>> GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE FOR OUR
GOVERNANCE, EQUITY, AND
TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE ON
DECEMBER 18, 2018.
THIS WILL BE OUR LAST MEETING
FOR THIS COMMITTEE THIS YEAR.
I WILL START OFF WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT AND THEN WE WILL MOVE
INTO THE THREE AGENDA ITEMS WE
HAVE WHICH NUMBER ONE IS A
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
REGULATION OF THE TAXI AND PNC
WORLD, THE SECOND ONE WILL BE A
DISCUSSION ON AN UPDATE ON THE
SURVEILLANCE WORKING GROUP AND
THE THIRD ONE WILL BE A
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON
THE USE OF GRAY KEY TECHNOLOGY
AS A SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
LET'S START WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL START WITH JESSICA
McCOY.
WE ASK YOU SAY UNDER TWO
MINUTES.
FOLLOWED BY ALEX ZIMMERMAN AND
RON WILSON.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBER.
I AM JESSICA McCOY FROM
SAMARITAN.
I AM JUST COMING TO GIVE YOU A
BRIEF UPDATE ON SAMARITAN AND
OUR PROGRESS.
WE WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
WE HAVE HAD A GROWING NEED
EXPRESSED FROM THE COMMUNITY
HERE ON GETTING MORE -- BOTH
FROM INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS AS WELL AS
SHELTERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
IN THE AREA.
WE HAVE ESTABLISHED NEW
PARTNERSHIPS OVER THE LAST FEW
MONTHS INCLUDING PARTNERSHIPS
WITH THE SALVATION ARMY, WITH
THE MOBILE MEDIC VAN, HOUSING
ALLIANCE AND DE SC.
WE ARE WORKING ON TRAINING CASE
MANAGERS TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY
THAT WE THAT THEY HAVE
REQUESTED TO HAVE THESE BEACONS
ON HAND WITH THEM.
AS A REFRESHER SAMARITAN USES
THIS TECHNOLOGY TO LINK
INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS WITH FINANCIAL
CAPITAL AND GUIDANCE.
WE ARE EXCITED.
WE ARE UP TO 60 SIGNIFICANT
LIFE-CHANGING OUTCOMES FROM
HOUSING TO EMPLOYMENT BEING
ABLE TO PURCHASE WORK CLOTHES
SO THEY CAN ACCEPT A JOB OR GET
MEDICATION EVERY MONTH.
WE ARE LOOKING NOW TO BEGIN
INCREASING OUR CURRENT PILOT OF
500 DEACONS.
I WOULD LOVE TO SPEAK YOU --
SPEAK WITH YOU AFTERWARD ON
BEHALF OF JONATHAN ON WHO YOU
WOULD LIKE TO INVITE FOR A DEMO
AND DISCUSS HOW WE CAN EXPAND
THE PILOT TO 2500 DEACONS IN
SEATTLE.
>> JESSICA, NOT PUT YOU ON THE
SPOT, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION,
JUST A COMMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SCHEDULE A
TRIAL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
TECHNOLOGY.
THE PROBLEM COULD'VE BEEN OUR
COMMITTEE, WE WENT THROUGH THE
BUDGET PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE
YOU OR JONATHAN TO BRING THE
TECHNOLOGY AND A FEW USERS,
WHATEVER THE PROCESS THE CITY
HAS TO GO TO, I'M VERY
INTERESTED IN YOUR TECHNOLOGY
AND I KNOW HOW IT WORKS.
I GUESS I WILL SAY, THOSE WHO
HAD UPPER TECHNOLOGY WORKS,
WATCHING AND LISTENING, I WOULD
LIKE TO GET THAT SCHEDULED
EARLY FOR NEXT YEAR, JANUARY OR
FEBRUARY.
MAYBE SOME USERS AND I.T.
FOLKS AND SHOW HOW IT WORKS.
I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT AND THANK
YOU FOR DOING THE WORK.
>>.
THANK YOU SO MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER.
>> ALEX ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWED BY
RON WILSON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU MR. ZIMMERMAN.
AND RON WILSON.
>> THIS LITTLE CELL PHONE I
CARRY, EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE
HERE TODAY IS CARRYING ONE, I
HAVE HAD INTRUSIONS, I PROVIDED
THIS COUNSEL DOZENS AND DOZENS
-- I AM NOT MISSTATING THE
NUMBER OF EMAILS AND NARRATIVES
I HAVE DELIVERED TO THIS
COUNSEL.
NARRATIVES DESCRIBING THE THIRD-
PARTY VOICES ON MY PHONE. EMAIL
SAYING I WANTED TO SLEEP WITH --
DESCRIBING MY TENNIS SHOES I AM
WEARING.
THIS IS VERY DISTURBING.
FOR A PHONE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THE KIND OF TECHNOLOGY THAT I
BELIEVE THE CITY I.T.
IS INVOLVED IN QUITE FRANKLY,
THE THEORY I HAVE IS THAT THE
CITY WANTS ME TO GO AWAY.
I'M JUST NOT GOING TO GO AWAY
THAT EASY.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE FIGHTING
FOR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO
PROVIDE NARRATIVES TO
RESPONSIBLE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
AND HOPEFULLY, I WILL GET THE
CHANCE TO GET A RESPONSE BACK.
AFTER ALL MY REQUESTS FOR A 15
MINUTE MEETING, I NEVER RECEIVED
ONE CALL BACK.
FOR MANY COUNCILMEMBERS.
THIS IS DESPICABLE.
I THINK WE OUGHT TO REELECT ALL
NEW COUNCILMEMBERS IF THE CITY
CAN'T GET ITS ACT TOGETHER AND
ADDRESS THE DAMAGES THAT I HAVE
ENDURED EMOTIONALLY AND
PHYSICALLY, I DON'T EVEN KNOW
WHAT I'M GOING TO COME HOME TO
WHEN I OPEN THE DOOR TO MY
HOUSE.
THERE WERE OBJECTS PLACED IN MY
HOUSE.
METAL OBJECTS.
THIS IS ALL AFTER MAKING
DECLARATIONS OF MISCONDUCT IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT CONTINUES
TO THIS DAY.
>> THANK YOU RON.
>> I AM VERY SORRY I HAVEN'T
HAD ANY RESPONSE FROM YOU
PEOPLE AND IT'S NEGLECTFUL AND
WILLFUL AND I THINK THAT THERE
IS INTENT ON THE CITY TO GET ME
TO GO AWAY.
I THINK THE I.T.
IS INVOLVED.
>> THE LAST SPEAKER.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS.
FOR A FEEL YOU I WILL ADDRESS
THE GRAY KEY ISSUE.
I HAVE BOTH PROCESS AND
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS ABOUT
WHERE WE ARE AND I WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE A FEW QUICK POINTS.
ONE IS THAT GRAY KEY IS
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IN OUR
VIEW.
IT ENABLES THE UNLOCKING OF A
PHONE FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF OBSERVING OR ANALYZING THE
MOVEMENTS OR BEHAVIOR OF THAT
PHONE OWNER.
IT ALLOWS THE DOWNLOAD OF THE
INFORMATION STORED ON THAT PHONE
. THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.
THERE IS NO EXEMPTION IN THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE FOR AN
AGENCY DECLARING THAT IT WILL
USE TECHNOLOGY WITH THE
WARRANT.
THAT IS NOT THERE.
THERE IS AN OPT OUT EXEMPTION,
BUT THERE IS A LINE IN THE
PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT THAT
SUGGESTS THE ORDINANCE IS BEING
INTERPRETED SUCH THAT IF AN
AGENCY SIMPLY DECLARES THAT
IT'S GOING TO USE THE
TECHNOLOGY WITH A WARRANT, IT
IS EXEMPT FROM SCRUTINY.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
LANGUAGE OR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF THE ORDINANCE.
WHERE THERE IS DOUBT THE
ORDINANCE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED
IN FAVOR OF MORE PUBLIC
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
AND NOT LESS.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT THE PRIVACY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT THAT WAS DONE ON
THIS TECHNOLOGY FALLS WELL BELOW
THE TRANSPARENCY STANDARDS OF
WHAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD DEMAND.
