Louisiana tax dollars funding Chinese espionage?

Are there Chinese spies in Louisiana? More importantly, is Louisiana’s local government tax and spending structure funding foreign espionage efforts? Before anyone dismisses this possibility as a wild conspiracy theory, they should review the facts Citizens for a New Louisiana identified.

Today, we are witnessing historically significant outages in government computer systems worldwide. Everything from air travel to cell phone reliability has been impacted. If not previously aware, perhaps the recent Crowdstrike event has awakened everyone. Cybersecurity has become a looming concern in our state, nation, and world. Our elected officials have been aware of this for some time. On December 28, 2023, former Governor John Bel Edwards declared a state of emergency following the threat of intentional cybersecurity breaches of public entities throughout Louisiana.

Since taking office, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has extended that order every thirty days, mostly recently signing Executive Order 24-085 on June 14, 2024. What are the looming issues related to cybersecurity? What steps has our government taken to ensure the information held by public bodies and the systems they utilize are not susceptible to cybersecurity breaches?

This is not a new issue…

The recent Executive Orders by Governors Edwards and Landry may lead some to believe that Cybersecurity concerns are a relatively new phenomenon. However, that wouldn’t be accurate. Both public and private entities have been dealing with such concerns for decades. Much legislation has come forward to address various aspects of this issue. In 2020, Senator Barry Milligan introduced SB30 during the 2nd Extraordinary Session. Milligan’s bill, which later became Act 52, provided:

No telecommunications or video surveillance equipment as described in Section 889(a) of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act shall be purchased by public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education schools, institutions, and governing authorities; nonpublic elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools, institutions, and governing authorities that receive state funds; and proprietary schools that receive state funds unless the equipment is from a manufacturer who is in compliance with Section 889(a) of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act as provided in this Section.

The bill went on to state:

Prior to the purchase of equipment, the vendor shall provide documentation by affidavit that the telecommunications and video surveillance equipment to be purchased is from a manufacturer that is in compliance with Section 889(a) of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

Milligan made it known at the time that he intended to extend this bill to every public body and entity in the state. When he introduced it, he could only make it applicable to educational institutions due to the limited call for the session.

Milligan kept his word

The following year, during the 2021 Regular Session, Milligan introduced SB15, which later became Act 288. That law broadened the scope of restrictions and clarified the framework. Milligan noted in testimony that foreign adversaries recognize that we use the lowest bidder process. They can bid artificially low to ensure their products and services are selected. This trojan horse can then be used for nefarious purposes. Milligan noted that his bill didn’t allow the lowest bidder to receive an award unless they provided the appropriate documentation to demonstrate compliance with the same security standards required by the federal government under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Milligan would again expand the provisions during the 2022 Regular Session. This time, he introduced SB347, which became Act 695. Under the new law, the definition of “Agency” was expanded to read:

…any department, office, division, commission, council, board, bureau, committee, institution, agency, government corporation, or other establishment or official of the executive branch of state government or any parish, city, town, governmental body, and any other subdivision of the state or public agency thereof, public authority, public educational, health, or other institution, and to the extent provided by law, any other entity which expends public funds for the acquisition or leasing of supplies, services, major repairs, and construction.

This broad language arguably makes the law applicable to every state entity or official utilizing public funds.

Acadiana area agencies in Non-Compliance

Citizens for a New Louisiana recently identified several local agencies that are not compliant and placed them on notice of the potential violations. The entities include the City of Abbeville, the Acadia Parish Sheriff’s Office, the City of Broussard, Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and the City of Youngsville. According to public request responses, none of these agencies received the appropriate affidavit from contractors before entering into or renewing agreements for video surveillance equipment or services.

The City of Abbeville, the City of Broussard, and the Acadia Parish Sheriff’s Office had entered into various agreements with Louisiana Crime Fighters, LLC. On July 13, 2021, the City of Broussard entered into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Crime Fighters of Louisiana. According to that agreement, the City of Broussard allowed Crime Fighters of Louisiana to extend their surveillance network into their city, with the condition that the city was provided access to the network.

