WITTEN TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE OKOH
Senior Attorney, Civil Rights & Technology
TechTonic Justice
City Council of Philadelphia
Technology and Information Standing Committee
Public Hearing on Artificial Intelligence
Chair Landau, Vice-Chair Squilla & Members of the Committee,
Introduction
As we gather, over 92 million poor and working-class people in the United States will have some
basic human needs regulated by artificial intelligence and automated decisionmaking systems. 1
This represents one of the most consequential transformations in democratic governance in
modern American history. The results have been catastrophic. Life-saving Medicaid services
have been cut by faulty algorithms. Students placed on secret police databases due to predictive
policing models. Federal databases exploited by law enforcement to surveil immigrant families
and suppress political dissidents. 2 Automated policing technologies used to track pregnant
people across state lines. 3 And major American cities are experimenting with mass biometric
surveillance systems to track our faces across networks of public and private cameras–effectively
ending privacy as we know it. 4 This is not an Orwellian fantasy. This is a civil and human rights
crisis enabled by the rise of artificial intelligence in America’s public institutions. The City of
Philadelphia must meet this critical moment and set a new national standard by placing civil
and human rights at the foundation of AI and digital policy.
My name is Clarence Okoh. I am the Senior Attorney for Civil Rights and Technology at
TechTonic Justice, a new national organization that strengthens local justice movements and
4 Douglas MacMillan, New Orleans Pushes to Legalize Police Use of ‘Facial Surveillance,’ THE WASHINGTON
POST, June 12, 2025,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/12/facial-recognition-new-orleans-artificial-intelli
gence/.
3 Dave Maass and Rindala Alajaji, Flock Safety and Texas Sheriff Claimed License Plate Search Was for a
Missing Person. It Was an Abortion Investigation., ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Oct. 7, 2025),
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/flock-safety-and-texas-sheriff-claimed-license-plate-search-was-
missing-person-it.
2 Dell Cameron, ICE Wants to Build Out a 24/7 Social Media Surveillance Team, Wired,
https://www.wired.com/story/ice-social-media-surveillance-24-7-contract/ (last visited Oct. 14, 2025);
William Turton Asher-Schapiro Christopher Bing,Avi, The IRS Is Building a Vast System to Share
Millions of Taxpayers’ Data With ICE, ProPublica (July 15, 2025),
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-share-tax-records-ice-dhs-deportations.
1 Inescapable AI, TECHTONIC JUSTICE, https://www.techtonicjustice.org/reports/inescapable-ai (last visited
Oct. 14, 2025).
builds long-term power with the people that AI leaves behind. My work addresses the
consequences of emerging technologies on the rights and freedoms of vulnerable people. In my
work, I use a variety of tools, including litigation, research, and organizing, to address how
artificial intelligence and automated decision-making reproduce racial and social inequality. I
have pursued this work across academia, government, and civil society, including my time at the
Civil Rights Division of the New York State Attorney General’s Office, as a member of the
inaugural cohort of Just Tech Fellows at the Social Science Research Council, and as the first
attorney to spearhead tech and digital justice initiatives at the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund. I am also a co-founder of the NOTICE Coalition: No Tech Criminalization in
Education, a national network of advocates, researchers, and organizers fighting to defend youth
justice in the digital age. I have worked on a breadth of AI and civil rights issues impacting Black
and Brown communities, including fair housing, fair lending, employment discrimination, state
surveillance, and censorship. My recent work has focused explicitly on the impact of these
technologies on youth and young adults of color, especially in educational settings.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify, especially at this urgent moment. For the remainder of
my time, I would like to focus my remarks on three topics: 1) the emerging threats presented by
federal authorities that seek to weaponize AI against vulnerable communities, 2) the real-world
consequences of AI injustice in the lives of vulnerable people, including children, and 3)
recommendations for local policymakers to protect our communities from AI injustice.