MANY QUESTIONS WERE SKIPPED AND
MANY WERE LEFT BLANK OR JUST
HAD ONE WORD ANSWERS.
WITH NO JUSTIFICATION OR
EXPLANATION.
THAT IS NOT REAL PUBLIC
TRANSPARENCY AND WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT NO LONGER
HAPPENS.
FINALLY I WOULD LIKE TO POINT
OUT THERE IS AN EXTENSIVE LIST
OF COMMUNITY GROUPS CONCERNED
WITH SURVEILLANCE.
THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO OF
BEEN HERE BUT UNFORTUNATELY I
FOUND OUT ABOUT THE REPORT THAT
EXISTS THAT MENTIONS US FROM A
JOURNALIST YESTERDAY AND IT
WOULD'VE BEEN GREAT FOR US TO
GET A HEADS UP.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WILL MOVE INTO OUR FIRST AGENDA
ITEM.
GO AHEAD AND READ IT INTO THE
RECORD.
>> CB 119427 AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF
THE FOR-HIRE INDUSTRY; REMOVING
CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS BETWEEN
AN EXCLUSIVE DRIVER
REPRESENTATIVE AND THE DIRECTOR
OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES.
>> I SORT OF MENTIONED WHAT WE
ARE EXAMINING IN THIS ORDINANCE
DURING BRIEFING YESTERDAY.
BUT BRIAN, YOU HAVE SOME
INTRODUCTORY WORDS AND WE WILL
GET SOME CONTEXT AND TALK
THROUGH IT AND SEE WHAT WE
HAVE.
>> BRIAN GOOD NIGHT, CENTRAL
COUNCIL STAFF.
THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED CB
119427 RELATING TO THE
REGULATION OF THE GRAYKEY
REGULATION INDUSTRY.
WHETHER THEY CAN DECIDE TO WORK
WITH ELECTIVE -- BEST PRACTICES
REGARDING VEHICLE EQUIPMENT,
STANDARDS.
SAFE DRIVING PRACTICES.
THE MANNER IN WHICH CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE TO BE
CONDUCTED.
THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF
PAYMENTS TO BE HELD IN THE
MINIMUM HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF
WORK.
THE BILL BEFORE YOU CB 119427
WOULD MAKE A FEW SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODEFENDANTS TO
SECTIONS GRADED WITH THE 2015
ORDINANCE.
FIRST THE BILL WOULD REMOVE AS
A SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS THE
NATURE AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS
TO BE MADE TO AND HELD -- WITH
HELP FROM DRIVERS.
IT WOULD PROHIBIT THE FAS
DIRECTOR FROM -- IS A SUBJECT
OF NEGOTIATION IN ANY RULES OR
REGULATIONS.
THIRD TO THE EXTENT THAT
ARBITRATION IS NECESSARY THE
BILL WOULD REMOVE FROM
CONSIDERATION A COMPARISON OF
PAYMENTS TO OTHER DRIVERS.
THE BILL ALSO MAKES TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS TO THE CODE AND
SECTION 2 PROVIDES THAT ANY
CITY RULE OR REGULATION
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS BILL IS
SUPERSEDED.
LASTLY, ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA
IS A PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE
VERSION OF THE BILL.
IT SIMPLY CORRECTS SOME TYPOS
THAT WERE CONTAINED IN HE
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED BILL
WHICH DID NOT USE THE PROPER
FORMATTING TO MAKE THE DESIRED
CODA MINUTES.
THAT IS INDICATED IN VERSION D
2.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE WRITE UP
THAT HA BEEN DISSEMINATED AND
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW.
THIS IS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION,
PART OF A BROADER BODY OF WORK
AROUND THE TAXI AND FOR HIRE
INDUSTRY FOR YEARS.
I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS THE
RIGHT DIRECTION AT THIS TIME.
A COUPLE REASONS I WANT TO
SHARE.
WHEN WE ORIGINALLY DID THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
LEGISLATION WE GAVE DRIVERS A
HOST OF THINGS THAT COULD
BARGAIN ON.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW
WE SPECIFICALLY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO DO AND COULD ACT ON IS
SETTING MINIMUM RATES AND
POSSIBLY COMMON STATION.
WE DO SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH
THE TAXI INDUSTRY.
AND I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD
IT'S IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE OUR
FLEXIBILITY ON HOW WE ADDRESS
COMPENSATION.
I THINK THAT THE REALITY OF A
TIMELINE FOR WHICH DRIVERS MAY
GO THROUGH THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS AND
NEGOTIATE THAT IS LIKELY TO BE
A FAIRLY LONG TIMELINE AND I
THINK THAT IF WE CHOOSE TO DO
SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO
SOMETHING MORE SWIFTLY.
I THINK TAKING THAT PIECE OF
THE BODY OF WORK OUT OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
AND PUTTING IT BACK IN CITY
COUNCIL'S HANDS IS SOMETHING
THAT MAKES SENSE AT THIS TIME
IN LIGHT OF THE COUPLE OF YEARS
WE ARE INTO THIS ALREADY.
>> VERY GOOD.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU
SAID.
FOR ME IT'S ABOUT AT THIS POINT
FLEXIBILITY FOR BOTH, THE
INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS, EQUITY
AND MAKING SURE WE HAVE A
ROBUST INDUSTRY FOR BOTH THE
OWNERS OF THE COMPANY, THE
DRIVERS OF THE COMPANY, THE
CONSUMERS, AND SO I LOOK
FORWARD TO THIS.
I'M NOT GOING TO GRANDSTAND ON
THIS ONE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE
RIGHT THING TO DO.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO
SUBSTITUTE D DIG -- D 2.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
CB 119427 IS PASSED.
AS A SUBSTITUTE.
>> THE SUBSTITUTE BILL IS
PASSED.
WE WILL PRESENT THIS IN
JANUARY.
>> I WILL MOVE THE BILL AS
SUBSTITUTED.
>> I HAVE MY OTHER HAT ON.
IT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED.
NOW WE HAVE CB 119427 READY TO
VOTE.
I WILL NOW MOVE IT, CB 119427.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
OPPOSED?
AYE HAS IT.
WE SUBSTITUTED CB 119427 AND
WE WILL PRESENTED AT FULL
COUNCIL.
>> YOU SUBSTITUTED VERSION D 2.
WHICH WAS IN YOUR PACKETS.
>> STRIKE WHAT I SAID.
>> YOU APPROVED CB 119427
VERSION D 2.
>> CORRECT.
>> THE PRIOR ONE WAS THE ONE
THE PAST INTO IT -- IN
DECEMBER.
>> WILL PRESENT CB 119427 AT
THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY UNLESS
SOMETHING CHANGED.
WE DON'T HAVE IT SCHEDULED YET.
THANK YOU.
LET'S MOVE TO THE SECOND AGENDA
ITEM.
SEE IF I CAN SLAUGHTER THAT ONE
>> COMMITTEE SURVEILLANCE
WORKING GROUP UPDATE.
WE JUST WANTED TO DAYLIGHT THIS
ISSUE.
THERE'S NOT A LOT TO CHAT
ABOUT.
WE WANTED FOLKS TO KNOW THAT WE
ARE TRYING TO MOVE AHEAD.
ONCE YOU GET YOUR PAPERWORK
SITUATED, INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW
ABOUT HOW THE WORKING GROUP IS
COMING ALONG, ETC.
>> I AM GREG DOSS, COUNSEL
CENTRAL STAFF HERE TO PROVIDE
AN UPDATE ON THE WORKING GROUP.
I WAY OF BRIEF HISTORY, YOU
KNOW THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINATE
REQUIRES CITY DEPARTMENTS TO
OBTAIN COUNSEL APPROVAL FOR
THOSE TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE
DEEMED SURVEILLANCE, EITHER
TECHNOLOGIES POSSESSED NOW OR
THE DEPARTMENTS WOULD LIKE TO
ACQUIRE.