Abbeville cancels Chinese surveillance camera contract

The City of Abbeville entered into a cooperative endeavor agreement with Crime Fighters of Louisiana on April 12, 2021. That agreement extends for three years at $71,016. At that time, Crime Fighters of Louisiana represented that they had “cameras in more than eighty-six (86) locations, including two hundred sixty-five (265) LPR (License Plate Readers) cameras and three hundred forty-four (344) video cameras strategically located throughout Lafayette, Acadia, St. Martin, Iberia, and Vermilion parishes.” On June 18, 2024, the City of Abbeville terminated its contract with Crime Fighters of Louisiana over the non-compliance issue, indicating that the vendor agreed to provide a refund. However, the refund amount was not disclosed.

Then, just last year, the Acadia Parish Sheriff’s Office agreed to a two-year subscription for $150,000. According to the record, the surveillance network of Crime Fighters of Louisiana had greatly expanded to include “…over 1,000 cameras installed throughout Lafayette, Vermillion, Acadia, St. Martin, St. Mary, Allen, Calcasieu, and Iberia parishes.” Crime Fighters of Louisiana also agreed to “install seven additional locations in Acadia Parish with up to 4 LPR and 4 Video Cameras at each location,” with the caveat that the Acadia Parish Sheriff’s Office provided power and internet.

What about Flock?

Flock Group, Inc. is a Georgia-based company contracted with public bodies to provide video surveillance equipment and/or services. This is the surveillance network utilized by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and the Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government. In July of 2021, former Mayor-President Josh Guillory entered into a financial agreement with Flock. According to that document, LCG pays Flock $90,000 annually. In response to our letter, Lafayette City-Parish Attorney Pat Ottinger indicated that LCG does not have an affidavit from Flock Group but has requested they supplement an earlier certification dated October 17, 2022. Premusidely, the amendment will confirm that the additional equipment LCG ordered complies with Section 889 of the John McCain National Defense Authorization Act.

Aside from that, Ottinger attempts to minimize the violation by stating that the agreement predates the changes to the law, which makes it inapplicable to LCG. He is correct in some respects. However, when LCG entered into the deal, it was for two years. LCG subsequently renewed and continued the contract after August 1, 2022, the statute’s effective date. That appears to be a violation of the procurement law.

Additionally, LCG has paid Flock $194,174.66 in funds this fiscal year alone. The clear language of Louisiana Revised Statute 39:1753.1(D) states:

No procurement shall be made from a vendor or other entity who fails to provide the documentation required in Subsection C of this Section. Any procurement of prohibited telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services as defined in Subsection A of this Section, or other procurement in violation of this Section, shall be void.

Shall means shall

“SHALL BE VOID…” and “SHALL BE SET...” are apparently incomprehensible legal phrases that the average person cannot read or correctly interpret. Why is the word “shall” so difficult to understand? Requesting documentation in the form of an affidavit after the fact doesn’t remedy the violation. The agreement is VOID. Absent an agreement, this expenditure of funds could violate Article 7, Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution. Effectively, that puts these expenditures into the “misappropriation of public funds” category. The remedy for this violation is set out in LARS 24:523(C). Vis: “the attorney general … shall be authorized to recover misappropriated funds from the responsible party by civil suit.”

The University of Louisiana at Lafayette contracted with Flock in January of 2023. You may recall that several residents were disturbed when ULL cameras appeared in their neighborhood (not on ULL property). That agreement indicates the cost to be $116,000 annually. Like Louisiana Crime Fighters, the records suggest that the public bodies did not receive the appropriate documentation from Flock Group, Inc. before entering into or renewing agreements for video surveillance equipment or services.

Are there others?

Undoubtedly, there will be many more. The City of Youngsville entered into a contract with Firewire, LLC, in August of 2022 for $113,698.84. That agreement is to provide video surveillance equipment or services for the Youngsville Municipal Complex. The Municipal Complex houses the Mayor’s Office, administrative offices, and the Police Headquarters. In responding to the records request, the City of Youngsville redacted certain information, citing a law enforcement exception to the Public Records Act, Louisiana Revised Statute 44:3(A)(3), which reads:

Records containing security procedures, investigative training information or aids, investigative techniques, investigative technical equipment or instructions on the use thereof, criminal intelligence information pertaining to terrorist-related activity, or threat or vulnerability assessments collected or obtained in the prevention of terrorist-related activity, including but not limited to physical security information, proprietary information, operational plans, and the analysis of such information, or internal security information

Despite the city’s concern with releasing this information, they were either willing to ignore the law or negligent when they procured services from a vendor without receiving an affidavit confirming that the telecommunications and video surveillance equipment complied with Section 889(a) of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.