Federal Authorities Seek to Weaponize AI Against the Vulnerable
a. Recission of Biden-era Guidance on AI and Civil Rights
The challenges our communities face from emerging technologies are growing exponentially
due, in part, to threats from federal authorities. Federal policymakers have reversed course on
key civil and human rights protections developed under the Biden administration, including the
White House Blueprint for AI Bill of Rights and the Office of Management and Budget’s 2024
Memorandum on Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in
Government, among many other federal civil rights guidance from the Departments of Justice,
Education, and Health and Human Services. 5 Taken together, these measures sought to
establish a new national standard for AI use in the public sector by requiring federal agencies to
promote transparency in their use of artificial intelligence and automated decisionmaking
systems, especially those that impact fundamental rights and public safety. These
groundbreaking protections were effectively eliminated earlier this year.
b. Data Privacy Threats
Throughout this year, federal authorities have made unprecedented efforts to access
legally-protected federal databases containing sensitive information for nearly every individual
in the country. Since January, there have been almost a dozen lawsuits brought in federal courts
challenging federal authorities for alleged violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. 6 Advocates have
6 Privacy Act Lawsuits and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE),
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11370 (last visitelegally protectedd Oct. 14, 2025).
5 See e.g., Civil Rights Division | Artificial Intelligence and Civil Rights, (Mar. 11, 2024),
https://www.justice.gov/archives/crt/ai.
warned of the potential disastrous consequences of federal attempts to consolidate access to
sensitive data held by agencies such as the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue
Service, and the Department of Education–especially in light of reporting that reveals greater
interest from federal immigration authorities in using these data for surveillance and law
enforcement purposes. 7
c. OBBBA Implementation
Advocates are also deeply concerned about the prospects of AI and automation in the
implementation of HR1, the federal tax and spending bill enacted earlier this year, which cuts
Medicaid by $1 trillion and may cause as many as 15 million people to lose health insurance. Key
changes to Medicaid and SNAP impose work requirements and shorter eligibility periods —
changes that will likely expand the administrative burden on individuals and state agencies. The
brief window available to implement these changes, combined with the dramatic funding cuts,
will likely push states to increase the use of AI and automated decision-making in Medicaid,
SNAP, and other impacted programs. The administration has encouraged public agencies to
adopt artificial intelligence to the greatest extent possible through measures including Executive
Order 14179, Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, and Executive
Order 14319, Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government, as well as the White House AI
Action Plan.
Legal Challenges to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government
Federal authorities seek to weaponize AI against the vulnerable despite growing evidence that AI
is increasingly used in systemic rights violations. In the last decade, federal courts have
scrutinized the use of these systems. For example, the Fourth Circuit ruled in 2021 that an AI
drone surveillance used by the Baltimore Police Department systematically violated the Fourth
Amendment Rights of residents. 8 Federal courts in Arkansas ruled that a state agency’s use of an
algorithm to determine eligibility for certain Medicaid services violated the 14th Amendment’s
guarantee of due process. 9 Federal courts in Boston raised questions about surveillance practices
in the city’s “gang database.” 10
Under the previous administration, the Federal Trade Commission held companies like Rite Aid
accountable for the use of facial recognition technology to surveil and profile its customers. 11
11 Rite Aid Corporation, FTC v., FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (Dec. 19, 2023),
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2023190-rite-aid-corporation-ftc-v.
10 Unmasking the Boston Police Department’s Gang Database: How an Arbitrary System Criminalizes
Innocent Conduct, HARVARD LAW REVIEW (Mar. 12, 2024),
https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/unmasking-the-boston-police-departments-gang-database-h
ow-an-arbitrary-system-criminalizes-innocent-conduct/.
9 Medicaid Home-Based Care: 2016-2018, TECHTONIC JUSTICE,
https://www.techtonicjustice.org/victories/medicaid-home-based-care-2016-2018 (last visited Oct. 14,
2025).
8 Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore City Police Department, ACLU OF MARYLAND,
https://www.aclu-md.org/cases/leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-city-police-department/ (last
visited Oct. 14, 2025).