LAST SEPTEMBER THE COUNCIL
PASSED ORDINANCE 125679 WHICH
EXPANDED THE PUBLIC REVIEW
PROCESS FOR SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
THE COUNCIL CREATED A WORKING
GROUP THAT WOULD CONSIST OF
MEMBERS FROM COMMITTEES AND
GROUPS HISTORICALLY SUBJECT TO
DISPROPORTIONATE SURVEILLANCE
INCLUDING SEATTLE'S DIVERSE
COMMITTEES OF COLOR, IMMIGRANT,
RELIGIOUS MINORITIES AND GROUPS
CONCERNED WITH PRIVACIES AND
PROTEST.
THE ORDINANCE CREATED 87 MEMBER
WORKING GROUP.
THREE APPOINTMENTS FROM THE
COUNCIL AND FOUR FROM THE
MAYOR.
AT LEAST FIVE OF THOSE
APPOINTMENTS HAVE TO COME FROM
THE COMMITTEES AND GROUPS I
MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO.
WORKING GROUP IS CHARGED WITH
CREATING A PRIVACY AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR
EACH TECHNOLOGY THE COMES
BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
THE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS OFFICE
IS WORKING TO CREATE A FILE
THAT WOULD FINALIZE THESE
APPOINTMENTS.
DEPARTMENTS WERE MADE AFTER A
PROCESS THAT ADVERTISE TO THE
COMMITTEE AND REACHED OUT TO
THOSE GROUPS I MENTIONED.
WITH THAT, I CAN GO AHEAD AND
READ THE LIST OF MEMBERS AND
THEIR AFFILIATIONS OR IF YOU
WANT TO COMMENT, I'M HAPPY TO
DO THAT.
>> I HAVE NO COMMENTS.
GO AHEAD AND READ THE NAMES.
>> THE NAMES WE HAVE, THAT WILL
BE APPOINTED OR ASHEN HOMINID.
PROGRAM MANAGER. I APOLOGIZE
FOR SLAUGHTERING NAMES.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.
A MAYOR APARTMENT.
MICHELLE MERIWETHER IS THE
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE URBAN
LEAGUE.
THE COUNCIL THAT SHE REPRESENTS
THE COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC
RELATIONS.
ANOTHER MAYOR APARTMENT.
RICH STOLTZ WHO IS THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ONE
AMERICA.
COUNCIL APPOINTMENT.
SHANE CARR WHO TESTIFIED A
MOMENT AGO.
THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERTIES
PROJECT DIRECTOR FOR THE ACLU.
AND RYAN.
AND JOE WHO IS A VOLUNTEER FOR
THE COMMITTEE TECHNOLOGY
ADVISORY BOARD.
>> THE LAST THREE OR COUNCIL
APPOINTS?
>> YES.
AND BY WAY OF UPDATE, THE
WORKING GROUP WILL IMMEDIATELY
RECEIVE UP TO SIX TECHNOLOGIES
TO START REVIEWING AS SOON AS
THEY ARE APPOINTED.
THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED BY
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, SEATTLE LEASE
DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE
WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW THESE
TECHNOLOGIES AND SUBMIT THE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AS I SAID A
MOMENT AGO, AND THEY HAVE TO DO
SO WITHIN SIX WEEKS OF
RECEIVING THE TECHNOLOGIES.
IF NECESSARY, THEY CAN ASK FOR
A TWO-WEEK EXTENSION.
EXECUTIVE HAS SAID THAT GIVEN
THE TIGHT TIMELINE BETWEEN NOW
AND THE TIME THAT A FIRST
IMPACT ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DUE,
WHICH WOULD BE IN JANUARY, THE
ú31st, THEY ARE GOING TO
CONSIDER MAYBE PIECE MAILING THE
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE WORKING
GROUP TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME.
WE WILL SEE HOW THAT
PROGRESSES.
THE FINAL DEADLINE IS THE CITY
NEEDS TO SUBMIT TO THE COUNCIL
AT LEAST ONE TECHNOLOGY THAT
HAS BEEN FULLY REVIEWED JANUARY
31.
>> JUST FOR A REFRESHER, THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS
THAT ARE REQUIRED OF THE
ENABLING ORDINANCE.
CAN YOU REMIND US WHAT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRIVACY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS IN THE
SURVEILLANCE ASSESSMENT?
FROM MY REVIEW OF MY NOTES BOTH
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT
AND THE PRIVACY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT ARE ANALYSIS THAT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE DONE BY THE
EXECUTIVE.
WHAT IS THE NAME FOR THE
ASSESSMENT BUT THE ADVISORY
GROUP DOES AND WHAT ARE THE
DIFFERENCES?
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL START AT A HIGH LEVEL.
THE EXECUTIVE HAS A PRIVACY
OFFICER AND A PRIVACY POLICY.
AND SO, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
THE TECHNOLOGY IS DETERMINED TO
BE SURVEILLANCE, IF IT HAS ANY
PRIVACY APPLICATIONS AT ALL
THAN THE EXECUTIVE DO A PRIVACY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
WHEREBY, THEY WILL ASK THE
DEPARTMENT TO DESCRIBE HOW THE
GOING TO PROTECT THE DATA, HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE ONLY
THE RIGHT FOLKS ARE AUTHORIZED
TO SEE IT, MANY OF THE SAME
KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU ALL
WOULD HEAR ABOUT AS PART OF THE
SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT.
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT
DOES ALL OF THOSE SAME THINGS,
DATA PRIVACY PROTECTION, BUT IT
GOES AN EXTRA LAYER DEEP IN
THAT IT REQUIRES COMMUNITY
REVIEW AND THEN ALSO REVIEW
FROM THIS WORKING GROUP.
>> BUT THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT ONLY -- DOESN'T INCLUDE
EVERYTHING IN THE PRIVACY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT, THE PRIVACY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT INCLUDES
TECHNOLOGIES THAT AREN'T
DEFINED AS SURVEILLANCE?
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT
IS CONFINED TO THINGS DIVINED
AS SURVEILLANCE.
-- DEFINED AS SURVEILLANCE.
>> I MAY BE OVERSTATING IT, BUT
PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT,
DOESN'T THAT PRELIMINARILY
DETERMINE, AT LEAST THE CITY
BELIEVES AND SIR IS NEEDED?
>> IT CAN.
>> IT COULD SUM UP -- FOR
EXAMPLE IN THIS GRAYKEY
TECHNOLOGY I THINK THEY
CONCLUDED IT DIDN'T NEED AND
SIR AND THAT COULD BE A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
I LOOK AT THE PIA AS A
PRELIMINARY STEP, A GLOBAL STEP
TO SEE IF THE EXTRA ANALYSIS IS
NECESSARY, AT LEAST IN THE
CITY'S MIND.
>> IT COULD BE VIEWED THAT WAY.
>> HOWEVER, AS DEMONSTRATED BY
GRAYKEY, ONCE WE GET THE
WORKING GROUP UP, THEY WILL
STILL KNOW EVERYTHING THAT
EIGHT PIA HAS -- THAT A PIA
HAS.
>> THEY WOULD SEE THE PIA AND
BECAUSE THEY WOULD GO THE EXTRA
STEP OF DOING THE REPORT THEY
WOULD ALSO SEE THE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN DONE
THROUGH AN OUTREACH PROCESS.
AND THEY WOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT
INFORMATION TO DIGEST AND
CREATE THEIR OWN REPORT TO GIVE
TO YOU ALL.
>> OKAY.
ARE THOSE YOUR OPENING REMARKS?
>> THAT IS ALL I HAVE ON THE
WORKING GROUP.
>> A FEW THINGS.
ONE IS, WE PRETTY MUCH WE
DIDN'T MOVE MOUNTAINS ON THE
WORKING GROUP, THOSE HAVE COME
FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT WERE
PRETTY INVESTED, I THINK MADE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE PRETTY
MUCH KEPT CONSISTENT WITH THAT
IF I RECALL.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND -- NOT TO
PICK ON YOU, IS COMPETENT --
HIS COMMENT ABOUT SOMETHING HE
DIDN'T GET UNTIL LATE.
