Testimony: DOC’s Policies Should Reflect Its Stated Mission

Thursday, October 16, 2025 

Chair Cronin, Chair Cahill, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety: 

I am submitting testimony on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. PM is a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to the bills from the Dignity and Freedom Platform: 

  • An Act to build restorative family and community connection (Visitation Bill) (S.1720/H.2591) 
  • An Act Relative to Medical and Elder Parole (S.1722/H.2693) 
  • An Act relative to human rights and improved outcomes for incarcerated people (Human Rights Bill) (S.1651/ H.2608)  
  • An Act creating an independent correctional oversight office to facilitate the recommendations of the Special Legislative Commission on Structural Racism in Correctional Facilities of the Commonwealth (REICI race data and oversight bill) (S.1725/H.2636)

The Department of Correction’s website states as its mission to provide “custody, care, and programming for those under our supervision to prepare them for safe and successful reentry into the community.” However, many existing practices run fully counter to such a stated goal. 

Visitation Bill (S.1720/H.2591)

In 2018, the DOC passed severe restrictions on visitation rights. These included limiting the number of individuals on a pre-approved visitor list and the number of times said list can be changed each year, creating a burdensome application for visitors, imposing strict dress codes, and limiting the number of individuals anyone can visit.

Visitation is crucial to the well-being of families, children, incarcerated individuals, and even prison employees. Research has shown that visitation is an effective strategy in reducing recidivism and thereby enhancing public safety. Children of incarcerated parents are less likely to be incarcerated themselves if they visit their incarcerated parents. Visits help incarcerated individuals maintain relationships in their outside community which makes re-entry into the community much more likely to be successful.

Given that visitation enhances public safety, reduces recidivism, and promotes rehabilitation, our prisons and jails should be fostering the maintenance and growth of positive bonds between incarcerated individuals and their friends, family, and broader community—not limiting these relationships.

Elder and Medical Parole  (S.1722/H.2693) 

Despite our comparatively low incarceration rate by US standards,, we are tied with New Hampshire for the highest proportion of incarcerated people over the age of 55 in the country, who experience significantly worse health outcomes than people outside of prison. 

Moreover, older incarcerated individuals are significantly less likely to cause harm when released from incarceration. We are warehousing people as they get older and sicker in ways that make no one safer. 

Moreover, one driver of our comparatively old prison population is that, in recent years, MA has reformed our criminal legal system and moved away from the mistakes of the past. But many Black and Brown people still carry the burden of unnecessarily harsh sentencing laws in the “war on drugs” era. 

Human Rights Bill (S.1651/ H.2608) 

Again, if the DOC understands that its mission is to prepare people for successful re-entry, then its practices and policies should be better oriented toward that goal. This bill recognizes that and would establish universal access to programming, education, and vocational training opportunities, as well as meaningful and productive out of cell time. If we want to cultivate a culture of respect and growth outside the walls, we need to cultivate that inside too. 

Independent Correctional Oversight (S.1725/H.2636)

The Special Legislative Commission on Structural Racism in Correctional Facilities of the Commonwealth documented what is widely known: that structural racism is rampant in our carceral system. A lack of transparency and accountability reinforces this and allows it to worsen. An independent oversight office is long overdue. 

Let’s recognize the value of rehabilitation and reentry and our align systems in support, rather than around creating new cycles of harm. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Policy Director 

Progressive Massachusetts 

MA Needs Strong Protections against Facial Surveillance

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did back in 2020 in passing police accountability legislation. But there is more work to be done, including stronger regulations around the use of facial recognition technology. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology.

After passing limited regulations for facial recognition technology in 2020 (due to opposition to stronger regulations from Governor Baker), the Legislature created a special commission to study and recommend a regulatory framework. That commission, made up of diverse stakeholders, met, held hearings, and researched and discussed the issue. And that commission—including the AGO, the State Police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CPCS (among others)—agreed on a set of recommendations, reflected in this bill.