7 William Turton Asher-Schapiro Christopher Bing,Avi, The IRS Is Building a Vast System to Share Millions of Taxpayers’ Data With ICE, PROPUBLICA (July 15, 2025), https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-irs-share-tax-records-ice-dhs-deportations.
Civil society groups have brought cases challenging the misuse of AI as violations of various
federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,
the Fair Housing Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, among others. Taken together, this
record of illegality makes clear that AI is actively used across many contexts to enable a pattern
and practice of civil rights abuses.
Predictive Policing in Schools: A Case Study on AI Injustice & Vulnerable Children
However, to fully understand the impact of these technologies on individual lives, I would like to
briefly share the story of one of the most egregious uses of algorithmic systems to violate
individual rights in the United States–a predictive policing program used in a school district to
push vulnerable children and their families out of the community. This is a case I know well.
Between 2021 and 2024, I helped lead a coalition of community members and civil rights
organizations that came together to defeat this program. In sharing this story, I want to describe
how this example serves as a cautionary tale for all policymakers considering the use of
algorithmic systems.
In 2021, the Tampa Bay Times uncovered that the Pasco County School District entered into a
secret data-sharing agreement with the local Sheriff’s Office. 12
The agreement granted the police
access to confidential student data, including their grades, GPA, credit completion, attendance,
and student discipline. These data were combined with other sensitive data, including records of
child abuse, crime victimization, and even parental custody disputes. These data were entered
into a rudimentary algorithm developed by law enforcement to predict which students were
“at-risk” of developing into “prolific criminal offenders.” At the program’s height, the sheriff’s
office developed risk scores for over 18,000 children – representing about 1 in 5 students in the
school district.
Students with high scores were placed on secret lists that were shared with school-based police
officers. Officers were instructed to interrogate these students and capture any “actionable
intelligence” in secret dossiers that were reviewed by “intelligence officers” and allegedly shared
with state and federal law enforcement. Students with high scores likely experienced higher
rates of exclusionary discipline, including suspensions, expulsions, school-based arrests, and
involuntary psychiatric detention. Students were subject to arbitrary home visitations by law
enforcement who exploited every opportunity to issue civil citations, fines, and fees for various
code violations, including yard upkeep and the visibility of mailbox numbers. According to one
officer who spoke under oath in a separate legal proceeding, the predictive policing program was
designed to be so intense that families would feel pressure to “move or sue” the county. 13
Once the program was revealed, a group of parents and educators began showing up at school
board meetings during the height of the COIVD-19 pandemic, demanding an end to the school
district’s predictive policing program. Their advocacy drew the support of dozens of local, state,
and national civil rights organizations, and together we created the PASCO Coalition: People
13 Id.
12 Targeted, a Tampa Bay Times Investigation,
https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted (last visited
Oct. 14, 2025).
Against the Surveillance of Children and Overpolicing. 14
We developed a multidisciplinary
campaign that blends legal and policy strategies, public education, and strategic media
approaches to dismantle the program. We successfully pushed the school district to end its most
egregious data-sharing practices with law enforcement. We successfully sued the Sheriff’s office
and obtained open records, including the original lists and intelligence dossiers for impacted
students. 15
We successfully pushed the Biden administration to open privacy and civil rights
investigations into the sheriff’s office and school district. This resulted in the termination of
federal funding for the county’s predictive policing activities and one of the first-known federal
consent decrees for algorithmic discrimination. 16
Most recently, the sheriff’s office settled a
federal lawsuit challenging their predictive policing practices, admitting that their activities
violated the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. 17
Algorithmic Inequality: How New Technologies Reinforce Historic Injustices
What took place in Pasco County should be a cautionary tale to all policymakers who are
interested in integrating algorithmic decision-making into vital social services and public goods.
The lesson is simple: government use of algorithmic technologies can easily result in systematic
civil and human rights abuses for the most vulnerable members of our community, including
children. Lawmakers must do more to ensure that “scientific innovation” does not come at the
expense of our fundamental rights and freedoms.