THAT'S JUST NONSENSE, NOT THE
POINT HE MADE, BUT WE HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO ALONG IS DAYLIGHT
EVERYTHING.
I THINK I GOT THIS DOCUMENT
YESTERDAY MYSELF.
>> I AM SORRY, I THINK HE WAS
TALKING ABOUT THE GREAT KEY
ITEM NEXT ON THE AGENDA IN THE
MEMO WRITTEN.
>> MAYBE THE MEMO, BUT THE
NOTIFICATION THAT THIS WAS
COMING UP CAME FROM OUR OFFICE
LAST THURSDAY.
I UNDERSTAND.
>> MY FEATHERS GET RUFFLED WHEN
THERE IS AN INSINUATION THAT WE
ARE BEING LESS THAN TRANSPARENT
BECAUSE WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING
TO DO, PARTICULARLY ON THESE
ISSUES, IS DAYLIGHT EVERYTHING.
I WANT SOME OF THE STRONGEST
CRITICS ON THAT WORKING GROUP --
I MAY DISAGREE WITH THEM -- IN
FACT I DO -- BUT THAT IS OKAY
AND THAT IS PART OF THE PROCESS
-- BUT IN TERMS OF NOT BEING
TRANSPARENT, THAT IS NOT GOING
TO BE HAPPENING AT LEAST WHILE
I AM CHAIR OF TECHNOLOGY.
I WOULD RATHER HAVE OPEN
DISAGREEMENTS.
THAT WAY I CAN STAND CORRECTED,
IN FACT MY WIFE CORRECTED ME ON
SOMETHING THIS MORNING.
SO I'M USED TO.
I AM IN A BEING CORRECTED MOOD.
ANYWAY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A
GOOD WORKING GROUP.
WE SHOULD HAVE THAT FINALIZED
-- WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH
COMMITTEE ONE MORE TIME.
>> I THINK YOUR OFFICE IS
TRYING TO DO IT THIS WEEK.
BUT I THINK THERE WAS ONE SNAG
ON ONE PERSON, AN AGREEMENT OR
SOMETHING, AND APPROVAL THEY
ARE WILLING TO SERVE SO I THINK
WE'RE ALMOST READY. I LOOK
FORWARD TO THAT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE WORKING GROUP.
THANKS FOR THE UPDATE.
WITH THAT, IT'S A GOOD SEGUE TO
GO TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
SHANKAR, PRETTY INFORMAL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU
WANT TO MAKE IN THE WORKING
GROUP?
>>, TO THE MICROPHONE.
SO THE VIEWING AUDIENCE CAN
HEAR YOUR POINT.
>> THANKS COUNCILMEMBER BRUCE
HARRELL . WE APPRECIATE THE
PROCESS BY WHICH A NUMBER OF
FOLKS ON OUR RECOMMENDATION
LIST HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE
WORKING GROUP.
I THINK MY ONLY POINT ABOUT THE
NOTIFICATION ON THE WORKING
GROUP IN PARTICULAR WAS THAT
THOSE FOLKS WERE NOT INFORMED
THAT THE GROUPING -- THE WORK
GROUP WAS BEING DISCUSSED
TODAY.
I ONLY FOUND OUT WHEN I LEARNED
ABOUT GRAYKEY AND WENT TO THE
AGENDA AND FOUND OUT.
I THINK WE WOULD DO WELL TO
OPERATE WITH NOTIFICATION SO
ALL THE FOLKS -- BECAUSE I HAVE
BEEN ENGAGED CONSISTENTLY ON
SUREILLANCE OVER QUITE A LONG
TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I WILL GIVE YOU SOME MIKE
TIME.
WE THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE -- I
WILL GIVE YOU SOME MIKE ON TIME.
WE DECIDED AT THE LAST MINUTE,
LET'S DAYLIGHT WHERE WE ARE SO
FOLKS KNOW WE ARE PUTTING IT
TOGETHER.
I AGREE, WE COULD'VE DONE A
BETTER JOB PUTTING TOGETHER THE
AGENDA.
RON?
>> YOU GUYS SHOULD KNOW I
DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OF
THIS MEETING EITHER.
I OBSERVED THE NEWS TEAM
MENTIONING THIS MEETING TO BE
HELD AND I RECEIVE ALL MEETING
AND COMMITTEE INFORMATION,
TIMES AND EVENTS.
>> THE ALERTS?
>> I WAS HEARING IT ON CAIRO.
-- KIRO.
>> LET'S READ THE NEXT COURT
FILE AND HAVE A DISCUSSION.
>> DETERMINATION OF GRAYKEY
TECHNOLOGIES AS SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
>> GIVE SOME CONTEXT.
>> GREG DOSS HERE TO TALK ABOUT
CF 314411.
IT WAS PREPARED AT THE
DIRECTION OF COUNCILMEMBER LISA
HERBOLD . BEFORE I SUMMARIZE
GRAYKEY I'M GOING TO DO
BACKGROUND ON SURVEILLANCE AND
WHY YOU ALL ARE HERE LOOKING AT
THIS.
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE
REQUIRES THE EXECUTIVE TO
ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A
TECHNOLOGY IS SURVEILLANCE.
TO MAKE THIS DECISION THE
EXECUTIVE IS SUPPOSED TO
EVALUATE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION IN
THE ORDINANCE.
IF THE TECHNOLOGY IS DETERMINED
TO BE SURVEILLANCE THAN THE
EXECUTIVE IS REQUIRED TO DO ALL
THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT WITH
THE SIR, SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT, TO GO THROUGH THE
PUBLIC PROCESS, TO GO THROUGH
THE WORKING GROUP PROCESS AND
COME TO YOU ALL.
IF IT IS NOT DETERMINED TO BE
SURVEILLANCE AS I SAID A MOMENT
AGO, THERE IS STILL A PRIVACY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY
SIDE, THE EXECUTIVE SIDE THE
DISTANT TO MAKE SURE THE
PRIVACY RIGHTS OF THOSE
INVOLVED ARE PROTECTED.
ON CF 314411 THE MEMO
INDICATES THE EXECUTIVE HAD
PERFORMED AN INITIAL
SURVEILLANCE REVIEW OF THE
GRAYKEY TECHNOLOGY IN THAT
INITIAL REVIEW BUT IT'S NOT
SURVEILLANCE.
AS YOU POINT OUT, THE COULD'VE
BEEN SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS OR AT A
LATER TIME THE COULD'VE CHANGED
THEIR MIND.
BUT THE DOCUMENTATION THEY GO
THROUGH IN THE PROCESS THEY GO
THROUGH FOR INITIAL REVIEW
DETERMINED IT WAS NOT
SURVEILLANCE.
>> TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY
THEY MADE THAT DETERMINATION.
>> WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS,
THERE IS A DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATION OF THE
DEFINITION.
I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED
THE EXECUTIVE TO GIVE US THEIR
SPECIFIC RATIONALE.
WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THE
ASSESSMENT THEY DID TALKS ABOUT
USING GRAYKEY AS A FORENSIC
TOOL WHICH IMPLIES SORT OF AN
AFTER-THE-FACT. THE DEFINITION
TALKS ABOUT SURVEILLANCE BEING
THE MONITORING OR TRACKING OF
INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIORS I THINK
THE QUESTION MIGHT BE WHETHER
OR NOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ACTIVE TRACKING AS IN A CAMERA
WATCHING SOMEONE OR WHETHER WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT FORENSIC OR
PASSIVE TRACKING WHERE YOU
COULD GET INTO A PHONE AND SEE
WHERE SOMEONE HAS BEEN.
I THINK THAT IS THE WAY THE
EXECUTIVE MADE THE
DETERMINATION, THEN IT'S A CASE
WHERE IT IS CLEARLY JUST A
DIFFERENCE OF INTERPRETATION.
I KNOW THE EXECUTIVE DONE DUE
DILIGENCE AND HAD SOME
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LAW
DEPARTMENT.
BUT THERE WAS NO FORMAL LAW
DEPARTMENT DOCUMENT THE
CLASSIFIED IT ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER.
>> WHEN YOU ARE SAYING THE
EXECUTIVE ARE YOU REFERRING TO
THE I.T.
AND/OR POLICE DEPARTMENT?
OR EXECUTIVE CABINET?
>> I AM REFERRING SPECIFICALLY
TO THE CTO WHO IS CHARGED UNDER
THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE THE
DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER
SOMETHING IS SURVEILLANCE.
THE CTO WILL LOOK TO HIS OR HER
PRIVACY OFFERS -- OFFER --
OFFICER TO MAKE THAT
ASSESSMENT.
THAT INITIAL ASSESSMENT, WHAT
WAS DONE, DETERMINED NOT TO BE
SURVEILLANCE.
>> JUST LOOKING AT THE
DEFINITION OF SURVEILLANCE IN
YOUR MEMO.
I DON'T SEE AN EXPLICIT
EXEMPTION.
AN EXPLICIT EXEMPTION THAT FITS
THE ANALYSIS THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE
EXECUTIVE IS USING TO CLAIM AN
EXEMPTION.
ARE THEY CLAIMING EXEMPTION?
>> IN THEIR ASSESSMENT THEY ARE
NOT SEEING THE TOOL IS BEING
USED FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE.
THEREFORE THEY DON'T THINK IT
NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE SIR
PROCESS, RATHER THE PRIVACY
IMPACT PROCESS WHICH AGAIN IS
THOROUGH, JUST DOESN'T INVOLVE
YOU ALL, THE COMMITTEE AND
WORKING GROUP.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , I
HAVE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW
THIS TECHNOLOGY IS USED, WHAT
SURVEILLANCE MEANS, BUT WE
INTEND. FOR EXAMPLE IN THIS
EXAMPLE, USING GRAYKEY , IF
THEY HAVE A PHONE AND THEY CAN
LOOK AT, EVERY PHONE WOULD HAVE
A GPS TRACKER, THEY COULD SEE
THE PAST WHEREABOUTS OF WHOEVER
OWNED THE PHONE.
THAT WOULD BE SURVEILLANCE IN
THE PAST SENSE.
THEY COULD SEE WHERE THEY HAVE
BEEN.
I WILL WAIT FOR YOU TO GET TO
YOUR OVERVIEW.
>> I AM DONE.
GO AHEAD.
I WILL FINISH QUICKLY BY SAYING
THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS THAT IF
THE EXECUTIVE OR IN THIS CASE
THE CTO MAKES A DETERMINATION
THAT SOMETHING IS NOT
SURVEILLANCE, THE COUNCIL HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO ESSENTIALLY
SAY, YES IT IS.
AND THEN ASK THE EXECUTIVE OR
THE CTO TO PUT THAT PARTICULAR
TECHNOLOGY THROUGH THE RIGOROUS
COUNSEL REVIEW, PUBLIC REVIEW
AND WORKING GROUP PROCESS.
THAT IS WHY YOU'RE HERE NOW.
THE MEMO ATTACHED TO CF 314411
WOULD MAKE IT COUNSEL
DETERMINATION THAT THIS IS
INDEED SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
AND SHOULD GO THROUGH THE MORE
FORMAL SIR -- SIR PROCESS WITH
THE COMMITTEE.
IN VOTING CLICK FILE OUT YOU
WOULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION
AND SEND THE CTO A SIGNAL THAT
THAT TECHNOLOGY HAD TO BE
TREATED AS SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
>> A FEW PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS,
UP WITH THEM ON THE TABLE FOR
DISCUSSION.
THIS IS A TRIAL RUN ON THE
PROCESS WE ARE ABOUT TO BEGIN
BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST -- I HAVE
BEEN AWARE OF GRAYKEY, THERE
HAS BEEN A LOT WRITTEN ABOUT
GRAYKEY ON A NATIONAL BASIS, I
DON'T THINK WE AS A CITY HAVE
IT WE ARE ABOUT TO PURCHASE IT
PERHAPS , SPRING OF NEXT YEAR
SO WE ARE CONSIDERING THE
PURCHASE, CORRECT?
>> ACTUALLY 3rd QUARTER IS WHEN
THE DEPARTMENT INDICATED THEY
WOULD PURCHASE.
>> IT IS SPRING?
>> IT IS JULY.
>> LET ME ASK A SPECIFIC
QUESTION.
THE EXECUTIVE INDICATED THEY
WERE USING THIS TECHNOLOGY
SPECIFICALLY FOR INVESTIGATION
OF INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND THAT KIND
OF CRIME.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW THAT?
ARE THEY STIPULATING THAT THAT
-- WHY WOULDN'T THEY USE IT FOR
HOMICIDE OR OTHER TYPES OF
CASES?
>> IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THEY
MIGHT. JUST IN THE INITIAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT THAT THEY
FILLED OUT, THEY HAD SAID THEY
WOULD USE IT FOR THOSE CASES.
THEY MAY USE IT FOR OTHER
CASES.
IF THE TECHNOLOGY WERE TO BE
APPROVED THROUGH THE COUNSEL
PROCESS OR REGULAR PRIVACY
PROCESS, THEY WOULD NEED --
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT
HOWEVER THEY WANT.
>> MY FIRST FLAG IF THEY WILL,
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THE STATED
USE IS THE USE.
HAD WE MAKE SURE THE TECHNOLOGY
IS NOT MISUSED OR DIFFERENT
THAN THEY ARE SAYING GOING
THROUGH THE PROCESS?
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
BECOMES THE CASE BECAUSE IF IT
GOES THROUGH THE PIA AND SIR
PROCESS AND IS BLESSED BY THE
COUNSEL, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE
IT'S USED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
WHAT WE APPROVED?
IN THE SITUATION, AND QUITE
FRANKLY I WOULDN'T HAVE A
PROBLEM FOR BEING USED IN
HOMICIDE CASES, BUT I DO HAVE
IT -- HAVE A PROBLEM DEVIATING
FROM EVERYTHING APPROVED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE
DOCUMENTS OR WE STATE IN THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE THEY
HAVE TO USE IT FOR ITS INTENDED
USE ACCORDING TO THE PROCESS --
>> YOU ARE RIGHT ON.
IF THEY WENT THROUGH THE SIR
PROCESS THEY WOULD HAVE TO
IDENTIFY WHAT USES THEY WOULD
USE IT FOR, HOW THEY WOULD USE
IT, WHO WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO
THE DATA, HOW IT WOULD BE
PROTECTED WHEN STORED IN A
VARIETY OF QUESTIONS ALONG
THOSE LINES.
>> AND SO, I THINK, ASSUMING
THIS TECHNOLOGY DID GO THROUGH
THE PROCESS AND WAS AT A LATER
DATE APPROVED FOR PURCHASE, I
THINK THE QUESTION ISN'T JUST
ABOUT THE TYPES OF CRIMES IT IS
USED IN A FORENSIC WAY FOR, BUT
TO CREATE SOME ASSURITY THAT IT
IS ACTUALLY -- THE REASON THEY
ARE CLAIMING IT'S EXEMPT IS
BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY BE USED
IN THE CASE THERE WAS A WARRANT
ISSUED.
AGAIN THE DEFINITION OF
SURVEILLANCE DOESN'T MAKE THAT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOOKING
BACKWARDS OR LOOKING FORWARD IN
SURVEILLANCE.
BUT THAT WOULD BE THE PIECE
THAT I WOULD WANT TO KNOW,
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN
APPROACH WE HAD TO AUDIT, LESS
ABOUT THE TYPES OF CRIMES, BUT
MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
ACTUALLY BEING USED IN A
BACKWARDS LOOK IN THE CASE OF A
WARRANT FOR WHETHER OR NOT THEY
HAD THE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE
TECHNOLOGY IN SOME OTHER
SURVEILLANCE WAY OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE PERHAPS -- RECENT A WARRANT
AND THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF
ACTIVITIES THAT THE DEPARTMENT
WANTS TO WATCH.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT.
>> TO UNDERSTAND HER POINT?
>> THAT THEY WOULD ONLY BE
USING THE TECHNOLOGY IF THEY
HAD A WARRANT TO USE IT.
>> THE ASSESSMENT THAT THEY
HAVE DONE TALKS ABOUT USE BY
WARRANT.
>> EXCLUSIVE USE BY WARRANT?
>> IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SAY --
IF A PERSON CONSENTED TO ALLOW
THE POLICE TO LOOK AT THE PHONE,
THEN THAT IS A SITUATION WHERE
OBVIOUSLY THE SURVEILLANCE
ORDINANCE WOULDN'T APPLY
BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING
CONSENT.
IF THERE IS A WARRANT, THEN
OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE NOT GIVING
CONSENT AND IT'S A TOOL THAT IS
BEING USED IN THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
SURVEILLANCE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> I THINK THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO FIGURE
OUT HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS.
THIS IS NEW TERRITORY FOR ALL
OF US AND I THINK WE SPENT A
LOT OF TIME HEARING FROM A
NUMBER OF FOLKS INTERNALLY AND
EXTERNALLY ABOUT CONCERNS.
AND I THINK THERE IS A BIT FOR
ME THAT WE HAVE TO TRY IT ON
AND SEE HOW IT WORKS.
I THINK THE CLERK FILE THAT
WOULD DESIGNATE THIS FROM THE
COUNSEL AS A SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT IS AN
IMPORTANT EXERCISE TO GO
THROUGH.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE
OF THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS WE
ARE GOING TO WANT TO WORK
THROUGH AND ASK AND HAVE SOME
TRANSPARENCY AROUND AND
UNDERSTAND THESE QUESTIONS.
I APPRECIATE THE MEMO OUTLINING
WHAT IS THERE.
I THINK THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL
TO BE AN AMAZING TOOL FOR
FIGHTING CRIME.
IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE
REALLY INVASIVE ON PEOPLE AND I
WANT TO HEAR SPECIFICALLY HOW
IT'S GOING TO BE USED, HOW WE
MONITOR IT, HOW IT'S NOT USED
UNATTENDED LEE.
I WANT TO HEAR THE TRADE-OFFS.
IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE THING
SOLVING CERTAIN CASES, WITH
THAT WE CAN DO GREAT THINGS AND
HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT
THEIR CONCERNS.
>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU
SAID, I THINK.
BECAUSE, I DON'T THINK AT THIS
POINT IS A CLERK FILE THAT
SHOULD BE FILED AND CLASSIFIED
AS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS
YET.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE ALL THE
INFORMATION I NEED.
BUT I WANTED TO DAYLIGHTED
BECAUSE OF THE POINTS YOU MADE.
AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE, AS I
UNDERSTAND THE TECHNOLOGY, THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE IN
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE
PHONE.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO INSTALL
THE TECHNOLOGY AND GIVE IT
BACK, AT THIS POINT THE PERSON
WOULD BE A DEFENDANT, I WILL
CALL HIM A DEFENDANT, THEY ARE
CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
>> I WOULD ASSUME.
>> PERHAPS THEY WOULDN'T BE A
DEFENDANT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T
BEEN CHARGED AND THE TRYING TO
FIND A BASIS FOR A CHARGE.
I WILL CALL HIM A SUSPECT.
SO IF THEY HAVE THE PHONE FROM
THE SUSPECT AND WE ARE THINK
SPECIFICALLY WE ARE ONLY GOING
AFTER CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN,
THAT IS WHY WE ARE INSTALLING
GRAYKEY TECHNOLOGY, WE ARE NOT
EVEN GOING AFTER HOMICIDE, WE
ARE GOING AFTER CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY CASES AND WE HAVE
THIS AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE
IF IN FACT THIS PERSON HAS
VISITED SITES TO THEIR PHONE TO
DO WITH THE GOING TO DO, YES
THEY CAN LOOK TO THE PHYSICAL
WHEREABOUTS, THE GEOGRAPHY OF
THEIR PAST TRACKING, BUT I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IMPORTANT
HAS WHERE THEY ARE GOING AFTER.
SO, I WOULD PROBABLY AGREE THAT
IS SURVEILLANCE LOOKING AT
SOMEONE'S PAST.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT.
BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND --
I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE
DEPARTMENT HERE, PERHAPS I.T.
AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE
USING THIS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THE LIMITED USE OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE I THINK ONE
OF THEIR CONCERNS IS THAT THEY
THINK THIS IS GOOD TECHNOLOGY
TO GO AFTER THE SUSPECTS.
AND I THINK THEY ARE CONCERNED
THE NEW SYSTEM WE HAVE WILL JUST
BLOCK ALL OF THIS KIND OF
TECHNOLOGY THAT THERE WILL BE
AN IMPEDIMENT AND THEY WILL
WASTE TIME AND MONEY AND EFFORT
AND I HAVE LITTLE APPETITE FOR
THAT AS WELL.
I WOULD RATHER HEAR THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE STORY.
IT IS SEAN CARR, THE ACLU HAS
BROUGHT UP SOME ISSUES BUT I
THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO SAY IT
GOES THROUGH THE SIR.
WHAT I DID HERE IS THAT THE PIA
WAS DONE EFFICIENTLY.
SO PERHAPS THE CITY COULD
IMPROVE THAT PIA AND THEN
PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE THE
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP, WHAT
ARE WE CALLING IT?
THE PRIVACY WORKING GROUP?
>> COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP.
IF I COULD SAY ONE THING ON
YOUR STATEMENT.
THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE FULL PIA
GET.
THEY HAD JUST DONE THE INITIAL
ASSESSMENT.
>> THE PIA HAS NOT BEEN
COMPLETED?
SO THE PIA HAS NOT BEEN DONE
YET BUT THERE IS SOMETHING OUT
THERE THAT WARRANTED A COMMENT
THAT IT WAS DONE, I CAN'T
MEMBER THE WORD, EFFICIENTLY OR
INADEQUATELY.
>> THEIR INITIAL REVIEW.
THEY HAVE A SOFTWARE THAT GOES
THROUGH AND ASKS THE QUESTIONS
AND THEY COMPLETE THE SOFTWARE
AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
IT IS SORT OF A FIRST CUT.
AND THEN BASED ON THAT AND
OTHER THINGS, THEY EITHER MOVE
FORWARD WITH A FULL PIA, THEY
MAY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FULL
PIA ANYWAY.
I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT HAD
ONLY DONE THE FIRST LOOK.
>> A PRELIMINARY LOOK.
MY TAKE ON THIS IS THAT BEFORE
A PIA IS EVEN DONE, BEFORE THE
USERS OF THE TECHNOLOGY MADE
THEIR CASE ON THEIR SPECIFIC
USE, FOR US TO SUGGEST THAT IT
SURVEILLANCE UNDER THE
ORDINANCE AS YOU GO THROUGH
THIS FAIRLY STRINGENT PROCESS IS
PREMATURE.
>> IS A CLARIFICATION, GREG,
ARE YOU SAYING THE EXECUTIVE
ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THE PIA WAS
NONSUFFICIENT AND THAT THEY
INTENDED TO DO SOMETHING MORE
COMPLETE?
>> THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE PIA.
>> I'M SORRY, --
>> THE INITIAL REVIEW.
I KNOW THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO DO
A PIA AND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE.
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD'VE
GONE THE OTHER ROUTE AND ON THE
SIR AND BRIGHTER BEFORE YOU IS
THE QUESTION.
>> THEY CLEARLY STATE THAT THEY
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS
TECHNOLOGY IS SUBJECT TO THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
WHY WOULD WE THINK THAT IF THEY
DID ANOTHER ASSESSMENT THEY
WOULD COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT
OUTCOME?
>> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR
THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, I
WOULD AGREE WITH THE SICK --
WITH THE ASSESSMENT.
>> IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT IT'S
PREMATURE IT'S MORE THE YOU
DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THE CLERK
FILE WOULD DO?