From past debates, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety). 

The provision of this bill help to address those problems by doing the following:

  • Requiring a warrant in order for police to conduct a facial recognition search—a necessary guardrail to protect privacy rights
  • Centralizing the use of facial recognition at the State Police in order to curb the potential for misuse, abuse, and wrongful arrests
  • Ensuring due process protections around the use of facial recognition technology in court cases
  • Prohibiting mass surveillance and emotion analysis in order to forestall the dystopian futures already happening in places like Russia and China

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053. When the Legislature creates a commission to do the hard work of studying an issue, and that commission puts forth reasoned recommendations, it should be incumbent upon the Legislature to advance them.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Progressive Groups Call Out Beacon Hill Inaction in Trump’s First 100 Days

The Honorable Speaker Ron Mariano

24 Beacon St.

Room 356

Boston, MA, 02133

The HonorableSenate President Karen Spilka

24 Beacon St.

Room 332

Boston, MA, 02133

Wednesday, May 14, 2025 

Hon. Speaker Ron Mariano and Hon. President Karen Spilka,

Two weeks ago marked the 100th day of Donald Trump’s second presidential term. These hundred days have been marked by an incessant barrage of chaos, cruelty, and corruption. We have seen consistent threats to Massachusetts—to essential social programs; to efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion; to our ability to keep our residents safe; to our efforts to tackle the climate crisis; to the scientific research that powers our regional economy; to people’s constitutional rights of free speech, including abductions of MA residents. We have seen an undermining of the basic rule of law that has pushed us into a constitutional crisis as well as a global trade war that will cause economic harm to our Commonwealth. We have seen the exacerbation of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, and antisemitism–the list goes on–in rhetoric and policy. We need not recount every such harmful action taken and its impact on Massachusetts because you know them too well. 

But what is less known is how you will choose to respond. Indeed, 100 days into Trump’s presidency and 17 weeks into the 194th session of the General Court, only two bills had been signed into law: (1) a supplemental budget that included harmful restrictions on the access to emergency shelter for families with children and (2) another temporary extension of the ability of state and local bodies to hold hybrid and virtual meetings. That has not grown in the subsequent weeks. 

Although grappling with the full scale of present and future crisis from the federal administration is daunting, it is incumbent upon you to respond and to meet the moment as best you can. 

While you focus on planning for what’s to come, there are steps that we can take now, steps that have already been vetted in hearings in past legislative sessions:  

  • Guarantee that Massachusetts resources are used for state priorities, not federal immigration enforcement, by ending the state Department of Corrections’ 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), banning future 287(g) agreements, and ending intergovernmental service agreements
  • Protect access to courts by prohibiting police and court officials from initiating contact with ICE about a person’s pending release from police or court custody
  • Embrace the best practices already in place in cities and towns by ensuring that state and local police will not inquire about immigration status will not inquire about immigration status or engage in civil immigration enforcement related activities
  • Ensure the safety and well-being of the residents of the Commonwealth and those traveling from other states for reproductive care by shoring up privacy rights and banning the purchase and sale of personal cell phone location data
  • Strengthen our state’s shield law for reproductive and gender–affirming care

All of these are bills you can, and must, pass now. We must be proactive in our policymaking, not wait until the crisis reaches its apex before responding. 

Moreover, as we have already faced lost federal funding and face even more later this year, with expected harm to our public schools, our health care, our safety net programs, our infrastructure, and so much more, we urge you to present a plan for the public for how you will protect our essential services. Now is not the time for cuts. We can and must raise revenue to fund our needs, and there are many such options available, most notably by closing tax loopholes that allow billionaire global corporations to dodge taxes by hiding their profits in tax havens abroad. We must also not be afraid to tap into the state’s rainy day fund when the torrential downpour comes. 