In order to protect communities from AI injustice, policymakers should:
● Develop Critical AI Competencies: Policymakers must develop the ability to pose
critical questions and thoughtfully evaluate the potential threats and harmful
consequences related to the use of artificial intelligence, especially in the public sector. At
a minimum, policymakers must develop competencies that enable them to assess the
civil and human rights implications of emergent technologies. Legal concepts like “free
speech,” "due process,” “disparate impact,” “proxy discrimination,” and “reasonable
accommodations” apply to artificial intelligence technologies, especially when used by
the government to regulate access to public goods and services. Policymakers must be
able to identify unlawful uses of AI technologies to ensure appropriate enforcement
measures are taken when technologies are used in rights abuses. Policymakers should
allocate resources to provide adequate training and workforce development
opportunities, fostering critical AI competencies among staff, agency leaders, and other
17 Case Closed: Pasco Sheriff Admits “Predictive Policing” Program Violated Constitution, INSTITUTE FOR
JUSTICE (Mar. 11, 2021),
https://ij.org/press-release/case-closed-pasco-sheriff-admits-predictive-policing-program-violated-const
itution/.
16 Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department Secures Agreement with Florida School District to Protect
Civil Rights of Students with Disabilities | United States Department of Justice, (Mar. 5, 2024),
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-secures-agreement-florida-school-district-
protect-civil-rights-students.
15 CAIR FLORIDA, INC. v. NOCCO, SHERIFF OF PASCO COUNTY, JUSTIA LAW,
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/second-district-court-of-appeal/2025/2d2024-0788.html (last
visited Oct. 14, 2025).
14 P.A.S.C.O. Coalition: People Against the Surveillance of Children and Overpolicing, SOUTHERN POVERTY
LAW CENTER, https://www.splcenter.org/resources/guides/pascocoalition/ (last visited Oct. 14, 2025).
public workforce members who interface with these systems. City leaders can cultivate
critical AI competencies, in part, by collaborating with community-based organizations,
civil society groups, and other subject matter experts.
● Adopt Public Accountability & Oversight Measures: Policymakers should enact
measures that enable greater public accountability and oversight of AI technologies,
especially those that implicate fundamental rights and freedoms. Policymakers can
require notice and public comment for municipal procurement and/or use of
rights-impacting AI, mandate the disclosure of AI systems in public inventories, hold
public hearings, and require community consultation as a precondition of AI use in city
services. In general, policymakers should take proactive steps to ensure that AI and
digital policy are directly shaped by community perspectives and respect our
fundamental rights.
● Protect Basic Rights: Policymakers already have existing authority under federal,
state, and local laws to enforce civil and human rights legal standards against unlawful
uses of artificial intelligence. Local policymakers should leverage agency guidance and
rulemaking authority to clarify how existing law applies to AI and digital contexts.
Further, local policymakers should prioritize enforcement actions against unlawful uses
of AI to ensure that both industry and public sector actors respect our rights and
freedoms, including civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights, disability rights, and
rights to public benefits and social services.
● Ban & Decommission Harmful AI Systems: In recent years, harmful AI systems
have proliferated across the United States. Unfortunately, policymakers rush to use AI
technologies without developing adequate procedures to decommission systems that
prove to be dangerous, including AI systems that are unethical, unsafe, discriminatory,
scientifically flawed, or unlawful. Policymakers must create simple, accessible
procedures for the public, especially those directly impacted by harmful AI systems, to
request that harmful AI systems be suspended, reviewed, terminated and/or banned.
Decommissioning harmful AI is a policy best practice that protects vulnerable
community members and potentially avoids costly litigation.
Conclusion:
The City of Philadelphia has a unique opportunity to set a new national standard that places civil
and human rights at the heart of municipal AI and digital policy. Rather than investing in costly,
unethical, and unlawful technologies, the City can steer social innovation in the direction of
justice. We can choose to engineer futures for justice or succumb to the encroaching reality of
techno-authoritarianism–a reality that is already impacting millions across the country. We
need courageous and visionary political action to ensure our fundamental rights and freedoms
survive the digital age.