>> THAT AND IT'S PREMATURE.
IF THE PIA HASN'T BEEN DONE YET,
I THINK THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY
ONE THAT WAS DONE, BUT THEY ARE
GIVING -- HAVE THEY FORMALLY
SAID THE SIR WAS NOT REQUIRED
WAS THAT JUST IN CONVERSATION?
>> STAFF ASKED WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WERE GOING TO DO THE SIR
AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY
WOULD DO THE PIA.
AND GO FROM THERE.
THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO
DOING AND SIR.
>> IN YOUR MEMO, IT SAYS STAFF
I.T.
REVIEW, --
>> WHAT PARAGRAPH?
>> SECOND PAGE 3rd PARAGRAPH.
SEATTLE I.T.
STAFF REVIEW INCLUDED IT
DETERMINATION THAT GRAYKEY DOES
NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
TO ME, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE,
END OF STORY.
AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR
NOT THE COUNCIL THINKS IT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. I
DON'T SEE A MECHANISM FOR THEM
COMING BACK AND GIVING US A
DIFFERENT ANSWER.
>> THE MEMO DOES GO ON TO STATE
THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT A
HIGH PIRACY RISK EXISTS AND
BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST OF THE
COUNCIL AND PUBLIC THEY WOULD DO
A PIA.
>> WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER
BEFORE HE MOVED ONTO THIS ITEM,
THEY DO IS THE IMPACT
STATEMENTS FOR THINGS THAT ARE
NOT CONSIDERED SURVEILLANCE.
>> I GUESS IF I WERE TO TRY TO
SUM IT UP I WOULD SAY THAT THEY
COULD DO A PRIVACY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CHANGE THEIR
MIND LATER, BUT AS YOU POINT
OUT, RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
THEIR INITIAL REVIEW AND
DISCUSSION, SOME OF WHICH WERE
WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT, THEY
CAME TO THE CONCLUSION IT'S NOT
SURVEILLANCE.
UNLESS SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT
CAME UP IN THE PIA REVIEW, I
WOULDN'T EXPECT THE
DETERMINATION TO CHANGE.
>> I THINK THE POINTS YOU RAISE
AROUND THE RIGHTNESS OR FOR
QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT SURE UNTIL WE GET INTO
SOME OF THESE THAT WERE REALLY
GOING TO KNOW.
STATED SOMETHING ALONG THE
LINES OF, I DON'T WANT A
BURDENSOME PROCESS TO GET IN
THE WAY OF FOLKS AND THEIR
ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOB.
AND FIND CRIMINALS.
I AGREE WITH THAT.
I ALSO -- THE WHOLE POINT OF
THIS IS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A
TOOL THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF
BEING REALLY INVASIVE IN
PEOPLE'S PRIVACY.
HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH
THAT?
ON ANYTHING WHEN WE START OUT,
THE FIRST COUPLE MIGHT TAKE A
WHILE BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE THE
FIRST TIME HAVE DONE IT AND
THEY ARE NOT SURE WHAT WE WANT
AND WE HAVE SOME BACK-AND-
FORTH.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT
AT SOME POINT.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT ON
SOME PIECE OF TECHNOLOGY.
IT MAY TURN OUT THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT THING TO GO THROUGH.
BUT WE LEARNED THAT TOOK FOUR
MONTHS AND 18 STEPS AND WE HAVE
TO STREAMLINE IT.
IT MAY TURN OUT THAT WE NEED A
PRESCREENING TOOL TO SAY COME
PRESENT TO US AND WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE YOU OUT OF THIS LOOP IF
IT PASSES THE INITIAL TEST.
BECAUSE THE NEXT IS TO
BURDENSOME.
WHETHER THIS IS THE RIGHT ONE
OR NOT I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THAT IS A POLICY
QUESTION TO DETERMINE.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD
JUMP IN RELATIVELY SOON ON
SOMETHING, GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
THIS TO ME FEELS RIGHT BECAUSE
I THINK IT HAS THE RIGHT MIX OF
THINGS WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.
THE POTENTIAL TO ADD SIGNIFICANT
AND IF IT, I WANT TO HEAR FROM
THE DEPARTMENT WHAT THAT IS.
I WANT TO HEAR HOW THEY ARE
GOING TO RESTRICT THE USE OR
HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DISCLOSE
THE USE, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO
MAKE SURE NOT EVERY OFFICER HAS
THIS ON THEIR DESKTOP AND CAN
DO THIS WHEN THEY WANT TO.
THOSE TYPES OF QUESTIONS.
AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT ACTUALLY
DOES.
>> I AGREE, IT'S JUST A
QUESTION OF TIMING.
I DON'T WANT TO JUMP EVERY TIME
THE ACLU SAYS IT RAISES ISSUES.
I WANT THE ANALYSIS.
I WANT TO GIVE THE EXECUTIVE IN
THE I.T.
GROUP AND THE TECHNOLOGISTS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO A FULL-BLOWN
PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENT.
I THINK THEY SHOULD BE AFFORDED
THAT.
AT THAT POINT WE CAN SAY, IS
HAS TO GO THROUGH AND SIR IT
RAISES ISSUES.
THEY MAY SAY, WE NEVER LOOK AT
THE GPS TRACKING, OR SIMPLY
LOOKING AT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
SITES THEY ARE VISITING.
THAT IS IT.
THEY MAY SAY THAT IN ASSESSMENT
IN WHICH CASE I SAY IT'S A GOOD
THING TO DO WE WANT YOU TO HAVE
THAT TECHNOLOGY IN AFTER THOSE
PEOPLE.
I DON'T LIKE WASTING TIME,
ENERGY AND RESOURCES ON GOOD
TECHNOLOGY.
AT THIS POINT I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE THE DATA TO MAKE A
DECISION.
I THINK WE HAVE SOME
HYPOTHETICAL CONCERNS.
WE ARE AND GO THROUGH THE
SYSTEM.
AT LEAST GIVE THE DEPARTMENTS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A FULL-
BLOWN PRIVACY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT.
THAT IS WHY I WANT TO DAYLIGHT
IT EARLY.
I WILL CONTINUE EVEN BEFORE THE
PIA'S ARE DONE, AND IF WE HAVE
A GOOD DEPARTMENT, WHETHER IT'S
POLICE OR ANY OTHER, SDOT IS AN
EXAMPLE, THEY SHOULD BE
FORTHRIGHT.
PRIOR TO PURCHASES, DURING
BUDGET TIME THEY SHOULD LET US
KNOW -- THEY KNOW WE HAVE A
STRONG SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE
IN PLACE.
SO PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE DEAL,
THERE IS STILL SOME PROCESS TO
BE DONE.
I THINK IT IS PREMATURE TO
REQUIRE IT NOW.
>> THANK YOU.
AS A RELATES TO THE TIMING
SPECIFICALLY, I THINK THE
TIMING ASKED MOVING FORWARD
WITH THIS CLERK FILE AND
COUNSEL DETERMINATION IDEAL.
EXECUTIVE IS KIND PUTTING
PURCHASING THIS TECHNOLOGY IN
3rd QUARTER.
SOMETIME IN LATE-MID SUMMER.
THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME TIME TO
ACTIVATE THE ADVISORY GROUP.
AND THEN SECONDLY, I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE ONLY
WAY WE CAN GUARANTEE WE ARE
HAVING THE KIND OF DISCUSSION
YOU ARE SAYING YOU THINK WE
WOULD BENEFIT FROM IS BY
IDENTIFYING THIS AS A
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY FOR THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY REVIEW
BECAUSE THE PRIVACY IMPACT
STATEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE
SUBMITTED TO COUNSEL UNDER THE
ORDINANCE.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT
THE EXECUTIVE CONTINUE TO HAVE
THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
TECHNOLOGY.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN COMPEL THE
EXECUTIVE TO DO SO IS BY FILING
A CLERK FILE.
THAT IS INCORRECT.
THEY HAVE TO DO A FULL-BLOWN
PIA BEFORE THEY MAKE A
PURCHASE, CORRECT?
>> YES.
BUT THE CAN'T PURCHASE UNTIL
THEY GO THROUGH THE STRINGENT
PROCESS OF THE PIA AT WHICH
POINT WE CAN SAY IT GOES
THROUGH AND SIR.
>> IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR TO GO
BACK TO US TO AUTHORIZE.
>> YOU ARE BOTH CORRECT.
[LAUGHTER]
IF THE COUNCIL WAS TO BECOME
AWARE THAT A PIA HAD BEEN DONE
AND A FULL ANALYSIS HAS BEEN
DONE AND THE COUNSEL WANTED TO
PASS THIS CLERK FILE LATER,
THEY COULD DO IT LATER.
OR, THEY COULD DO IT NOW BASED
ON THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT.
BUT THAT'S WHY ASKED THE
QUESTION EARLIER, THAT THE
WORKING GROUP WILL ALWAYS KNOW
WHAT PIA IS ALWAYS IN THE
PIPELINE.
>> NO.
NOT NECESSARILY.
IF A PIA IS DONE THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNSEL BE
NOTIFIED.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE
PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE THE
COUNSEL TO PASS AN ORDINANCE,
WOULD REQUIRE THE WORKING GROUP
TO LOOK AT IT.
IF THE PIA WAS DONE THERE'S
NOTHING THAT SAYS THE COUNSEL
WOULD FOR SURE GET TO SEE IT.
>> THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN AN
OVERSIGHT OR NO ONE THOUGHT OF
IT.
I ASSUMED THE PA PROCESS WOULD
BE DAYLIGHTED IN FRONT OF
EVERYONE.
>> IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WE ARE
IN A FIGHT WITH THE EXECUTIVE
ON THIS ONE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S
CONVERSATION BACK AND FORTH AND
WE MAY HAVE DISAGREEMENTS ON
HOW TO CLASSIFY IT.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I WOULD BE
COMFORTABLE PASSING THE CLERK
FILE TODAY.
I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE MAKING A
CLEAR STATEMENT TO THE
EXECUTIVE THAT WE WANT YOU TO
DO A PIA ON THIS AND WE WOULD
LIKE YOU TO BRING IT BACK TO
COUNSEL BY A CERTAIN DATE.
IF WE DON'T SEE IT BY THAT DATE
INTENTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE CLERK FILE THAT WOULD
MANDATE THIS AS SURVEILLANCE SO
WE WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO DO THAT.
AND YOU COME BACK AT A CERTAIN
DATE WE WILL EVALUATE FOR
ACCEPTANCE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
LET ME MAKE SOMETHING CLEAR.
I HAVE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE POLICE APARTMENT, THE
EXECUTIVE OR THE I.T.
AT GRAYKEY.
I MAY BE MAKING MY OWN
ARGUMENT.
THEY MAY SAY, WE WANT TO DO AN
SIR.
I DON'T KNOW.
I LIKE THIS IS AN EXERCISE TO
SAY THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE
THE PIA WORK.
ONE OF MY TAKEAWAYS IS I
THOUGHT ALL PIA WERE PHILLY THIS
FAIRLY WELL KNOWN THE COUNSEL
AND WORKING GROUP.
I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT PROCESS.
SOUNDS LIKE IT'S 2-1 IF YOU
WANT TO MOVE IT FORWARD.
WHAT I'D RATHER DO IS, THIS IS
NOT TO TIME SENSITIVE.
I LIKE THE CONVERSATION WITH
STAFF AND I.T.
TO HAVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
TECHNOLOGY AND WHAT THE PLANS
ARE AND THE PIA PROCESS.
I WILL PROBABLY DRAFT SOMETHING
TO ALERT THEM THAT YES, THERE
COULD BE SURVEILLANCE ISSUES.
I DON'T WANT TO BE THE PERSON
INVADING FOLKS PRIVACY ON THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
AS I UNDERSTOOD THE TECHNOLOGY
BASED ON THE WRITE UP, VERY
LIMITED AND SPECIFIC USE GOING
AFTER CASES, NOT SURVEILLANCE.
AND THAT DOESN'T RAISE -- NO
ONE HAS A RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN
THEY ARE VISITING CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY SITES.
THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.
IF THERE IS ROOM FOR ABUSE BY
THE DEPARTMENT, LOOKING AT PAST
SURVEILLANCE ISSUES OR OTHER
CASES, OTHER THAN SPECIFIC USE,
MAYBE WE SHOULD EXPAND IT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WHAT I
SAID WAS ACCURATE.
SPECIFIC LIMITED USE, I HAVEN'T
HAD THE SPECIFIC CONVERSATION.
I WANT TO HAVE THOSE BEFORE I
SAY LET'S GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
>> THAT WORKS FOR ME.
I THINK IF THERE IS SOME -- THE
THIRD QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR
DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S
PARTICULARLY URGENT, I DON'T
KNOW WHAT THE RAMP-UP IS TO
APPROVING IT, I WOULD SAY I
WOULD HATE TO GET TO A POINT
WHERE ONE MONTH BEFORE THEY'RE
GOING TO BUY IT, AND THEN WE
SAY WE WANT TO DO A SURVEILLANCE
AND THEN THEY SAY THAT PUTS IT
OFF ONE YEAR.
>> I WILL HAVE IT RESOLVED BY
JANUARY.
OR THE ISSUES OR BEEN
ADDRESSED.
I'M NOT GOING TO WAIT TO THE
LAST MINUTE.
I'M ALSO GOING TO LOOK AT HOW
THE PIA PROCESS WORKS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- WHAT
CONCERNS ME JUST TO BE
TRANSPARENT IS THAT THE PIAS
ARE BEING DONE AND NO ONE IS
READING EVERY FILE AND I DON'T
HAVE TO RELY ON SOMEONE TO READ
EVERY SINGLE FILE, THAT SHOULD
BE DAYLIGHTED PROCESS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IT REQUIRES A
PRESENTATION OR COMMITTEE, BUT
AT MINIMUM IT SHOULD BE A
WEBSITE THAT SHOWS ALL THE PIAS
IN ORDER SO THAT ANYONE WHO
WANTS A TRACK THAT CAN GO BACK
AS OPPOSED TO DO A RECORDS
REQUEST.
>> IT'S POSSIBLE THEY HAVE DONE
THIS.
THEIR WEBSITE IS THOROUGH.
>> I WILL GET A LITTLE MORE
INFORMATION.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE
I ALSO HAVE A PREFERENCE TO
DEFER TO THE CHAIR, THE PERSON
WHO HAS THE MOST EXPERTISE ON
ISSUES OF TECHNOLOGY, THAT I
BROUGHT THIS FORWARD WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WERE
SUPPORTIVE OF VOTING ON THE
CLERK FILE TODAY.
I WOULD'VE ASKED US TO BE ON
THE AGENDA IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU
HAD CONCERNS.
THE INFORMATION I HAD RECEIVED
FROM YOUR OFFICE WAS THAT YOU
ARE PREPARED TO GO ON THIS.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING
THIS DISCUSSION IN COMMITTEE
AND I REALLY WOULD'VE PREFERRED
THAT IF YOU ARE NOT READY TO
VOTE ON IT TO NOT BRING IT
FORWARD UNTIL YOU WERE.
>> THAT IS ACCURATE.
WHEN I FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT I
SAID LET'S PUT ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN WHEN I DUG DEEPER --
>> I KNOW THINGS HAPPEN --
>> LAST NIGHT BY THE WAY.
I SAID WE'RE GOING TO THE
PROCESS.
I TOLD GREG THIS MORNING, I
WANTED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION
BECAUSE, I AM GLAD YOU FLAGGED
IT.
I APPRECIATE THAT PROCESS.
I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH
ME ON THIS.
YOU WILL GET THROUGH THIS AND
WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENTS.
>> I AM HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH
THE DEPARTMENTS.
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE
ISSUE.
WITH THAT, WE STAND ADJOURNED
AND I DON'T HAVE A GREAT REST
OF THE AFTERNOON.