The City of Breaux Bridge, the City of New Iberia, the City of Carencro, the City of Scott, and the Lafayette Parish Sheriff have all indicated no record exists of any agreements with Louisiana Crime Fighters. That’s despite the organization having surveillance cameras up within their jurisdiction. Neither the Mayor nor the Police Chief for the City of Youngsville has any records of how the cluster of surveillance cameras came to be mounted atop the Youngsville monument (the roundabout located at Highway 92 and Verot School Road).

Law Enforcement Official Speaks Out

The Chief of Police for the City of St. Martinville had some rather choice words when it came to Louisiana Crime Fighters. Chief Ricky Martin indicated:

I don’t have any contract or anything else with Brooks or his camera system. He met with me about putting those cameras in the city a few years ago and I shut him down. I don’t want anything to do with Brooks or his shady camera system, that he “fully controls” with, what I think is law enforcement sensitive information. I have said this many times. He needs to be shut down, or even better, he needs to be dragged into court to testify on the information that he claims to own. It is said “his footage can’t be used as evidence, only as investigative information.” That’s laughable and I don’t understand why a defense attorney hasn’t attacked that yet. Maybe they don’t know.

Chief Martin references ‘extortion’ and how the whole Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office Realtime Crime Center is based on the Louisiana Crime Fighters system. Despite this, the Lafayette Sheriff has consistently claimed no agreements exist with Louisiana Crime Fighters.

Chief Martin also makes a very valid point. Area law enforcement officers are coached into never revealing Louisiana Crime Fighters as the source of information. They carefully avoid mentioning the system in criminal reports. Instead, make vague references to “community cameras” or use other ambiguous terms to avoid detection. Does it have anything to do with the authenticity of the system’s information? After all, if it doesn’t comply with federal cybersecurity standards, it’s due to susceptibility to cyber-attack and manipulation.

Spying on People Doesn’t Reduce Crime

Despite this massive surveillance apparatus being implemented over the last several years, the Acadiana area has not witnessed any decrease in crime. There is no evidence to show that cameras deter crime. Does it help with solving crimes? Sure! So does good old-fashioned police work, talking with people, and having a relationship with your community.

We also shouldn’t confuse solving a crime with getting a conviction. Earlier this year, we addressed issues with our criminal justice system in our four-part series about policing, corrections, prosecutors, and the courts. Solving a crime doesn’t necessarily put dangerous people behind bars. Most will have the opportunity and means to post a bond. The only way someone gets locked up for a lengthy period is if they are convicted. And you sure can’t get a conviction if the evidence is unreliable or can’t be authenticated.

In this day and age, everyone walks around with a camera in their hand. We have all witnessed the best evidence being captured on a cell phone held by a bystander. That’s not a “community camera,” which was placed there to deter the act from happening.

Wrapping up

Here at Citizens for a New Louisiana, we’ve raised concerns about potential foreign espionage activities in Louisiana. Notably, we’re seeing surveillance systems that may not comply with federal cybersecurity standards. Our public officials have taken measures to address cybersecurity threats, as highlighted by legislative actions and executive orders from former Governor John Bel Edwards and current Governor Jeff Landry. However, locals don’t seem to be taking these threats seriously.

Senator Barry Milligan introduced several bills, now laws, to ensure that public entities do not purchase telecommunications or video surveillance equipment from non-compliant manufacturers, as per the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Despite these measures, several local agencies in Louisiana have been found non-compliant for having entered into agreements without the required affidavits from vendors. Now, consider the immense amount of dollars flowing from the public treasury into these private and non-compliant companies. It’s human nature to expect them to push to repeal this crucial legislation. After all, furthering Chinese espionage is fine with them as long as it’s profitable.

We’ve also questioned the effectiveness of these surveillance systems in reducing crime and the reliability of the evidence they provide. Concerns about using these non-compliant systems create questions about the authenticity and potential manipulation of data, which could compromise criminal justice processes. Finally, we know that actual law enforcement is labor intensive. Adopting these technology-heavy practices has not reduced crime but siphoned funding away from core law enforcement tasks, such as traditional patrol and detective work.

###