To ensure the efficient and responsive legislative process that this work requires, we urge you to prioritize coming to an agreement on the Joint Rules for the legislative session. Both chambers proposed valuable reforms to make the legislature more open, accountable, and timely. Clarity on rules is essential for the work ahead: inertia thrives under uncertainty. 

We appreciate the words you have spoken in the past months to criticize the harm being done by the federal administration. What the Commonwealth needs now is your actions. 

Sincerely, 

350 Mass 

Act on Mass 

Asian American Resource Workshop 

Asian Pacific Islanders Civic Action Network – Massachusetts

Chinese Progressive Association 

Clean Water Action 

Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc.

Families for Justice as Healing  

Homes for All Massachusetts 

Indivisible Mass Coalition 

Lynn United for Change 

Massachusetts Peace Action 

New England Community Project

Our Revolution Massachusetts 

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts

Progressive Massachusetts

Springfield No One Leaves 

Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

“The purchase and sale of cell phone location data empowers bad actors.”

Wednesday, April 8, 2025 

Chair Moore, Chair Farley-Bouvier, and Members of the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cybersecurity:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.197: An Act to protect safety and privacy by stopping the sale of location data and H.86: An Act to protect location privacy, known collectively as the Location Shield Act. 

This Saturday, tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents rallied to protest the chaos, cruelty, and corruption of the Trump administration. 

If you attended a rally, you know when you arrived and when you left, and where you went next. Your friends and family might know that too, at least part. 

But do you know who doesn’t need to know that? Bad actors like Elon Musk. 

Right now, there is no law that prevents anyone with a credit card from purchasing cell phone location data. 

The purchase and sale of cell phone location data empowers bad actors: right-wing extremists seeking to target individuals seeking abortion care or gender-affirming care, domestic abusers seeking to track their victims, predatory bosses seeking to spy on their employees, the list goes on. And by attacking privacy rights, it also weakens the basic rights of free expression and dissent in a democracy. 

We have already seen the Trump administration detain and threaten to deport students merely for the act of attending protests, and they are not subtle about their desire to ramp up targeting and to target citizens as well. We should not be giving them any more tools to do so. 

As your chamber deliberates on our Commonwealth’s response to the disasters in DC, we urge you to make this bill a part of it. 250 years ago this month, Massachusetts was the site of taking a stand against the abuses of civil liberties by a monarchical government, and that is a legacy that we should continue. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Final Weeks of the Legislative Session: Here’s How to Take Action

Three weeks from this Thursday (i.e., August 1st), the MA Legislature will go on break for the rest of the year.

That means that it’s crunch time: all of the policymaking that should have already happened over the pats 18 months will happen in just over three weeks.

That also means that it’s especially important for your legislators to hear from you so that our priorities can cut through the noise.

Read on for an email to your state rep and an email to your state senator to send this week and share.

Thank you for all you do.

In solidarity, Jonathan Cohn
Policy Director
Progressive Massachusetts

Tell Your State Rep: MA Wants Bold Climate Action

This summer has already seen some heat records broken, and we should expect more. Climate change isn’t just an issue for the future; it’s here today, and it’s urgent that our elected officials act with the urgency the situation requires.

On June 25, the Senate passed Bill S.2838, An Act Upgrading the Grid and Protecting Ratepayers. While the bill makes some strides towards dismantling the gas system, it left out key demands of Environmental Justice communities across Massachusetts such as:

  1. A robust cumulative impact analysis tied to siting approval
  2. Ending the expansion of large gas pipelines
  3. Clean indoor and outdoor air

Email your state rep today in support of bold and equitable climate action before the legislative session runs out!

And here’s more: Join the MA Youth Climate Coalition and Mass Power Forward coalitions for a climate justice rally this Saturday at 1 pm at the Boston Common Bandstand.

Tell Your State Senator: Strengthen Privacy Rights

Currently, there is no law in Massachusetts or federally to prevent the sale and purchase of cell phone location data. Every day, companies collect and sell sensitive location information from cell phones, revealing information about where we live, work, and socialize.

