment, as well as direct community feedback. A lot of feedback by the very people who they've designated as experts, like the Office of Civil Rights, like their advisory boards that they have - and everybody is throwing up caution signs and raising red flags. And they're pressing forward anyway, without a lot of the data that they have said in other contexts for stuff that both costs less and has less risk. So why they're pushing on in defiance of public sentiment is confounding. Why do you think they're doing that?

[00:34:21] Amy Sundberg: I mean, I think probably they're hoping that a lot of people are so overwhelmed with other things. And with national news, frankly. And then with their own life stuff - dealing with the affordability crisis - that perhaps they're not paying that much attention locally. I will say I spend a lot of time listening to elected officials speak, and there is a lot of rhetoric around Seattle values - and how we care about one another and we take care of one another. And you don't always see those words being reflected in action. I'm thinking in particular - before the summer recess, the Council was voting on their supplemental budget, which is kind of like their interim budget to fix things in the middle of the year before they do the next big budget. And Councilmember Rinck had identified $300,000 that was underspend for the SCORE Jail contracts. So they're not going to spend that money, right? That's what underspend means. That money is not going to be spent on that jail, they don't need it. So it's sitting there, available for use. And she found it. And she wanted to use it to help defend immigrant and refugee children. Because a lot of people are being rounded up in our community right now, so there was a lot more need for legal aid and legal defense of immigrants. And this is specifically for kids who otherwise won't have a lawyer when they go into immigration court - and they'll just be all by themselves - which is just horrifying, right? This is what this money is for. There was a vote on the money. And it did pass, which was amazing. But it was not unanimous. Two councilmembers voted against taking $300,000 that had no other use - it wasn't being used - to spend defending kids. And yet we talk about our Seattle values. Like, you have to kind of look at how people are acting versus what they're saying, I think, when it comes to politics.

[00:36:32] Crystal Fincher: Who were those councilmembers?

[00:36:35] Amy Sundberg: It was Councilmember Rob Saka and Councilmember Maritza Rivera.

[00:36:42] Crystal Fincher: Very concerning. So for people who want to engage with this, we talked about - this has passed out of committee. A final vote looks scheduled for September 9th, which is fast approaching. What can people do in the short amount of time, if they want to voice their opinions and communicate to the Council about this vote?

[00:37:07] Amy Sundberg: Yeah, the main things they can do immediately - they can give public comment at that meeting at 2.30p on September 9th at City Hall, or you can call in remotely. They can email their councilmembers. They can email the Mayor's Office. I suggest emailing everybody - personally - it's not that much harder to add another email address. I also think that it would be helpful - this is going to be an ongoing issue, right? I've been covering this since the beginning of last year, but even before that - we have fights about ShotSpotter pretty much every budget cycle. Thus far, we haven't gotten ShotSpotter, but it's always feels a little tenuous as to what's going to happen with that. So this is an ongoing issue. So while I encourage everybody to weigh in now if they have thoughts, I also feel like this is something that deserves attention on an ongoing basis. I think that it should be made an issue in campaign season. Right now, we have the mayoral election coming up. We have citywide positions for the City Council and the District 2 seat coming up. I think all the candidates should be asked what they think about this. And if they support the surveillance, what their justification is. Or why they aren't concerned that something like what happened in D.C. could happen here. Or why they aren't concerned that ICE is tapping into a lot of this surveillance data in other places. And I think people should continue to learn about this, discuss this, and bring it up in the groups in which they're already involved.

[00:38:43] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Well, we will continue to follow this, certainly. We'll continue to follow your excellent reporting - you've been on top of this the entire time, which we appreciate. And we'll see how this goes. But yeah, certainly an issue to continue to pay attention to. Thanks so much for joining us today.

[00:39:04] Amy Sundberg: Thank you for having me.

[00:39:06] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Bluesky @HacksAndWonks. You can find me on Bluesky at @finchfrii - that's F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.