Here’s just one example: Politico recently reported that a data broker company tracked people’s visits to nearly 600 Planned Parenthood clinics in 48 states, including Massachusetts. The company sold that data to inform one of the largest anti-abortion ad campaigns targeting specific individuals. If anti-abortion extremists can use cellphone location data to target abortion seekers with ads, they can also use that data to target, harass, or threaten patients and providers in our state.

There is a bill to fix this: the Location Shield Act, which would ban the sale of cellphone location data to protect the privacy and safety of all Massachusetts residents.  

The MA House is planning to vote on a narrowed version of this bill this week. It’s vital that the Senate take up the Location Shield Act so that MA can be a leader on protecting privacy rights.

Can you email your state senator in support?

Data Brokers Don’t Need to Know Your Weekend Plans.

I hope you were able to enjoy the long weekend.

But do you know who doesn’t need to know what you did over the weekend? Data brokers.

Currently, there is no law in Massachusetts or federally to prevent the sale and purchase of cell phone location data. Every day, companies collect and sell sensitive location information from cell phones, revealing information about where we live, work, and socialize.

Here’s just one example: Politico recently reported that a data broker company tracked people’s visits to nearly 600 Planned Parenthood clinics in 48 states, including Massachusetts. The company sold that data to inform one of the largest anti-abortion ad campaigns targeting specific individuals. If anti-abortion extremists can use cellphone location data to target abortion seekers with ads, they can also use that data to target, harass, or threaten patients and providers in our state.

The Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology, the Internet and Cyber Security recently reported out the MA Data Privacy Act, a comprehensive data privacy bill that includes provisions to limit data collection and sharing, treat sensitive health and biometric data with extra care, and prohibit the sale of our cellphone location data. But getting out of committee is just step one. The Legislature needs to pass this before the end of July.

Can you email your state legislators in support of the MA Data Privacy Act?

The Location Shield Act Is Necessary to Protect Basic Privacy Rights

Cell Phone GPS

June 26, 2023

Chair Cronin, Chair Chan, and Members of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.357/S.148:An Act Protecting Reproductive Health Access, LGBTQ Lives, Religious Liberty, and Freedom of Movement by Banning the Sale of Cell Phone Location Information (“the Location Shield Act”), sponsored by Representative Kate Lipper-Garabedian and Senator Cynthia S. Creem.

The dissemination, marketization, and use of technology routinely occurs faster than our ability to appropriately govern it. We can see that clearly with the case of cell phone location data. Location data, a subset of the personal data collected via cell phones, reveals information about individuals’ interests, associations, and activities—a treasure trove for corporations looking to surveil and micro-target customer behavior. We have no laws to regulate or prohibit companies from abusing or profiting from such deeply sensitive information.

A just, equitable, and democratic society depends on the preservation of a sphere of personal autonomy. We cannot have freedom of religion if people’s attendance—or lack thereof—at houses of worship is being tracked. We cannot have reproductive freedom if information about people’s trips to abortion clinics is being tracked and sold via their phone. We cannot have true freedom for the LGBTQ community if information about people’s intimate relationships is being tracked and sold. If survivors of domestic violence are not able to visit a shelter without such information being tracked and sold, or individuals in recovery are not able to seek out a substance use clinic without that information being tracked or sold, then the foundations for well-being are being eroded.

The Location Shield Act provides commonsense protections to give ordinary people robust location data privacy. These rules strike the right balance by allowing the use of data for providing useful technologies like mapping services and weather forecasts while outlawing the abusive sale of our personal device location information. By implementing these commonsense regulations, we can ensure Massachusetts residents and visitors can make use of the latest technologies without compromising their fundamental rights.

As no regulatory framework yet exists, Massachusetts has a real opportunity to be a leader, protecting the cherished privacy rights of residents of the Commonwealth while continuing our state’s track record of advancing forward-thinking policy that expands to other states and to the country as a whole.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts