>> GOOD MORNING.
EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE FOR
OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED
GOVERNANCE, EQUITY, AND
TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE.
I'M CHAIR BRUCE HARRELL JOINED
BY CAPABLE STAFF.
AND WE HAVE THREE ITEMS WE'D
LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH POSSIBLE
VOTES.
THE FIRST TWO ARE RECONCILING
BASICALLY CITY LAW WITH WHAT
WAS PASSED IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE DEALING WITH CRIMES
AND OFFENSES CONCERNS ANIMALS.
AND THE SALE AND USE OF TOBACCO
AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO AND
BE MINORS.
AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM WHICH
WOULD WARRANT MORE DISCUSSION
WOULD BE ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO
PASS AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND
PROTECTING THE PRIVACY RIGHTS
OF ALL OF OUR PEOPLE IN OUR
CITY.
HAVING SAID THAT.
LET'S START OFF WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT.
AND WE HAVE A FEW FOLKS THAT
HAVE SIGNED UP.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO CITY
HALL AND EXPRESSING YOUR
OPINION.
YOU HAVE ABOUT TWO MINUTES AND
WE START WITH JACOB MITCHELL.
I APOLOGIZE FOR MISPRONOUNCING
NAMES.
>> MY NAME IS JACOB MITCHELL
AND I'M CONDITIONING OUT OF
CONCERN ABOUT THE SEATTLE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
I HAVE WORKED AS A SOFTWARE
ENGINEER, THAT'S MY BACKGROUND.
AND SO WHEN I LEARNED ABOUT THE
SYSTEMS, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
ASPECTS SUCH AS THE PHYSICAL
SECURITY OF THE DEVICES WHICH
HAVE INVOLVED IN THE
DEPLOYMENT, HOW THEY'RE
MAINTAINED.
WHAT'S DONE TO MITIGATE AND
HANDLE POTENTIAL COMPROMISES OF
THE DEVICES.
THERE SEEMS TO BE MANY
ASSUMPTIONS WITH THE LPR AND
CCTV SYSTEMS THAT THEY ARE
FUNDAMENTALLY SECURE AND HAVING
WORKED IN THAT SPACE, I AM
SOMEWHAT SKEPTICAL.
I ALSO THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS HOW THIS
AFFECTS CERTAIN POPULATIONS
MORE THAN IT DOES OTHERS.
THERE ARE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE WHOSE WHEREABOUTS ARE
A SERIOUS MATTER.
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEIR PRIVACY IS RECOGNIZED.
AND SIMILARLY, IT AFFECTS
PEOPLE WHO NEED TO ENGAGE WITH
THE FREE PRESS.
WE NEED TO ENABLE PEOPLE TO
MEET WITH REPORTERS AND
INVESTIGATORS WITHOUT HAVING
THEIR PRIVACY RIGHTS VIOLATED.
SO I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
THAT WE JUST KEEP ALL THESE
THINGS IN MIND.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, JACOB.
FOLLOWING JEFF WILL BE JARED
MOORE.
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR HARRELL
AND COMMITTEE STAFF.
MY NATIVE IS JEFF, AND THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF JAPANESE
AMERICAN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
BASED IN SEATTLE.
SINCE 1996 WE'VE WORKED TO
SHARE THE HISTORY OF WORLD WAR
I INCARCERATION TO PROMOTE
EQUITY AND JUSTICE TODAY.
110,000 JAPANESE AMERICANS FROM
THE COAST, FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
WERE ALREADY CONDUCTING A
WARRANTLESS MASS SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAM AGAINST JAPANESE
AMERICANS BASED ON OUR ETHNIC
BACKGROUND, AND 75 YEARS LATER.
WE ARE SEEING THE UNPRECEDENTED
GROWTH OF A NEW CLASS OF
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS THAT
DISPROPORTIONATELY TARGET
PEOPLE OF COLOR, RELIGIOUS
MINORITIES, IMMIGRANTS AND
OTHER GROUPS.
I WAS PROUD TO LIVE IN A CITY
THAT WAS AT THE CUTTING EDGE OF
TECHNOLOGY BUT ALSO UNDERSTOOD
THAT THE HAPHAZARD
IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN
TECHNOLOGIES CAN HAVE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS.
WE MADE A STAND TO GAUGE IN A
MEASURED, REASONED, AND, AND
WE'RE NOW CONCERN THAT HAD THE
ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSAL WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERCUT THE
ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE
ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
THROUGH STRONG OVERSIGHT AND
CLEAR RULES.
WE'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP THAT
THE COUNCIL SHOULD IMPLEMENT
THE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES NETWORK FOR ALL
REPORTS GOING FORWARD.
AND WE THINK WILL HELP ENSURE
TRANSPARENT POLICIES THAT ARE
ENFORCEABLE BY THE LAW.
I ASK YOU TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT THE
MODEL FOR ACCOUNTABLITY,
FAIRNESS, AND EQUITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION.
>> FOLLOWING JARED WILL BE
FERNANDO LUNA.
>> THANKS FOR THE HAVING ME
TODAY.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE
TALKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES.
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY
BACKGROUND, I HAVE A MASTER'S
IN COMPUTER SCIENCE FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, I WAS
WORKING AT AN ARTIFICIAL
RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE
INSTITUTE.
I'VE DONE SECURITY AND PRIVACY
RESEARCH.
I THINK THAT THE ISSUES WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT.
AND MY, AS THE MAN PREVIOUSLY
SAID, SEATTLE IS REALLY GOING
TO BE SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE
COUNTRY ON THIS.
A LOT OF THE OTHER CITIES IN
THE COUNTRY DON'T HAVE THE KIND
OF REGULATIONS OR
ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES THAT
ARE GOING TO FILL THE GAPS
BETWEEN THE DATA THAT WE HAVE.
WE KNOW WITH LPR AND THE CCTV
THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY DONE
THAT WELL.
THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
GOVERNING THE TECHNOLOGIES SAY
THINGS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO USE
THE DATA APPROPRIATELY OR WE'RE
GOING TO SHARE IT WITH RELEVANT
ORGANIZATIONS.
WHAT'S A RELEVANT ORGANIZATION?
HOW COULD THAT NEGATIVELY
AFFECT HISTORICALLY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES IN
SEATTLE.
WE CAN THINK ABOUT THE NEW YORK
CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
SURVEILLING MOSQUES AND
PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM
NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE TECHNOLOGIES AS COMPARED TO
FOR EXAMPLE AUTOMATED LICENSE
PLATE READERS SEEM LESS
IMPORTANT BUT PERHAPS AMBIGUOUS
IN NATURE.
WE NEED TO ADOPT STRICT
REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO
EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GOING TO
RETAIN THE DATA.
WITH WHOM WE'RE GOING TO SHARE
IT.
>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE DON'T
RETAIN ANY OF THE DATA.
>> BUT --
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE
A BASELINE OF FACTS.
GIVE HIM HIS TIME BACK.
>> I APPRECIATE IT.
>> BUT ONCE WE ADOPT THESE
STRICT STANDARDS AS HAVE BEEN
MENTIONED THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO
APPROACH THE FUTURE
TECHNOLOGIES.
>> THANK YOU.
I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A FEW
COMMENTS AFTER THE GREAT PUBLIC
COMMENT.
FERNANDO.
AND FOLLOWING FERNANDO IS ANN.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THE LATINO COMMUNITY IS VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THESE TYPES OF
SURVEILLANCE, GIVEN THE HISTORY
OF ABUSE.
WE REALLY NEED MORE CLEARER
LANGUAGE ON THE POLICIES AND
HOW TO PREVENT ABUSE.
SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY
REALLY CAN UNDERSTAND AND BE
ABLE TO BE AWARE OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING THESE
TECHNOLOGIES AROUND THEM IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
AND HOW THEY GONNA BE ABLE TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES OF ANY
POTENTIAL ABUSE.
THE LATINO COMMUNITY WANTS MORE
CLARITY AND MORE TIME TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON
AROUND THEM.
AND ALSO CONCERN THAT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE GOING TO BE
FOCUSED ON PEOPLE OF COLOR,
IMMIGRANTS, UNDOCUMENTED
IMMIGRANTS, LGBTQ PEOPLE.
THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES CAN BE
DISPROPORTIONATELY FOCUSED ON
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
>> THANK YOU, FERNANDO.
IS ANN HERE?
NO ANN.
HOW ABOUT CYNTHIA AND THEN
TIFFANY McCOY.
>> I AM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC,
AN SEATTLE RESIDENT.
MY COMMENTS ARE REGARDING THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
THE IMPACT REPORT USES WEAK
LANGUAGE AND DOESN'T STATE THAT
IT'S ENFORCEABLE BY LAW.
WHEN COMPARING IT OVERALL, AN
UNCLEAR CONTENT SECTIONS,
SEATTLE IS FOUND TO BE LACKING.
THE ORDINANCES OF OAKLAND,
BERKELEY, AND DAVIS,
CALIFORNIA.
AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY ALL
REQUIRE SECTIONS IN EACH OF THE
SURVEILLANCE USE POLICIES.
EACH CITY'S ORDINANCE IS A
LITTLE DIFFERENCE.
AND PUBLIC ACCESS, INCLUDING
HOW COLLECTED INFORMATION CAN
BE ACCESSED BY CRIMINAL
DEFENDANTS.
AND THIRD PARTY DATA SHARING.
AND JUSTIFICATION OR LEGAL
STANDARDS FOR SHARING THE DATA.
THREE, A TRAINING REQUIREMENT.
AND FOUR, AUDITING AND
OVERSIGHT.
REGARDING SDOT LICENSE PLATE
READERS, WSDOT MUST, NOT EVERY
PLATE WILL BE SEEN A SECOND
TIME.
THERE ARE THE CITY COULD DEFINE
AN EXPIRING SUCH AS FIVE
MINUTES, PRETENDING THAT IT
DOESN'T STORE DOESN'T MAKE IT
SO.
REGARDING THE SDOT'S TRAFFIC
CAMERAS, THE CAMERA MANAGEMENT
SOFTWARE IS NOT AUDIBLE AND
DOES NOT PRIDE GRANULAR ACCESS
CONTROL.
ALL USERS CAN STOP AND START
LIVE.
THAT DOESN'T OFFER PREVENTION
OR PROTECTION OF MISUSE OF THE
CAMERAS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU.
AND TIFFANY IS OUR LAST
SPEAKER.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS TIFFANY McCOY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HARRELL I'M
GLAD THAT YOU CLARIFIED THAT
THE CITY IS NOT RETAINING THE
INFORMATION.
AS OF YET ARE THEY RETAINING
THE INFORMATION?
WE ARE A PROUD MEMBER OF THE
TECH FAIRNESS COALITION.
AND WE WERE MEETING WITH AN
EXECUTIVE AT AMAZON TO TRY TO
PUT PRESSURE ON THEM AND ONE
WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
DON'T CONTRACT WITH I.C.E.
AND THIS INDIVIDUAL TOLD US
VERY CLEARLY THEY DO NOT
CONTRACT WITH I.C.E.
WE SAID WILL YOU COMMIT TO NOT
CONTRACTING WITH I.C.E.
IN THE FUTURE.
AND LESS THAN A MONTH LATER, IT
CAME OUT IN THE NEWS THAT THEY
DO CONTRACT WITH I.C.E.
FOR SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
MY JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS I REPRESENT ARE
PROTECTED IN THE FUTURE WHEN
GOVERNMENTS SHIFT OR DIFFERENT
INDIVIDUALS COME INTO POWER OR
AGENDAS COME INTO PLACE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS STARTING TO
ANGLE TOWARDS POTENTIALLY
POLICING, RAMPING UP POLICING
OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS IN
CALIFORNIA.
THERE'S NO SAYING WHAT NATIONAL
CHARACTER THAT WILL TAKE,
ESPECIALLY IF HE DOES WIN
REELECTION, HOPEFULLY, NOT.
BUT WE ARE HERE TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCING AS
TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.
WE DID NOT SIGN ON TO THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE AND PUSH
FOR ITS MANDATES TO BE A RUBBER
STAMP JUST BASED ON THE
NICENESS OF WHAT GOVERNMENT IS
DOING AT THE MOMENT TO PROTECT
CIVIL LIBERTIES AT ALL TIMES.
I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
UNREASONABLE TIMELINE THAT'S
PROPOSED FOR GIVING PUBLIC
COMMENT.
THERE'S ONLY A MONTH FOR THE
PUBLIC TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT
ON 10 DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES
AND THAT'S UNREASONABLE FOR
PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO DIGEST
THIS INFORMATION AND ADVOCATE
FOR CONSTITUENTS.
I ASK THAT BE EXTENDED AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I
DIDN'T GET YOU ON THE SIGNUP
SHEET?
WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT IF
NOT.
BEFORE I TAKE THE FIRST AGENDA
ITEM WHICH IS UNRELATED TO THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, JUST A
FEW OPENS REMARKS.
I'M SOMEWHAT SHOCKED BY SOME OF
WHAT I'VE HEARD.
I'M SHOCKED BECAUSE I CONTINUE
TO THINK THERE MIGHT BE A
MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE
CAPABILITY OF THE TECHNOLOGY,
THE CITY'S FIRM STANCE TO
PROTECT PRIVACY RIGHTS, THE
PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING
ON SINCE MAY.
THIS 2-INCH DOCUMENT IS THE
RESULT OF A LOT OF PUBLIC
COMMENT, COMMUNITY FORUMS.
THE DEPARTMENTS WE HAVE
COUNSELS, WE REQUIRE THEM TO
GET AS MUCH PUBLIC COMMENT AS
POSSIBLE.
WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING BUT GO
FAST IN THIS PROCESS.
AND THESE ARE ENFORCEABLE
DOCUMENTS SUPPORTED BY A
PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION IF
BREACHED, IF VIOLATED.
AND WE'VE HAD MANY LAWYERS LOOK
AT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS
REAL TEETH IN IT.
IN A PERFECT WORLD WE MIGHT BE
ABLE TO REQUIRE THE STATE TO DO
TRAINING SINCE WE HAVE A
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH
THEM.
BUT THAT'S EITHER IMPRACTICAL
OR PERHAPS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
WE'RE USING TECHNOLOGY THAT IN
MANY CASES ARE USED IN ALL 50
STATES AND CLEARLY HAVE
PROBABLY THE MOST SAFEGUARDS IN
TERMS OF PROTECTING PRIVACY.
I HOPE THAT MANY OF YOU STAY TO
HEAR THE DISCUSSION AND NOT
TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
I'M ACTUALLY VERY PROUD.
I BELIEVE THE INDIVIDUALS IN
THIS DEPARTMENT HAVE EMBRACED
THE NOTIONS OF PRIVACY AND
PROTECTING RIGHTS AND
PROTECTING IMMIGRANT REFUGEES
AND PROTECTING DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SURVIVORS.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE, HAVE
MADE CONCESSIONS AS THEY SHOULD
BE AND WILLINGLY TO MAKE SURE
WE HAVE A MEATY, SUBSTANTIVE
PRIVACY PROTECTING ORDINANCE,
AND SO WITH THAT, THAT'S SORT
OF THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO.
IT'S NOT AS STRONG AS IT COULD
BE.
I GET IT.
I GET THE CONCERNS THAT WE
SHOULD BE RIGHTFULLY CONCERNED
ABOUT HOW TECHNOLOGY CAN BE
USED AS A WEAPON.
BUT I THINK THAT WE'VE ACHIEVED
A VERY GOOD OUTCOME.
WE HAVE A FEW AMENDMENTS WE'LL
CONSIDER AND HAVE A DISCUSSION.
THAT'S JUST THE CHAIR'S
COMMENTS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
TESTIMONY IN WHAT WAS READ BUT
AGAIN I HOPE YOU STAY AROUND
FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE
CONVERSATIONS, I THINK WE HAVE
ADDRESSED THE ISSUES.
I'M OFF MY SOAP BOX.
>> ON ORDINANCE RELATING TO
CRIMES CONCERNS ANIMALS.
>> INSTRUCTIONS, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS RICHARD GREENE.
I'M WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
>> HI, RICHARD.
NICE SEEING YOU AGAIN.
THE FIRST BURN IS CRIMES AND
OFFENSES CONCERNING ANIMALS.
WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT ARE WE
ADOPTING?
>> ACTUALLY, SEVERAL YEARS AGO
THE STATE ELEVATED THE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE NON-
FELONY ANIMAL CONTROL
VIOLATIONS TO A GROSS
MISDEMEANOR, OUR CODE HAD A
PATCH WORK OF SOME WERE GROSS
MISDEMEANORS, SOME WERE REGULAR
MISDEMEANORS, AND SOME HAD A
MAXIMUM PENALTY OF 180 DAYS IN
JAIL AND A $500 FINE.
THE ORDINANCE MAKES THEM ALL
GROSS MISDEMEANORS.
IT'S MAKING THE ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCES THAT HAVE A
CORRESPONDING STATE STATUTE
CONSISTENT WITH THAT.
THERE ARE SOME THAT DO NOT HAVE
A STATE ORDINANCE.
EITHER HAVING AN ANIMAL THAT
ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC OR SOME
DEGREE OF CRUELTY TO THE ANIMAL
ITSELF.
WE THOUGHT MAKING THEM ALL
CONSISTENT WOULD BE ADVISABLE.
SO THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THAT
ORDINANCE.
>> OKAY.
AND WHY DON'T WE, WHY DON'T YOU
READ THE NEXT ONE INTO THE
RECORD.
READ NUMBER 2. IS THERE
ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO TELL
ME ABOUT 119367.
>>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
THE SALE AND USE OF TOBACCO AND
MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO AND BY
MINORS, AMENDING SECTIONS
6.240.010 AND 6.240.100 OF THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND
ADDING A NEW SECTION 12A.20.110
TO THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> AND WE'RE JOINED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
TELL ME ABOUT THIS ONE.
>> THERE'S TWO THINGS, IT
RAISES THE AGE TO BUY TOBACCO
AND VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM 18 TO
21 AND THAT GOES INTO EFFECT
NEXT JANUARY 1st.
AND THE OTHER THING IT DOES IS
CREATE A NEW CRIME THAT
PROHIBITS A MARIJUANA RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYEE FROM
SELLING MARIJUANA PRODUCTS TO
ANYBODY UNDER 21 TO MAKE THOSE
CONSISTENT.
>> VERY GOOD.
COUNCILMEMBER HER ROLLED, THESE
ARE THE RECONCILIATION
ORDINANCES.
DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE PASS
119637.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
SILENCE, WE'RE GOOD ON THAT
ONE.
MOVE TO PASS 119636.
>> SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
I'LL PRESENT THIS MONDAY AND
EXPLAIN IT MORE
COMPREHENSIVELY.
I'VE ALREADY BRIEFED THEM SO WE
SHOULD BE IN GOOD SHAPE.
>> LET'S READ THE NEXT ONE INTO
THE RECORD.
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE AND
ANYONE ASSOCIATED THAT'S BEEN
INVITED TO THE TABLE PLEASE
COME FORWARD.
>>> AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IMP
IMPLEMENTATION; AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF USES AND ACCEPTING
THE 2018 SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORTS FOR THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
USE OF CLOSED CIRCUIT
TELEVISION TRAFFIC CAMERAS AND
LICENSE PLATE READERS.
>> OKIE DOKIE.
ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
>> THEY THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO
STONE WALL ON THE FIRST TWO
ITEMS.
THEY WEREN'T READY.
>> AS WE FIND OUR SEATS AND GET
COMFORTABLE AND GET OUR NOTES
TOGETHER, IN ALL SINCERITY.
I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR
ENGAGING IN THE DISCUSSION.
EVEN IF THE WE COME OUT A
LITTLE DIFFERENT.
I APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT.
THANK YOU FOR WORKING.
I HAD A TIMELINE OF EVENTS.
I'M NOT GOING TO BORE EVERYONE
WITH IT.
BUT MY STAFF PUT TOGETHER NOT
JUST THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS,
THE DEPARTMENTAL MEETINGS AND
THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH A
COMPREHENSIVE VIEW ON
EVERYTHING I'VE ASKED TO BE
DONE AS THE CHAIR AND I WANT TO
THANK EVERYONE FOR THAT.
HERE'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE'D DO.
I'LL ASK SDOT TO GIVE A QUICK
REFRESHER.
YOU'VE EXPLAINED WHAT THE
TECHNOLOGY DOES AND WHO USES
IT.
AND PERHAPS A QUICK REFRESHER
ON THAT.
AND THEN TO TALK ABOUT THE MEMO
PREPARED ON SOME OF THE ISSUES
TO DATE.
AND THEN WE DO HAVE A FEW
AMENDMENTS THAT WE'LL CONSIDER
AND KEEP IT AN ORGANIC
CONVERSATION AND ASK QUESTIONS
ALL ALONG.
I'M NOT GOING TO WAIT UNTIL THE
END.
JUST SORT OF FREE FLOW.
>> GREG DOSS.
>> GINGER ARMBRUSTER.
>> DIRECTOR OF SEATTLE
TRANSPORTATION.
>> I.T.
MANAGER FOR SDOT.
>> INTERIM DIRECTOR.
>> ACLU.
>> SO PERHAPS SDOT, WE HAVE TWO
TECHNOLOGIES WE'RE LOOKING AT.
MAYBE WALK US THROUGH HOW THE
TECHNOLOGY IS USED.
IF YOU COULD TAKE EITHER ONE IN
ANY ORDER.
AND DO WE HAVE A POWER POINT OR
ARE WE JUST GOING TO VERBALIZE
IT?
I JUST WANT TO GET THE CONCEPTS
OUT.
>> I'LL LET JASON GIVE THE
TECHNICAL OVERVIEW.
AND WE APPRECIATE THE PROCESS
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH IN GETTING
TO THIS POINT.
WE LOOKED AT QUESTIONS RAISED
AND BEEN ABLE TO LOOK WITH A
VERY CRITICAL MIND AT OUR OWN
POLICIES AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO
STRENGTHEN THOSE.
I'LL LET JASON TALK ABOUT THE
TECHNICAL SIDE.
>> WE WORK IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
DIVISION AND OUR OBJECTIVE IS %
TO ACTIVELY MANAGE THE ROADWAY.
AND THESE ARE KEY TO OUR
ABILITY TO DO THAT.
THE FIRST IS TRAFFIC CAMERAS AS
YOU ALLUDED TO.
THEY ARE USED BY ALL 50 STATES
IN THE NATION.
THE PRIMARY USER OF THE TOOL IS
IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OPERATIONS CENTER WHICH IS
ACTIVE 24 DAY HOURS A DAY TO
CLEAR INCIDENTS AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE USERS IN OTHER
DEPARTMENTS THAT WE SPECIFIED.
WE HAVE CLEAR TRAINING GOALS
FOR THE TEAM AND FOR THE
EXTERNAL USERS ABOUT THE USE OF
THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WE'VE
CLARIFIED.
AND THE LICENSE PLATE READERS,
THE SECOND TECHNOLOGY THAT
UNDER REVIEW IS A PRIMARY PIECE
OF TECHNOLOGY THAT WE USE TO
GATHER TRAVEL TIME.
WE PUT THAT INFORMATION ON
DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS, ON A WEB
MAP.
AND WE USE IT TO DETERMINE HOW
WELL THE STREETS ARE PERFORMING
FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT.
AND THEY ARE USEFUL DURING
TIMES LIKE THE SEATTLE SQUEEZE
WHEN THE VIADUCT CAME DOWN.
WE CAN ADJUST TIMING FOR
TRAFFIC SIGNALS TO MAKE IT WORK
AS WELL AS IT CAN.
BOTH TECHNOLOGIES, WE TRAIN OUR
OPERATORS EXTENSIVELY ON THE
USAGE.
AND WE PARTNER WITH THE STATE
FOR LICENSE PLATE READERS AND
WE ARE ENGAGES IN CONVERSATIONS
AROUND DATA SHARING AND DATA
USAGE.
>> ON THE TRAFFIC CAMERA PIECE
CAN YOU DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE TRAINING OR THE
TECHNOLOGY LIMITATIONS IN TERMS
OF MASKING FACES OF PEOPLE OR
TRAINING PEOPLE NOT TO ZOOM IN
ON INDIVIDUALS, WHAT DOES THAT
LOOK LIKE?
HOW IS IT USED?
POTENTIAL FOR MISUSE OR ABUSE?
>> WE DO TAKE PRIVACY VERY,
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR
OPERATION AND FROM THE EARLIEST
STAGES OF OUR TRAINING WHICH IS
A 30 DAY PROCESS FOR A NEW
OPERATOR.
IT'S PARTNERED WITH A MORE
SENIOR OPERATOR TO UNDERSTAND
AND VIEW THE WAY THAT THE TWO
TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED AND GO
OVER ALL THE CAMERA USAGE
POLICY AND RECORDING POLICY.
AND STREAM TERMINATION
POLICIES.
WE DO TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT
PEOPLE'S FACES AND LICENSE
PLATES ARE OBSCURED THROUGH THE
USE OF TRAFFIC CAMERAS, WE TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF PRIVACY MASKING.
WE CAN BLOCK THE IMAGE SO IF
ANY USER IS MANIPULATING THE
CAMERA.
THEY'D BE UNABLE TO SEE WHAT'S
BEHIND THE MASK.
AND WE'VE DONE THAT WITH ALL
THE CAMERAS.
AND IF THEY ARE INSTALLED NEAR
A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WE
COULD MASK THAT.
WHAT WAS THE SECOND?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SECOND
ONE WAS.
>> I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE
TAPE.
>> SO TRAINING AND MASKING
TECHNOLOGY.
>> WE'RE USING THE CAMERAS TO
JUDGE THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC
INCIDENTS, AND
DISPROPORTIONATELY SEMI-NATE
THE INFORMATION.
AND WE TRY AND BE CLEAR.
NEVER ZOOM IN TO WHERE YOU CAN
DETERMINE, DISTINGUISH
SOMEONE'S FACE OR LICENSE PLATE
WHILE YOU'RE USING THE
TECHNOLOGY.
IT'S USED FOR TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
MAKE SAFER AND MORE EFFICIENT
TRIP PLANNING DECISIONS FOR
COURSE OF THE DAY.
CERTAINLY, WE TAKE PRIVACY, WE
CONSIDER IT TO BE AN IMPORTANT
PART OF OUR OPERATION.
>> AND THE ABILITY OF JOHN DOE
TO LOOK AT THIS, THE LIVE
STREAM VIDEO IS ACCESSIBLE TO
WHOM?
JUST TO THE WORLD?
OR DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
CERTAIN TYPE OF CAPABILITY?
WHO ARE THE IMAGES?
WHO CAN SEE THE IMAGES?
>> THE VIDEO IS SHARED ON OUR
TRAVEL INFORMATION WEB MAP.
IT'S A MAP THAT PROVIDES A
VARIETY OF TRIP PLANNING
INFORMATION.
WE HAVE TRAVEL TIMES,
CONGESTION INFORMATION.
AND WE HAVE THE LIVE STREAMING
FROM EACH OF OUR TRAFFIC
CAMERAS, WE TRY AND BE
COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.
AND PROVIDE THE VIDEO FROM EACH
CAMERA TO THE INTERNET.
ANY USER WHO HAS ANY SORT OF
INTEREST IN OUR CAMERAS CAN
FREELY NAVIGATE TO THE WEBSITE
AND ACTIVELY VIEW THE CAMERAS.
>> SO IT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.
AND MY LAST QUESTION IS CAN YOU
DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE
CAMERA DATA ONCE IT'S STREAMING
AND IT'S GOING SOMEWHERE.
WE DON'T KEEP IT, WE DO KEEP
IT.
WHAT CAN YOU TELL US.
>> WE DO NOT RECORD OUR TRAFFIC
CAMERAS, WE HAVE A VERY
STRINGENT POLICY AROUND THE
RECORDING OF A CAMERA.
IT HAS TO HAVE A STUDY USE
CASE.
AND WE HAVE A FORMAL PROCESS
FOR A USER TO INSTIGATE.
WHY THEY WOULD LIKE IT TO BE
RECORDED.
WE PROVIDE THEM THE LINK TO THE
VIDEO.
THIS IS ALL MANAGED BY THE I.T.
TEAM SO IT CANNOT BE SHARED
WITH OTHER USERS.
AND WE DELETE THAT DATA WITHIN
10 DAYS OF IT BEING CREATED.
WE HAD A POWER POINT AND WENT
IN A DEEPER DIVE.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
TECHNOLOGY ITSELF?
EITHER LICENSE PLATE READERS OR
THE TRAFFIC CAMERAS?
ANYBODY WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?
GREG, WALK US THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
>> I'M GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE
BIT OF HISTORY.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE WAS A
LOT THAT HAPPENED OVER THE LAST
COUPLE MONTHS SINCE THE LAST
MEETING.
THE LAST MEETING WHERE YOU ALL
HEARD COUNCIL BILL ON MAY 21st
AND IN THAT HEARING, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ASKED SEATTLE I.T.
STAFF AND CENTRAL STAFF TO FIND
A WAY TO TAKE THE ONE PAGE
DOCUMENTS AND BOIL THEM DOWN TO
A SUMMARY SECTION THAT CAN BE
MORE EASILY READ AND DIGESTED.
AND AT THAT TIME IN THE
DISCUSSION, STAFF WAS PROVIDED
DIRECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
DOCUMENTS REFLECT THE
ENFORCEABLE POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES.
WITH THAT DIRECTION, STAFF WENT
FORWARD AND SEATTLE I.T., SDOT,
THE MAYOR'S STAFF AND LAW TO
COME UP WITH A FORMAT FOR THE
SUMMARY SECTIONS.
THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINIONS ABOUT HOW THAT FORMAT
SHOULD LOOK.
AND THE WORKING GROUP COCHAIRS
HAD A MORE SUCCINCT SUMMARY IN
MIND.
AND THE CITY HAD A SECTION THAT
HAD ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE THAT
úDESCRIBED THE TECHNOLOGIES AS
WELL.
SO A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT
VISION FOR HOW THOSE THINGS
WOULD COME TOGETHER.
AT YOUR DIRECTION WE HELD SOME
MEETINGS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT
HOW WE COULD TAKE THE TWO
DOCUMENTS AND MARRY THEM
TOGETHER IN ONE DOCUMENT THAT
COULD SORT OF SERVE BOTH
PURPOSES, THE WAY THAT STAFF
DID THAT.
WE PUT TOGETHER A TABLE THAT
OUTED THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE TWO DOCUMENTS AND WE
PROVIDED THAT TABLE TO ALL
PARTIES, TO THE DEPARTMENTS,
AND ALSO TO THE WORKING GROUP
AND SAID TELL US IF WE'VE GOT
THIS RIGHT AND IF WE MISSED ANY
ISSUES, ONCE WE HAD THAT TABLE
AGREED TO, WE SAT DOWN AND
STARTED NEGOTIATING, TRYING TO
FIND LANGUAGE FROM THE
ENFORCEABLE POLICIES THAT COULD
BE ADDED TO IS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT HAD BEFORE YOU
TODAY.
THERE WERE WELL OVER A DOZEN
ISSUE AREAS.
THROUGH THE COLLABORATION OF
THE GROUP, WE WERE ABLE TO GET
THAT DOWN TO JUST FOUR.
SO THE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES,
I'M SORRY, THE, BEFORE YOU
TODAY, YOU HAVE COPIES OF THE
CSURs THAT ARE RED LINED.
AND THAT REPRESENTS THE
ADDITIONS THAT CAME IN THROUGH
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND
REPRESENTS THE CONCERNS OF THE
WORKING GROUP.
TODAY'S AMENDMENT WOULD ATTACH
CLEAN COPIES OF THE CSURs TO
THE LEGISLATION.
>> BEFORE WE GET INTO
AMENDMENTS OR DISCUSSION, I
WANT TO DO SORT OF A TECHNICAL
THING.
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH GREG'S
DISCUSSION OF HOW WE'VE GOTTEN
TO THE TABLE AT THIS POINT?
>> I APPRECIATE GREG'S
DESCRIPTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT
IN FACT, IN THE TABLE THAT WE
WORKED THROUGH WITH STAFF AND I
WANT TO FIRST SAY I APPRECIATE
ALL OF THE EFFORTS OF STAFF AND
EVERYBODY AROUND THE TABLE.
BUT THIS DISCUSSION WHICH
HAPPENED OVER A MONTH AGO WAS
ABOUT A TABLE THAT CONTAINED A
LIST OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
EPP DOCUMENT THAT THE WORKING
GROUP HAD ENDORSED AND THE CSUR
DOCUMENT THAT HAD BEEN COME UP
WITH BY STAFF AND EXECUTIVE.
THAT WAS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE
LIST.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR AS I
SAID IN THAT MEETING, THERE
WERE OTHER DIFFERENCES NEVER
DISCUSSED AND AGREED TO THAT
REMAIN OUTSTANDING POLICY
ISSUES, IN ADDITION TO THE FOUR
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
INCLUDING THE CRITICAL ONE OF
ENFORCEABILITY.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE I JUST WANT
TO SAY AS THE ONLY COMMUNITY
VOICE IN THIS PROCESS, WE HAD
THIS MEETING OVER A MONTH AGO.
THE FIRST TIME THAT I SAW AN
EDITABLE VERSION OF THE
DOCUMENT THAT I COULD EVEN
OPINE AS TO WHETHER IT
REFLECTED OUR AGREEMENT WAS DAY
BEFORE YESTERDAY EVENING.
I HAVE TRIED IN GOOD FAITH TO
COME TO THE TABLE AND REPRESENT
THE COMMUNITY CONCERNS WHICH AS
YOU HAVE HEARD ARE REAL AND I
THINK THERE'S A MUCH CHARGER
GROUP THAT SHARES THEM THAT HAS
READ THE DOCUMENTS.
BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THE
DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF THE
COMMITTEE DOES NOT REFLECT THE
POLICY AGREEMENTS THAT WE CAME
TO AND HAS A NUMBER OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES DUE TO
USE OF LOOSE LANGUAGE THAT
OPENS UP NEW ABILITY FOR THE
CITY TO RECORD.
I WISH I HAD HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO POINT THESE OUT
IN A FORUM THAT WAS NOT OPEN
COMMITTEE.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I FEEL
VERY RUSHED AND RAILROADED IN
THE PROCESS.
AND WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST SEE
A DOCUMENT THAT ACTUALLY
REFLECTS THE POLICY AGREEMENTS
WHICH I THINK WERE REAL AND
THAT I APPRECIATE SDOT COMING
TO THE TABLE IN GOOD FAITH TO
REACH PASSED THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE.
I DON'T THINK THIS DOCUMENT IS
THAT.
>> I'LL JUST RESPOND TO YOUR
COMMENTS.
NUMBER ONE, I GUESS THAT'S YOUR
OPINION.
YOU HAVE TO VALIDATE HOW YOU
FEEL ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE ON THE
THREE HOUR MEETING WE HAD WHERE
YOU WERE PRESENT.
WE PRESENTED WHAT WE THOUGHT
WERE 19 POINTS OF DISAGREEMENT.
YOU DID NOT MAKE THAT POINT
DURING THAT MEETING.
THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, I
ASKED THE DEPARTMENT AND STAFF
TO CAPTURE ALL OF THE AREAS OF
DISAGREEMENT.
I ASKED.
THAT WAS THE CHARGE.
AND SO WHEN I BELIEVE,
IMPARTIAL ADVOCATES IN THIS
PROCESS TO CAPTURE ALL OF THE
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT, PUT IT
IN ONE DOCUMENT AND JUST ONE BY
ONE LET'S START PLOWING AWAY AT
IT.
AND THAT WAS THE 19 POINTS OF
DISAGREEMENT.
AND BECAUSE I THINK WE GOT
THROUGH TWO IN ONE MEETING I
THEN SAID GO BACK WITH THE
DEPARTMENTS AND IT'S NOT LIKE
THE DEPARTMENTS WERE HIGH
FIVING ME.
GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT, GE RID
OF THESE 19 TO THE EXTENT YOU
CAN AND THEY CAME BACK WITH
FOUR.
AND NOW HERE ON THE MORNING WE
ARE TO VOTE YOU'RE SAYING THAT
WASN'T ALL ENCOMPASSING.
I'VE DEALT WITH YOU FOR 12
YEARS NOW.
AND I DIDN'T EXPECT IT TO BE
ALL ENCOMPASSING.
YOU'RE VERY IN-DEPTH.
I'M HOPING THAT WE AT LEAST
NARROWED IT DOWN TO SOMETHING
WE COULD LIVE WITH.
WE ARE GOING TO VOTE TODAY
WHETHER WE VOTE UP OR DOWN
BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING READY TO
GO THROUGH BUDGET.
BUT TO SAY THIS WAS A RUSHED
PROCESS.
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO AND
I'LL SAY THE CITY HAS RUSHED
THE PROCESS.
HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>> WE HAVE AN ANNIVERSARY.
THIS IS THE SECOND YEAR SINCE
WE STARTED BEING COMPLIANT WITH
THIS LAW.
SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 2017.
THIS HAS BEEN A LABOR ROWS AND
IN-DEPTH PROCESS FOR ALL
DEPARTMENTS FOR WHOM WE
IDENTIFIED SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
THE SUR DOCUMENT THAT'S SO
VOLUME NEWS THAT CAN PUT YOU TO
SLEEP IF YOU PUT IT BY YOU
BEDSIDE AT NIGHT.
WHAT WE WORKED WAS TO IDENTIFY
THOSE PERTINENT POLICIES IN THE
SURs TO SURFACE THOSE, TO
DILIGENTLY GO THROUGH THE
DOCUMENT YOU'VE PREPARED AND
WITH ABSOLUTE GOOD FAITH
IDENTIFY THE AREAS OF
DISAGREEMENT AND WHERE SHOULD
WE BE DISCUSSING VERBAGE OR
MAYBE AN INACCURATE IDEA OF HOW
THE TECHNOLOGY IS USED OR WHERE
WE HAD MORE INFORMATION TO
SHARE ABOUT HOW THE POLICIES
COULD BE ALIGNED.
AND SO I FEEL WE WENT THROUGH
WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS OF
THAT EXERCISE.
AND WE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH
THE DEPARTMENT.
WE FEEL SOME SENSE OF LET'S
MOVE ALONG.
IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS.
I WON'T TELL YOU WE'RE HAPPY TO
TAKE ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.
WE DID THIS OVER THE COURSE OF
TWO VERY LONG AND SOMEWHAT
GRUELING MEETINGS TO GO THROUGH
THOSE POINTS.
I FELT WE HAD DONE THAT.
IT SEEMS ALL OF US WERE IN
AGREEMENT AROUND THE TABLE.
I DON'T FEEL WE WERE TRYING TO
RUSH ANYONE.
WE WERE TRYING TO MEET THE
MEETING TIME HERE KNOWING IT
WAS BUDGET TIME.
AND COME UP WITH A CONDENSED
VERSION AND A POLICY DIRECTED
VERSION.
>> AND THANKS FOR THAT
EXPLANATION.
WE'RE JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
AND I'LL TURN TO, HAVE YOU FELT
THERE'S A DEFICIENCY?
ARE WE MISSING SOMETHING?
SOME GAPS?
OR HAVE WE IDENTIFIED ALL THE
DISAGREEMENTS IS THE ISSUE?
>> YEAH, I THINK WE HAD AN E-
MAIL EXCHANGED.
AND WE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL
ITEMS ADDED TO THE TABLE.
AND WE WERE PROVIDED BACK WITH
A DOCUMENT THAT COMMENTED ON
WHAT WAS IN THE TABLE.
AND PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL
NARRATIVE AND WE THOUGHT THAT
WAS ENOUGH.
IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN.
BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY OUR BEST
DUE DILIGENCE TO TRY TO CAPTURE
EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD.
>> WELL, LET'S SEE WHERE WE ARE
ON THE DOCUMENT.
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, SO
WE HAVE, CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG, WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE,
WE HAVE TWO ATTACHMENTS, THE AN
INCH PLUS.
AND WE HAVE TWO ATTACHMENTS
WHICH ARE CONDENSED.
AN ORDINANCE AND FOUR
ATTACHMENTS.
AND ALL FIVE DOCUMENTS ARE ALL
TOGETHER IN ONE DOCUMENT THAT
IF WE PASS THE ORDINANCE,
THAT'S THE WHOLE ORDINANCE WITH
THE FOUR ATTACHMENTS.
AM I SAYING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> IF WE WERE TO PASS JUST
AMENDMENT ONE, THAT WOULD BE
CORRECT.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
TABLE THE AMENDMENTS FOR NOW.
>> WHAT I WANT TO DO FIRST
WORKING FROM THE RIGHT COPY IS
PASS THAT AMENDMENT WHICH
INCORPORATES ALL THE FOUR
ATTACHMENTS AND THEN TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS ONE BY ONE.
IS THAT NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO
IT.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WOULDN'T
WORK.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN
IT.
>> IF THE CSURs ARE AMENDED
WITH ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS
WE'RE ABOUT TO DESCRIBE.
>> OKAY, SO LET'S GO THROUGH
THE AMENDMENTS.
I THINK WE HAVE TWO OR THREE.
AND THEN WHAT WE'LL LIKELY DO
IS SEE WHERE WE FALL ON THE
AMENDMENTS.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU MORE TALK
TIME.
AND WHAT I MAY HAVE TO DO
BEFORE WE PRESENT IT TO THE
FULL COUNCIL IS RECONCILE THE
SIRs WITH THE CSIRs.
>> WE'VE DONE THAT FOR THE RED
LINE VERSION AND WE'D BE HAPPY
TO ADD THE ADDITIONAL WHATEVER
THE AMENDMENTS ARE.
>> OKAY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS ONE BY ONE IN THE
ORDER THAT THEY FLEW AT ME I
SHOULD SAY.
OKAY.
JUST ONE SECOND.
I HAVE COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
AND COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
WE'LL MAKE COPIES.
BEAR WITH ME HERE.
>> MR. CHAIR, TAKE YOUR TIME.
I HAD THE LAST MEETING WITH
MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS FLYING AT
ME.
SO I UNDERSTAND.
>> SO I HAVE.
THIS IS AMENDMENT TWO.
AMENDMENT THREE.
I HAVE AMENDMENT TWO.
AND AMENDMENT TWO --
>> IT'S JARGONY TECHNICAL
STUFF.
I CAN CUT TO THE CHASE.
IT ADDS TO THE CSIR LANGUAGE.
ANY EMPLOYEE AND THOSE
ACCESSING THE DATA COLLECTED BY
THE SYSTEM, CITY EMPLOYEES,
MUST COMPLETE TRAINING PRIOR TO
USING THE SYSTEM OR ACCESSING
THE DATA.
>> SO THIS IS THE TRAINING
REQUIREMENT FOR USERS OF THE
SYSTEM.
BASICALLY WHETHER THEY ARE CITY
EMPLOYEES, SDOT EMPLOYEES OR
NON-SDOT EMPLOYEES.
>> ANY CITY EMPLOYEES.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
THAT.
AND I'M GOING TO TURN TO PAGE,
2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND USE OF
THE AND I THOUGHT WEIGH HAD
ALREADY CAPTURED THAT.
I'LL READ IT.
IT SAYS.
S SCOTT SHALL DEVELOP STANDARD
TRAINING FOR OPERATION OF THE
SDOT CCTV TRAFFIC CAMERA SYSTEM
IN HANDLING AND DELETION OF
DATA COLLECTED BY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SECTION AND WITH ANY
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND ONLY
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE UNDERGONE
SUCH TRAINING MAY ACCESS OR USE
THE S SCOTT CCT TRAFFIC CAMERA
SYSTEM.
IT SAYS ANY EMPLOYEES.
AND IT CAN ONLY BE USED.
THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN ACCESS
OR USE THE SYSTEM ARE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE UNDERGONE TRAINING.
TELL ME HOW THAT'S NOT
CAPTURED?
WHAT AM I MISSING?
IT SEEMS LIKE A DUPLICATION.
>> THE INTENT WAS THAT IT WOULD
ONLY CAPTURE FOLKS FROM SDOT.
NOT ANY OR EVERY CITY EMPLOYEE.
THIS SAYS IT WOULD CAPTURE ANY
CITY EMPLOYEE.
>> THIS SECTION SAYS ANY
EMPLOYEES.
AND I READ THAT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE
AMENDMENT.
BUT I DO WANT TO HEAR FROM THE
DEPARTMENT.
I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST
REDUNDANT.
DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT?
SO WE DO RUN INTO THE SITUATION
WHERE JUST TO PUT SDOT A LITTLE
ON THE SPOT.
WE DO RUN INTO EX-GENT
CIRCUMSTANCES, A NON-SDOT
EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE TO USE THE
EQUIPMENT.
AND IS THAT THE CONCERN THAT
YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
KNOW WHO IS USING THE
TECHNOLOGY, WHETHER THEY'VE
BEEN TRAINED OR NOT.
PLEASE.
>> WE CURRENT ALREADY TRAINED
THE I.T.
PEOPLE THAT ARE A PART OF THE
DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS
EOC AND OTHER PEOPLE.
THIS WOULD JUST EXPAND OUR
TRAINING TO THE USERS AS WELL.
IT'S JUST A MATTER OF LIKE
CREATING A PROCESS WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS AND THEY HAVE TO,
YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATE WITH US
AND GO ALONG BECAUSE OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
TO CREATE THE PROCESS FOR OTHER
USERS.
>> LET ME UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT SAYS ONLY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE
UNDERGONE SUCH TRAINING MAY
ACCESS OR USE THE SYSTEM.
YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THE
LANGUAGE.
THAT'S USERS AND PEOPLE WHO CAN
ACCESS.
SO YOU'VE ALREADY AGREED TO
THAT.
SO THE NEW LANGUAGE.
I MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING
HUGE.
I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CHANGES
WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY AGREED TO.
>> YOU'RE INDICATING THAT THE
LANGUAGE THAT'S IMPLIES SDOT
EMPLOYEES.
>> THAT WAS THE INTENT.
AND I CAN SAY THAT TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT WOULD IMPLY
COUNCILMEMBER HAROLD, THAT WAS
A STAFF ERROR.
IT SHOULD ONLY BE APPLICABLE TO
SDOT PER THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE
HAD IN THE SESSIONSES.
>> SO WHEN WE AGREED TO 2.0 IN
THE CCTV SECTION AND I THINK
THIS IS A CSIR I'M LOOKING AT,
RIGHT?
>> I DON'T HAVE A PAGE NUMBER.
DATA COLLECTION AND USE.
THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT BY SDOT
THAT WAS JUST SDOT EMPLOYEES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THAT WASN'T MY ASSUMPTION
WHEN I READ THAT.
SO NOW, SDOT IS SAYING YOU'LL
HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE NON-SDOT
PEOPLE USE IT.
THEY'RE COMING FROM DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS.
AND IS THIS SORT OF AN
ISOLATED?
HOW OFTEN WILL A NON-SDOT
EMPLOYEE ACCESS OR USE THE
TECHNOLOGY.
>> IT'S RARE.
>> WHEN IT GETS ACTIVATED.
THE CAMERAS ARE THE MAIN TOOLS
THAT RESPONDERS USE TO HELP
COORDINATE THE RESPONSE.
EVEN THOUGH WE TRAIN IS I.T.
PEOPLE WHEN WE INCORPORATE THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
NOW ANYBODY THAT WOULD UTILIZE
THE CCTV WILL HAVE TO GO.
>> GET SOME KIND OF TRAINING.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S A
LITTLE IMPRACTICAL BECAUSE
THOSE ARE EX-GENT CIRCUMSTANCES
WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN AND USES
THE EQUIPMENT.
AND YOU DON'T KNOW THEIR
TRAINING, AND WE ARE REQUIRING
YOU TO TRAIN THAT PERSON ON
THOSE EXIGENT.
>> I THINK THERE'S AN EMERGENCY
SECTION.
SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO REFER
BACK.
>> HOW ARE WE TREATING
EMERGENCIES, IF THERE'S AN
EMERGENCY, A HOSTAGE SITUATION,
ARE WE SAYING JUST HAVE AT IT.
WE'RE WAIVING THE TRAINING
REQUIREMENT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE
MAKES AN EXCEPTION FOR THAT.
>> OKAY.
>> NO THE MATERIAL.
>> THE ORDINANCE.
SO THEN ON NON-EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT YOU'RE ONLY
LETTING NON-SDOT, IT COULD BE
NOT AN EMERGENCY BUT THEY NEED
TO USE IT FOR SOME PRACTICAL
REASON.
>> A BETTER EXAMPLE MIGHT BE IF
THE CAMERAS IN THE EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS CENTER COME ON TO
MONITOR A PARADE.
IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY
CIRCUMSTANCE.
BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE PERSONNEL
FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE
ASSISTING.
>> SO LET ME ASK --
>> I SEE YOUR NODDING.
>> LET ME ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO
PUSH BACK ON WHY YOU THINK THIS
DOESN'T MAKE GOOD SENSE.
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS OR
NOT.
IF YOU CAN LIVE WITH IT, FINE.
IF THIS IS IMPRACTICAL AND IS
MESSING THINGS UP, THAT'S WHAT
I TELL MY KIDS.
TELL US WHY.
>> I MEAN, I THINK FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE A LOT OF
CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
USING THE SYSTEM ON A DAY-TO-
DAY BASIS AND WE HAVE AS JASON
DESCRIBED A 30 DAY ON BOARDING
PROCESS WHERE WE TRAIN THEM IN
DETAIL.
THE IRREGULAR USERS OF THE
SYSTEM THAT MIGHT COME FROM
OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHO ARE GOING
TO BE DOING THAT IN THE CONTEXT
OF AN SDOT TRAINED OPERATOR,
MAY NOT HAVE, IT'S HARD TO KNOW
WHO IS GOING TO BE IN THE ROOM
AT THE EOC WHEN WE HAVE, WHEN
WE ACTIVATE IT.
SO GETTING EVERYBODY ALL THE
I'S DOTTED AND T'S CROSSED TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS
TRAINED IS A BIT IMPRACTICAL.
BUT IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
>> SO JUST WHEN A NON-SDOT
EMPLOYEE USING THE SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT LIKE SDOT LEAVES THE
ROOM.
THIS IS THE BUTTON YOU PUSH.
TALK ABOUT SDOT'S CONTINUED
PRESENCE WHEN A NON-SDOT
EMPLOYEE IS ACCESSING THE
SYSTEM.
>> JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS.
EACH USER NEEDS A SPECIFIC USER
AND PASSWORD COMBINATION AND
WE'RE ABLE TO ISSUE THAT AND
MANAGE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM.
WE TAKE PART IN A TRAINING
PROCEDURE FREQUENTLY WITH THE
EXTERNAL DEPARTMENTS IF THERE'S
A SYSTEM UPGRADE.
WHO WOULD BE IN THE ROOM TO USE
THE SYSTEM?
BUT SPECIFICALLY TRAINING THE
PERSON WITH THE AUTHORIZATION
SO THEY CAN ACCESS THE SYSTEM
AS REQUIRED.
>> YOU SAID YOU ARE TRAINING
THE PERSON?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
>> WE DO TRAIN THEM.
IT'S JUST NOT THE FORMAL,
STRUCTURED PROCESS LIKE WE HAVE
IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OPERATIONS CENTER.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD
FORMALIZE.
AND THERE'S A PROCEDURE
DICTATING THAT ANY OTHER USER
MUST CALL THE PROCEDURE
OPERATIONS CENTER PRIOR TO
MANIPULATING THE CAMERA.
IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY
SITUATION, WE WANT TO LOOK AT
THE CAMERAS, WHY DO WE NEED TO
GRANT THEM ACCESS SNIT
ADDITIONALLY, THE USER, CAN
SUPERSEDE ANY OTHER USER, AND
LOCK USERS OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
THIS IS A VERY INFREQUENT
ACTION THAT OCCURS WHERE
SOMEBODY ELSE IS ACCESSING THE
SYSTEM.
>> OKAY.
SO I'M GOING TO DID THE MAKERS
OF THE AMENDMENT WANT TO
ADVOCATE A LITTLE STRONGER.
I'M NOT HEARING A LOT OF
HEARTBURN.
ON A SCALE OF ONE TO 10, A GOOD
THREE.
DO YOU WANT TO DEFEND IT OR
PROPOSE IT.
>> I'LL JUST CHIME IN A LITTLE
BIT.
>> AND THANKS FOR BEING HERE
COUNCILMEMBER BRIAN.
>> THANK YOU FOR ENTERTAINING
THESE.
I THINK WHAT YOU STARTED WITH
IS SORT OF THE HEART OF THE
MATTER.
IF IT WAS THE INTENT IN ANY WAY
TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS
WHO WERE IN THE ROOM ACCESSING
THE DATA DID HAVE THE TRAINING,
HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF
CLARIFICATION IS HELPFUL.
I APPRECIATE THAT DIRECTOR,
SAID IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
AND IT COULD BE WHAT DID YOU
SAY FORMALIZED.
TO ME THAT MEANS THERE IS
SHARED GOALS HERE.
JUST HAVING A STATUE HELPS
CLARIFY TO THE PUBLIC THAT
WE'LL HAVE SIDE BOARDS IN
PLACE.
>> I'M GOING TO OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT AND I'LL TELL YOU
WHY.
I DON'T THINK THAT WHETHER AN
EMPLOYEE IS SDOT OR, EM, I VERY
GOOD LAWYER WOULD LOOK AT THIS
BINDING ORDINANCE WITH A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AND SAY
YOU DIDN'T CLARIFY IT HAD TO BE
SDOT.
AND SDOT, A PERSON COULD BE ON
LOAN, A PERSON COULD BE.
THAT'S AN ARTIFICIAL
DISTINCTION, WHETHER THEY'RE
SDOT OR NOT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WILL
REFUTE LIABILITY.
I THINK IT'S ADEQUATELY
CAPTURED HERE AND THE RISK OF
HAVING A NON-TRAINED PERSON IS
PRETTY MINIMAL.
AND IF THEY'RE NON-TRAINED.
FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULDN'T
SUPPORT IT.
I APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS.
AND IS THERE ANY?
>> I'D LIKE TO ADD A
PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.
THERE'S A LIST OF EIGHT
AGENCIES THAT WILL BE ACCESSING
THE CAMERAS.
IT'S CONTEMPLATED.
IT DOESN'T SAY IT'S RARE.
IT'S JUST CONTEMPLATED.
AND IT IS A BASIC BEST PRACTICE
FOR PEOPLE USING TECHNOLOGY TO
HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF HOW
TO OPERATE THAT TECHNOLOGY.
INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS.
THEY SHOULDN'T BE USED FOR
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT.
AN UNTRAINED SPD EMPLOYEE COULD
NOT KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND I
WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE
BASIC BEST PRACTICE OF HAVING
ONLY INDIVIDUALS TRAINED ON A
GIVEN TECHNOLOGY OPERATE THAT
TECHNOLOGY.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S FEASIBLE.
IF IT'S INFREQUENT, IT
SHOULDN'T IMPOSE MUCH OF A
BURDEN ON THE AGENCY.
AND I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY
ONE OF THE EASIER ONES TO TRY
TO GET TO.
>> AGAIN, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH
YOU.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS
STATEMENT ONLY EMPLOYEES WHO
HAVE UNDERGONE SUCH TRAINING
MAY ACCESS OR USE THE SDOT CCTV
TRAFFIC SYSTEM, I THINK THOSE
EIGHT AGENCIES AND THOSE SPD
EMPLOYEES FALL UNDER THAT.
IT COULD PASS.
WE HAVE THREE MORE
COUNCILMEMBERS HERE.
I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW WHERE
I STAND.
>> CAN I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION.
WHAT IF YOU ADDED THE WORD ONLY
CITY EMPLOYEES.
WHAT IF WE ADDED ONE WORD.
WOULD THAT CLARIFY?
>> THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE
AMENDMENT DOES.
AND COUNCILMEMBER, I HEAR YOUR
INTERPRETATION AND TAKE NO
ISSUE WITH IT.
IT WAS A HIGHLY NEGOTIATED
LANGUAGE AND I BELIEVE THAT
IT'S PROBABLY ORIGINALLY SAID
ALL CITY EMPLOYEES AND IN THE
PROCESS OF THE GROUP WORKING
TOGETHER THAT WAS TAKEN OUT.
AND IT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT
THAT IT COULD BE READ THE WAY
YOU'RE READING IT.
>> I THINK WE'RE COVERED EITHER
WAY QUITE CANDIDLY.
>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR
PERSPECTIVE.
IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU'RE
PROPOSED TO THE CONTENT OF THE
EFFECT
>> I'M GOING TO BE REALLY
CANDID.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THESE
ISSUES, AND IT'S A MOVING
TARGET.
AND EVERY TIME WE THINK WE'VE
REACHED AN AGREEMENT, THE DANG
GOAL POST MOVES.
I WANT TO STATE THAT
EMPHATICALLY.
WE ARE REQUIRING, THIS IS
STRONG LANGUAGE WE HAVE IN
HERE.
AND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T
SAY SDOT EMPLOYEES, I WOULD BE
MAKING THE AMENDMENT IF IT SAYS
SDOT EMPLOYEES, AND AS AN
ATTORNEY I COULD PENETRATE THAT
ANY WAY I WANT.
THIS IS BINDING.
I KNOW THAT AND I THINK ANY
GOOD LAWYER WOULD UNDERSTAND
IT.
LET'S MOVE ON.
DO YOU WANT ME TO SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT.
I'LL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
LET'S MOVE IT.
>> MR. PRESIDENT I'D LIKE TO
PROPOSE AMENDMENT TWO.
>> SECOND.
>> THE MOVE AND SECONDED.
I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE.
>> YOU'RE THE SWINGER ON THIS.
YOU'RE THE SWING VOTE.
IT'S MOVED AND SECONDED TO I'LL
CALL IT AMENDMENT NUMBER 2FUL
TALKS ABOUT TRAINING AND YOU
HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF
YOU.
MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2. ALL THOSE
IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND AND
SAY AYE.
SO THAT ONE PASSES.
LET'S GO ON.
>>> -- PROVIDED THE USERS
ACCESSING THE STREAMER NOTIFIED
THAT THE SYSTEM IS INTENDED TO
BE USED ONLY TO MONITOR TRAFFIC
FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE.
.
>> A SORT OF LIKE THIS ONE.
THERE WAS ONE ISSUE ON THE LAST
ONE THAT JUST PASSED THAT I
FORGOT TO BRING UP AND I
APOLOGIZE.
IF THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY WHERE
IT SAYS THAT, MUST COMPLETE
TRAINING PRIOR.
IT DOESN'T SAY PRACTICE
TRAINING, OUR SGI TRAINING, IS
THAT CLEAR ENOUGH IN THE
DOCUMENT WHERE WE KNOW WHAT
TRAINING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I
WANT TO MAKE SURE.
I FORGOT TO RAISE THAT ISSUE.
>> I WOULD ASK A START.
I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND.
>> I WILL LEAVE IT ALONE FOR
NOW.
BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME
TRAINING BUT IT JUST SAYS
COMPLETE TRAINING AND IT'S
PRETTY WIDE-OPEN THERE.
BUT I LOOK BACK AT THE OTHER
TRAINING REFERENCES AND WAS
CLEARED SO I THINK WE ARE
REFERRING TO THAT KIND OF
TRAINING.
OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ONTO THIS ONE.
SO, ON THIS ONE I THINK, I KNOW
HE TALKED ABOUT TERMS OF USE,
BUTTON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
THAT SEEM TO CAUSE SOME
HEARTBURN.
BUT THIS ONE HERE IS SIMPLY A
NOTIFICATION THAT --
>> YES.
AND SO I THINK THAT WHEN THE
COCHAIR ASKED FOR, IN THE
ENFORCEABLE POLICIES, TERMS OF
AGREEMENTS, AND I BELIEVE THE
INTENT THERE WAS THAT THE USER
WOULD CLICK ON THE, I ACCEPT
THE TERMS OF USE, AND THE TERMS
OF USE WOULD PROHIBIT ANYTHING
THAT BASICALLY IS NOT SPELLED
OUT IN THE CSIR POLICIES.
AS THE COUNSELOR HEARD
YESTERDAY, THERE ARE SOME
POTENTIAL LIABILITY ISSUES WITH
THAT.
I WON'T GO INTO ANYTHING
FURTHER THERE.
WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT THIS
DOES SOMETHING A LITTLE
DIFFERENT.
WHAT THIS DOES IT THIS IS NOT
IN ANY WAY BY THE USER BY
ANYTHING.
IT SIMPLY STATES THAT IT IS THE
CITY INTENT THAT THE SYSTEM BE
USED ONLY TO MONITOR TRAFFIC.
>> AND HOW WOULD WE NOTIFY THE
SYSTEM, HOW WILL WE NOTIFY
VIEWERS OF THE SYSTEM HOW IT'S
TO BE USED?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I WOULD IMAGINE, AND LOOKING AT
THE FOLKS DOWN HERE, THAT THERE
WOULD BE SOME KIND OF A
DISCLAIMER ON THE PAGE.
>> HAVE YOU ALL SEEN THIS PRIOR
TO THIS MORNING?
>> WE KNEW THERE WAS, WE
UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS --
>> YOU HAVE A NOW?
>> I HAVE IT NOW.
>> TELL US WHY, IF THIS IS
PROBLEMATIC AND WHAT YOU'RE
THINKING IS ON THIS AND I JUST
GOT IT THIS MORNING TOO SO I
WAS NOT SLOW PLAYING YOU ON
THIS.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT
THE TECHNOLOGY AND SEE WHAT IS
AVAILABLE IN THAT STANDARD
RIBBON SOMEWHERE ON THE SCREEN
FOR EACH OF THE VIEWS OF THE
CAMERAS AND WE WOULD JUST HAVE
TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND HOW THAT
WORKS SO.
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT RIGHT
NOW EITHER BUT, YES, ADDING A
STATEMENT ON THE WEBSITE.
>> DOES THE CONCEPT OF
NOTIFYING ITS INTENT, IS THAT
CLOSE?
>> YES.
THAT'S A STANDARD BEST
PRACTICE.
I THINK, TRYING TO GET SOME
KIND OF TERMS OF USE WAS MORE
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THERE'S NO
WAY TO ENFORCE THAT BY GIVING
PEOPLE A HEADS UP THIS IS
DESIGNED TO BE USED FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS IS PRETTY
STANDARD OUT THERE.
>> TO BE TRANSPARENT, I SHOULD
SAY, I THINK THE INTENT OF THIS
BY THE PROPONENTS ARE THAT WHEN
THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT'S,
MAYBE THERE A SMALL LANGUAGE OR
SOMETHING THERE THAT SAYS WHAT
THIS IS TO BE USED FOR SO THAT
EVERY TIME IT'S USED THEY SAY,
I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO DO
SOMETHING BAD WITH IT.
>> OKAY.
>> THE WEBSITE ITSELF IS
TRAFFIC.
IT'S A TRAFFIC WEBSITE.
THE INTENT IS YOU GO THERE TO
OBSERVE TRAFFIC.
SO, WE ARE HAPPY TO ADD THE
STATEMENT BUT WE JUST NEED TO
EXPLORE WHETHER IT'S A
STATEMENT WITHIN THE WEBSITE OR
EMBEDDING IT INTO THE IMAGES
MAY BE A BIT CHALLENGING.
BUT WE NEED TO EXPLORE THAT.
>> OKAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THE
AMENDMENT?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> ONE THING.
THIS, I WILL BE MOVING THE
AMENDMENT AND THE SECOND
BECAUSE I THINK IT HELPS BUT I
WANT TO ALSO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT IT FALLS SHORT OF WHAT WE
ULTIMATELY WANT TO DO AND THERE
IS A POLICY QUESTION HERE FOR
ME.
I THINK THERE IS A BENEFIT TO
HAVE THESE LIVE FEEDS AVAILABLE
FOR PEOPLE.
I OCCASIONALLY USE THEM WHEN
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
TRAFFIC IS LIKE AND I CAN
IMAGINE PEOPLE USE THEM FOR A
WHOLE HOST OF REASONS AND I
WANT TO PROVIDE THAT IS A
PUBLIC BENEFIT.
AT THE SAME TIME, AND I WANT TO
BE CLEAR THAT WE HAVE BEEN CLEAR
WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS BUT
RELATIVELY FEW EXCEPTIONS, WE
ARE NOT RECORDING THIS DATA.
IT'S JUST BROADCAST.
OCCASIONALLY WE TALKED ABOUT
HOW THEY MAY BE CAPTURED FOR
TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND FOR
STUDYING AND REDESIGNING STUFF
AND I THINK THAT I AM
COMFORTABLE THAT THAT IS NOT
GOING TO BE USED IN VIOLATION
OF THE INTENT OF SURVEILLANCE.
BUT, WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE
BECAUSE WE ARE PROVIDING THESE
LIVE STREAMS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE
NOT RECORDING, I IMAGINE, I
KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE
INCLUDING SOMEONE SITTING WITH
THEIR PHONE RECORDING IT ON
THEIR PHONE AND THERE ARE
PROBABLY MORE SOPHISTICATED
WHERE SOMEONE ELSE COULD BE
RECORDING THIS.
AND SOMEONE ELSE COULD BE USING
THIS FOR OTHER, THEY MIGHT BE
ABLE TO SEE WAS AVAILABLE AND
IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE THEY COULD
LATER USE A FOR FACIAL
RECOGNITION SOFTWARE.
SOMEONE COULD BE BUILDING UP A
MASSIVE DATABASE OF HOW
INDIVIDUALS ARE MOVING AROUND
OUR SYSTEM, UNBEKNOWNST TO US.
BUT USING OUR CAMERA SYSTEMS TO
DO THAT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS
HAPPENING.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE
THAT IS.
I THINK THE DISCLAIMER IS TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF YOU DO
THAT, THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS
FOR.
IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
INSTANCE WERE DOING THAT I
IMAGINE THEY WOULD PROBABLY,
THEY MAKE BIGGER LAWS THAN US
SO IT WOULD BE HARD FOR US TO
LEGALLY PREVENT THEM AND IF
THAT WERE THE CASE AND WE
BECAME AWARE OR WERE SUSPICIOUS
THAT WAS HAPPENING, I THINK,
THIS BODY WOULD HAVE TO
RECONSIDER WHETHER IT MET THE
POLICY OBJECTIVE OF GIVING OUR
CONSTITUENTS ACCESS TO REAL-
TIME DATA VERSUS THE DOWNSIDE,
THIS IS BEING USED ON AND
TENDERLY.
WE WOULD NEED TO REVISIT THAT
POLICY QUESTION AND I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THERE IS A CHANCE
THAT IS HAPPENING AT THIS
MOMENT.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY EVIDENCE
BUT, AGAIN, WE SEE THINGS ON A
REGULAR BASIS THAT DO POP UP.
THIS LANGUAGE, I DON'T WANT TO
PRETEND THAT IT WILL PREVENT A
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY FROM
DOING THIS BECAUSE I DON'T
THINK WE FIGURED OUT A WAY
WHERE WE CAN BIND THEM LEGALLY
NOT TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT THIS IS NOT OUR INTENT BUT
IT'S REALLY, THAT'S ABOUT WHAT
IT DOES.
AND I THINK, ME, FOR THE NEXT
FEW MONTHS, HOPEFULLY THIS
COUNSEL MOVING FORWARD, WILL BE
PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT AND IF
WE HEAR THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE
USING THIS IN UNINTENDED WAYS
WE MAY WANT TO REVISIT THE
POLICY ABOUT WHETHER THAT GOES
ON.
MAYBE THERE SOMETHING THIS IS
YOU CAN ONLY VIEW THIS IF YOU
GET A USER ACCOUNT AND CREATE A
SYSTEM WHERE ANY USER CAN GET A
USER ACCOUNT BUT THEY HAVE TO
GO THROUGH AND CHECK A BUNCH OF
BOXES THAT SAY THEY AGREE TO
THESE TERMS AND AGAIN, I DON'T
KNOW HOW ENFORCEABLE THAT IS
FOR SOMEONE LIKE I.C.E.
IF THEY ARE DOING IT BUT THERE
IS ANOTHER LEVEL OF HASSLE TO
THE USER TO GO THROUGH BUT A
REQUIREMENT THAT WE COULD DO.
WE COULD SIMPLY TAKE THEM OFF
LINE AND SAY WE CAN ONLY USE
THEM INTERNALLY AND NOT BY THE
PUBLIC.
THAT IS AT THE HEART OF WHAT I
THINK THIS SURVEILLANCE
ORDINANCE IS ABOUT.
IT'S ABOUT MAKING POLICY
DECISIONS TRANSPARENTLY AND
SAYING WE RECOGNIZE THERE IS
SOME RISK HERE.
THIS IS HOW WE ARE TRYING TO
MITIGATE IT AND WE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO OBVIOUSLY REVISIT THAT
AT ANY POINT AND THIS IS WHAT
THE TECHNOLOGY IS MEANT TO DO.
I THINK WE'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT
WHAT OUR INTENT IS INTERNALLY.
WE SET SOMETHINGS UP AND THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT IS FLAWLESS.
THERE IS STILL GAPS HERE THAT
I'M TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE.
I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE
ON EVERY THING YOU SAID.
THANK YOU FOR STATING THAT.
>> JUST TO SECOND WHAT THE
COUNCILMEMBER SAID ABOUT THIS
LANGUAGE.
I WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD AS
WELL THAT SEATTLE, THE CITY OF
SEATTLE'S OPEN DATA PROGRAM HAS
A WEBSITE THAT HAS A TERMS OF
SERVICE.
A PRETTY EXTENSIVE TERMS OF
SERVICE ABOUT WHAT USERS CAN
AND CANNOT DO. AND, SO, HERE
THAT YOU ALL HAVE GONE INTO
EXECUTIVE SESSION AND BEEN
BRIEFED ON POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
THIS IS AN AREA --
>> THAT WAS EXECUTIVE SESSION.
DID YOU GET A? I NEITHER
CONFIRM NOR DENY THAT THE GO-
AHEAD.
>> THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH I
PRACTICE.
I THINK THERE IS CERTAINLY
DEBATE OVER WHETHER TERMS OF
SERVICE CAN BE ENFORCED.
IT'S NOT A REASON NOT TO HAVE
THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND, FOR
ME, I THINK THIS LANGUAGE,
ALTHOUGH IT'S BETTER TO HAVE
THIS NOTIFICATION THEN NOT,
ACTUALLY DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT THE USER IS BOUND TO THE
TERMS OF SERVICE.
SO, I WOULD MUCH PREFER
SOMETHING STRONGER AND THE
ABILITY TO AT LEAST GO BACK AND
FLAG A CLEAR VIOLATION BY A
USER THAT HAS USED THE STREAM
TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT. USING THE
LIVESTREAM.
MY OTHER QUESTION, BY THE WAY,
THIS APPEARS TO APPLY BOTH TO
LICENSE PLATE READERS AND CCTV
AS IT'S DRAFTED.
AND THERE IS NO LIVESTREAM
ASSOCIATED WITH LICENSE PLATE
READERS.
I JUST WANT TO, A I
MISUNDERSTANDING THE WAY THE
AMENDMENT IS DRAFTED BUT IS
THIS INTENDED TO APPLY TO
LICENSE PLATE READERS AS WELL?
>> YES.
IT IS.
WHILE THERE IS NO LIVE FEED IT
IS THE CONCEPT OF USING THE
SYSTEM ONLY FOR WHAT IT'S
INTENDED.
THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY AMENDS
BOTH CSIRS TO INCLUDE THAT
LANGUAGE.
>> WHERE IT SAYS SDOT MAY
DISSEMINATE LIVE VIDEO STREAMS
OVER ITS WEBPAGE FOR THE
LICENSE PLATE READERS. AND WE
DON'T DO THAT.
>> WE DON'T.
>> THERE IS NO WEBPAGE FOR THE
LICENSE PLATE READERS.
>> WE CAN CHANGE THAT SO THAT
IT JUST SAYS USE OF DATA AS
INTENDED.
I'M SORRY -- LAST MINUTE.
>> MAY I HAVE ONE COMMENT ABOUT
THE OPEN DATA, OUR OPEN DATA
SITE.
THAT'S ACTUALLY COLLECTED AND
THOSE ARE DATA SETS THAT PEOPLE
ARE DESIGNED TO DOWNLOAD.
THE TERMS OF SERVICE MAKE MORE
SENSE THERE BECAUSE IT'S DATA
YOU ARE INGESTING IF YOU DECIDE
TO ACCESS THE DATA SITES FOR
THE USES.
FOR THE LIVESTREAM HE BECAUSE
THEY'RE NOT RECORDED OR
RECORDABLE ON THE FORMAT YOU
ARE PROVIDING IT TO THE PUBLIC
THEN WE ARE SPEAKING TO A
THEORETICAL SOMEWHAT MAYBE
HOLDING UP A PHONE OR FINDING
ANOTHER DATA CAPTURE BUT IT'S
NOT SOMETHING WE ARE PROVIDING
SO THE TERM OF SERVICE IS A
LITTLE DIFFERENT THERE.
>> THIS IS ALSO RECORDABLE
DATA I GUESS, AND IT
ILLUSTRATES THE POINT THAT JUST
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT INTENDING
FOR A WEBSITE TO BE USED IN A
PARTICULAR WAY THAT WE SHOULD
NOT PUT THE SAFEGUARDS AROUND
THE GIVEN TECHNOLOGY AND I
THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS ENTIRE
DISCUSSION SEEMS TO BREAK DOWN.
IS, WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE
AGENCY'S GOOD INTENTION.
WHAT I HEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY
IS WE WANT REAL SAFEGUARDS.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SPACE
WHERE WE ARE JUST SAYING WE
TRUST THE AGENCY OR THE PUBLIC
NOT TO MISUSE THE TECHNOLOGY
AND TO PUT BEST PRACTICES IN
PLACE THAT CAN ENABLE THAT TO
HAPPEN.
SO, AGAIN, I THINK THIS
LANGUAGE FALL SHORT FOR THAT
REASON ALTHOUGH IS BETTER TO
HAVE IT THEN NOT.
>> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ONE MORE
THING.
THE WEBSITE STREAMS VIDEOS THAT
ARE CONTROLLED BY THE OPERATORS
SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY PII
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE
SHOWCASING FROM THE PUBLIC
FACING PERSPECTIVE.
THE SAFEGUARD IS THAT WE TRAIN
OUR OPERATORS NOT TO ZOOM IN
AND NOT IDENTIFY OR CREATE AN
OPPORTUNITY WHERE THEY ARE
CAPTURING PII AND THAT'S WHERE
THE CONTROL IS AND THAT'S WHERE
WE ARE CONTROLLING IT.
SO WHAT THE PUBLIC IS VIEWING
ARE NOT ZOOMED IN IMAGES.
THEY ARE, THEY FOLLOW THE
PROCEDURES THAT WE TRAIN OUR
PEOPLE.
>> IN FACT, IN THE DISCUSSION
THAT WE HAD, WE HAD EXPLICITLY
TALKED ABOUT WHETHER PII IS
VISIBLE.
WE HAD ACTUALLY PROPOSED
CUTTING OFF THE PUBLIC FEED
WHERE PII WAS VISIBLE AND IN
THE CONVERSATION WITH THE
AGENCY WE ACTUALLY HEARD THAT
WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.
IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE
TIMES WHEN PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION IS
BEING LIVE STREAMED TO THE
PUBLIC VIA THE SYSTEM.
SO, BECAUSE THAT IS HAPPENING,
IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT TO
HAVE THESE STRONG SAFEGUARDS
AROUND THE TECHNOLOGY RATHER
THAN SIMPLY SAYING THIS WON'T
HAPPEN VERY OFTEN.
OPERATORS ARE TRAINED, ETC.
I UNDERSTAND THE AGENCIES'
INTENT IS GOOD AND WE
APPRECIATE AGAIN THE GOOD FAITH
WE WORK THROUGH THESE ISSUES
WITH BUT THE END RESULT SHOULD
REALLY BE A POLICY THAT DEALS
WITH THE WORST-CASE MISUSE OF
THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
NOT POLICY THAT ASSUMES THE
TECHNOLOGY WILL ALWAYS BE USED
AS INTENDED BECAUSE AS WE'VE
SEEN WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT USING LICENSE PLATE
READERS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO
ENFORCE IMMIGRATION, INSTANCES
WHERE THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED,
THESE THINGS DO HAVE
CONSEQUENCES AND IMPACTS ON A
PARTICULARLY MARGINALIZED GROUP
OF DISPROPORTIONATELY
SURVEILLED COMMUNITIES.
>> THANK YOU.
SO, I THINK WE ARE ALL SAYING
ON THE COUNCIL SIDE THE SAME
THING.
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THIS DATA
USED IN UNINTENTIONAL WAYS AND
WE BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IN
THEIR SPECIFIC TO HOW THE
DEPARTMENTS WILL PROJECT THE
DATA IS REALLY INTENDED TO
TRAFFIC.
I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
MAKE SURE OF IS OUR LEGISLATIVE
INTENT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN
SOMEBODY DOES ACCESS THE DATA
AND HOLDS UP THE PHONE AND
RECORDS THE INFORMATION THAT WE
HAVE BEEN EXPLICIT AND CLEAR
THAT OUR GOAL WAS NEVER TO HAVE
IT USED IN A WAY THAT IS NOT
RELATED TO TRAFFIC AND I WANT
TO GIVE YOU ONE VERY RECENT
EXAMPLE AND THANK SPD AND SDOT.
THERE WAS A ONE STRIKE WHERE
WORKERS WALKED OUT AND THEY
WERE ALONG BROADWAY AND IT DID
HAVE AN IMPACT ON TRAFFIC AND
IT DID INVOLVE SDOT AND THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT COMING IN AND
MAKING SURE PEOPLE WERE SAFE IN
THE AREA.
YOU CAN IMAGINE A TRAFFIC
CAMERA LOOKING AT THAT AREA FOR
REGULAR MEASURING AFTER THE
TRAFFIC WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
THE PICKET LINE AND HAVING THAT
DATA AVAILABLE IF AN EMPLOYER
WANTED TO STREAM THAT SITE AND
TAKE A VIDEO OF IT, IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION WAS
BEING COLLECTED AND STORED OR
EVEN SHARED ON THAT STREAM BUT
IF AN EMPLOYER, FOR EXAMPLE,
WANTED TO ENGAGE IN SOME SORT
OF RETALIATION THERE WOULD BE A
STREAM HAPPENING THERE WHERE
THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE INFORMATON
THAT WOULD NEVER BE OUR USE.
WE ARE VERY PRO-WORKER AND WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN
ENGAGE IN THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE
IT ONE STRIKE AND WE WANT TO
SUPPORT SURE PEOPLE ARE SAFE ON
THE STREET AND ON BIKES AND
THERE IS PROPER BARRIERS FOR
THE TRAFFIC AS WELL.
WE ARE DOING OUR JOB TO MAKE
SURE PEOPLE CAN EXPRESS
THEMSELVES BUT IF IS IN SOME
WAY THAT WAS EVER TO BE USED
AGAINST THE WORKER, WE WOULD
NOW BE ABLE TO SAY THAT WAS NOW
NOT OUR INTENT.
THAT IS A RECENT EXAMPLE AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK
TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS WERE
SAFE IN THAT SITUATION AND
PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN
THAT AND IF THAT WERE TO BE
ONLINE, WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE
SOME PROTECTIONS.
I THINK WE ARE ALL SAYING THE
SAME THING.
THIS JUST HELPS US PUT
ADDITIONAL FINE POINTS ON A.
>> AND YOUR POINT IS DULY
NOTED.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
THANK YOU.
SO, GREG, ON THE ISSUE OF LPR
VERSUS TRAFFIC CAMERAS --
>> IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
I SUGGEST YOU STRIKE IT.
>> SO I STRIKE --
>> THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
ATTACHMENT ON LICENSE PLATE
READERS.
>> THE SECOND ONE ON THE SECOND
PAGE.
SO THE AMENDMENT IS JUST WHERE
IT STARTS WITH THE NUMBER 5.
>> I THINK IT'S 3.
>> IT'S 3, RIGHT?
>> NUMBER 5 ON AMENDMENT 3 IS
ABOUT LICENSE PLATE READERS.
>> IT'S AMENDMENT 3 AND IT IS
ON THE --
>> STARTS WITH THE NUMBER 5,
CORRECT?
>> LET ME SEE WHICH ONE IS THE
-- THE NUMBER 5. THAT'S THE
ONE YOU DON'T WANT.
IT'S RELATED TO THE LPR.
>> WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE
ARE REMOVING?
>> ONE SECOND.
OKAY.
SO, THE ONE THAT YOU WANT TO
REMOVE IS ATTACHMENT 3.
>> CROSS OUT THE FIRST ONE END
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND KEEP
THE SECOND ONE THAT SAYS
ATTACHMENT 4.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO, WHY DON'T I --
>> PLEASE DO IT BECAUSE I'M NOT
QUITE FOLLOWING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON THE
DOCUMENT THAT SAYS -- THIS IS
ALL FOR GREG'S BENEFIT.
THE DOCUMENT THAT SAYS PROPOSED
AMENDENT 3 TO ACCOUNTABLE
119519 VERSION 1. AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IT SAYS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ATTACHMENT 3 AND ATTACHMENT 4
AND WE ARE ACTUALLY JUST GOING
TO MOVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
TO ATTACHMENT 4. WHICH IS THE
SECOND OF THE TWO AMENDMENTS.
THE LANGUAGE IS IDENTICAL BUT
WE WANT TO APPLY TO THE ONE
BILL.
>> YES.
>> I WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE
THAT.
>> SECOND?
>> MOVED IN SECOND IN.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE
AMENDMENT AS DESCRIBED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN WHICH IS
JUST THE AMENDMENT TO
ATTACHMENT 4 SAY AYE AND RAISE
YOUR HAND.
OPPOSED?
AYE HAVE IT.
WE WILL CLEAN THAT UP.
AND THEN WE HAVE ONE LAST
AMENDMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD AND LET'S SEE -- I
HAVE IT.
>> ANOTHER LATE BREAKER.
>> ANOTHER LATE BREAKER HERE.
THANK YOU.
MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS IT AT
THE TABLE.
COUNCIL MEMBER, I DID READ IT
BEFORE BUT YOU NEED TO WALK ME
THROUGH THIS ONE.
>> HOPEFULLY THERE WON'T BE ANY
CONTROVERSY TO DO THIS ONE.
BECAUSE FROM THE CITY'S
PERSPECTIVE THESE ARE
ENFORCEABLE POLICIES.
THIS IS MERELY AN AMENDMENT
SAYING SO.
>> CLARIFYING. MORE TEETH TO
THE FACT THAT THESE ARE
ENFORCEABLE POLICIES.
WE HAD SOME PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO
SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS THEY WERE
ENFORCEABLE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO, GRAMMATICALLY WHERE DOES
THIS STUFF GO, AT THE
BEGINNING?
>> IT WILL GO INTO THE
BEGINNING OF EACH CSIR SO THAT
IT IS OBVIOUS TO THE READER
THAT IT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING
THEY ARE READING THEREAFTER.
>> THE DEPARTMENT DOES ANYONE
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
WE SAID THEY ARE ENFORCEABLE
AND WE ARE DOUBLING DOWN ON THE
ENFORCEABILITY CONCEPT.
EVERYBODY GOOD?
YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN MORE?
I THINK YOU'RE ON BOARD.
DO YOU WANT TO MOVE IT.
>> YES.
I LIKE TO MOVE PROPOSED AMENDED
42 COUNTS A BILL 11 9519
VERSION 1.
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT
AND MIMIC 4 AS STATED BY
COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE AYE.
OPPOSED?
THE AYES HAVE A.
>> AND I JUST ADD IN THE SPIRIT
OF THIS IS TWO NAYS OF 29 THAT
WE ARE WORKING THROUGH ,
HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE
AMENDMENTS IN THE FUTURE FOR
THESE SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE
WILL CARRY OVER TO THE FUTURE.
>> THAT'S THE GOAL.
THAT IS THE GOAL.
OKAY.
SO WE HAVE AN AMENDED PIECE.
NOW I CAN DO AMENDMENT 1.
>> ACTUALLY YOU DON'T NEED
AMENDMENT 1. YOU CAN PASS ON
THE BILL AS AMENDED.
>> I WILL MOVE TO PASS COUNSEL
BILL 119519. 119519 AS AMENDED
AND FOR THE RECORD WE PASSED
THREE AMENDMENTS AS AMENDED
THREE TIMES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WE ARE TRACKING IT.
>> AND ALSO FOR THE RECORD THE
DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE
S.I.R.
DOCUMENTS AND MAKE SURE THESE
CHANGES THAT WERE ADOPTED TODAY
ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE
S.I.R.
DOCUMENTS AND THOSE WILL HAVE
TO BE ATTACHED AT FULL COUNSEL
BEFORE YOU PASS THE FINAL BILL.
>> YES.
I WILL MAKE THAT AMENDMENT FROM
THE DAIS AND EXPLAIN WHY WE
HAVE TO DO THAT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> AS WE GET INTO PASSAGE OF
THIS FINAL BILL READY TO
SUPPORT IT BUT I HAVE A FEW
QUESTIONS OF THE TIMING AND
WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> SURE.
>> WHAT IS THE, GREG AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WHAT IS THE
TIMEFRAME OF THAT ANTICIPATED?
BETWEEN NOW AND MONDAY OR IS
THIS A LONGER --
>> I WAS GOING TO PUT IT ON THE
DAIS MONDAY.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE AN
ADDITIONAL WEEK IF POSSIBLE.
AND THAT MAY GIVE YOU SOME
HEARTBURN.
>> IT DOES.
BUT WHAT ARE THE ISSUES.
I WILL WORK THEM NOW AND BE
HERE TO 1:00 IF WE HAVE TO.
>> PART OF IT IS JUST ME.
I HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO FULLY
DIGEST A FINAL DOCUMENT AND
I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING JUST TO
KEEP TRACK OF THE VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS AND I THINK HAVING
SOMETHING THAT HAS COME OUT OF
COUNSEL TO LOOK AT IT.
THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS I HAVE
ARE THAT FOLKS FROM THE --
SORRY WHAT ARE THE --
>> THE WORKING GROUP.
>> THERE WE GO.
THE WORKING GROUP.
HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT SOME
DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN VERY CLEAR.
NOT SO MUCH ON THE SPECIFICS
AROUND THE TECHNOLOGY BUT JUST
THE OVERALL ARCHING LANGUAGE.
I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND FOR ME
PERSONALLY IF I THINK THAT LACK
OF CLARITY EXISTS OR NOT.
AND SO I WOULD LOVE A CHANCE TO
SIMPLY REVIEW THIS AND I KNOW,
FRANKLY, BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT
MONDAY THAT I'M GOING FULL
SPEED AND DON'T HAVE MUCH
CAPACITY TO DO THAT AND IF I
HAD AN EXTRA WEEK TO LOOK AT
THAT, THERE MAY BE SOME PLACES
WHERE THIS DOES NOT SAY SHALL
--
>> I THINK I HAVE DEMONSTRATED
A HISTORY OF BEING PRETTY
LENIENT ON THESE KINDS OF
ISSUES.
LET ME TELL YOU MY CONCERN IN
THIS PARTICULAR MATTER AND I
WILL BE BRUTALLY CANDID.
THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN CONVINCED.
I'VE BEEN CONVINCED WITH A
WORKING GROUP AND HOPE I DON'T
OFFEND YOU ON THIS BUT THERE IS
A LOT OF DOCUMENT INTENSITY AND
THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL
ISSUES AND I'M NOT FULLY
CONVINCED THAT THE WORKING
GROUP -- IT SEEMS LIKE HE
CONTROLS THE WORKING GROUP AND
HEAVILY INFLUENCES THE WORKING
GROUP AND A LOOK AT THESE
PEOPLE TESTIFYING.
GOOD PEOPLE AND SMART.
A LOT OF PEOPLE SMARTER THAN ME
BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE
LOOKING INTO THE WEEDS IN SOME
OF THIS AND SAYING THIS IS BAD
POLICY.
I THINK THERE ARE REPEATING A
NARRATIVE THAT SEEMS TO BE
ALMOST SELF FULFILLING AT THIS
POINT.
AND I'M CONVINCED THIS IS GOOD
SOLID LEGISLATION HAVING READ
ALL THE STUFF.
MY CONCERN IS THAT SHANKAR WILL
CONTINUE TO DO WHAT THEY DO
BEST WHICH IS PROTECT CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
I GET THAT.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE ON EARTH
THAT AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO
MOVE FORWARD.
I HAVE ASKED THESE DEPARTMENTS
TO WORK FEVERISHLY ON THE STUFF
AND WE ARE AT THE POINT NOW,
AND I TO POSTPONE THIS MEETING,
POSTPONED THIS MEETING TODAY TO
HAVE A FINAL PIECE OF WORK THAT
I DID NOT ANTICIPATE WOULD MEET
ALL OF ACLU OBJECTIVES.
TO PROLONG IT ANOTHER WEEK TO
ME IS JUST QUITE RIDICULOUS.
BECAUSE WE'VE JUST REALLY BEEN
PLIABLE IN THIS PROCESS.
NOW, I'M SURE -- AND WHAT
SADDENS ME ABOUT THIS PROCESS,
AND I WILL SPEAK TO YOU
DIRECTLY.
WAS SADDENS ME, I THINK YOU DO
KNOW BECAUSE YOU'RE A GOOD
PERSON I THINK YOU KNOW THAT WE
HAVE REALLY TRIED OUR BEST TO
MEET YOUR NEEDS . GO AHEAD.
I HOPE YOU AGREE.
>> YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR
THOSE COMMENTS. I THINK THE
INTENT HERE NEVER WAS TO IMPUGN
ANYBODY'S INTENT.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT INTENTIONS.
I THINK PEOPLE COME TO THE
TABLE AND WORKED WITH GOOD
FAITH.
I HAVE REALLY APPRECIATED THE
AGENCY'S EFFORTS AND THE STAFF
EFFORTS, GREG AND LISA HAVE
BEEN HEROIC ON THIS.
I WANT TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE
CREDIT IS DUE AND ALSO THEN
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN CHALLENGES WITH THE
PROCESS THAT LED US TO THIS
POINT.
BUT TAKING A STEP BACK, I WOULD
SAY WE NEED TO LOOK AROUND US
TO SEE THE MOVEMENT THAT IS
BUILDING IN THIS COUNTRY AROUND
PUSHING BACK ON BIG TECH AND
THE WAY THAT TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS
COMMUNITIES.
WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTING
MARGINALIZED AND HONORABLE
COMMUNITIES AND THESE WERE
FOLKS WHO KNEW THIS VERY WELL
BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN TARGETED
BY THESE TECHNOLOGIES BEFORE
SHANKAR AND THE ACLU EVER CAME
ALONG.
WE HAVE SEEN THEM AS ELEVATING
THESE ISSUES. I JUST HAPPEN TO
BE THE ONE THAT'S GETTING PAID
TO BE HERE BUT I KNOW THAT, FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE WERE 24
ORGANIZATIONS WHO DO READ
úDOCUMENTS WHO SIGNED ONTO A
LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER YOU
PAST WAS CLEAR. GAVE
GUIDELINES TO THE PUBLIC AND
GAVE GUIDELINES TO THE AGENCIES
USING THESE TECHNOLOGIES NO
MATTER HOW GOOD THEIR INTENT TO
MAKE SURE THERE WERE BRIGHT
LINES THAT COULD NOT BE
CROSSED.
THAT HAS BEEN MY ENDEAVOR
THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND
LOOKING WHERE WE ARE AT RIGHT
NOW, I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
AND PARTICULARLY ENFORCEABILITY
ONE CERTAINLY HELPS A GREAT
DEAL SO THANK YOU TO COUNCIL
MEMBER HERBOLD FOR THAT.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT THERE ARE
ISSUES THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME
TO WORK THROUGH BECAUSE, AGAIN,
I'VE HAD THIS DOCUMENT FOR A
DAY AND A HALF AND IT DOES NOT
REFLECT EVEN THE AGREEMENTS
THAT WERE MADE IN THE LAST
POLICY DISCUSSION.
NOT THROUGH ANY FAULT -- I
THINK AS YOU HAVE SEEN, WE JUST
SAW AN AMENDMENT THAT DID NOT
APPLY TO AN ENTIRE TECHNOLOGY.
LICENSE PLATE READERS.
BECAUSE WE MOVE SO QUICKLY ON
THIS.
AND, SO COME WHERE I'M COMING
FROM IS IT LEAST GET RID OF THE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT
EXIST IN THIS DOCUMENT.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE IS IN CCTV IT
APPEARS TO ACTUALLY OPEN UP THE
ABILITY FOR THE AGENCY TO RECORD
IN WAYS THAT'S NOT EVEN
CONTEMPLATED IN THE UNDERLYING
S.I.R..
THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING I PUT IN
THE REDLINE THAT ARE CIRCULATED
YESTERDAY BUT IT SEEMS THAT
THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED BECAUSE
AS WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE
AGENCY, THEY RECORD ONLY IN
RARE CIRCUMSTANCES.
YET THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE
DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO
PASS ACTUALLY AUTHORIZES A
BROAD SET OF RECORDING UNDER
THE RUBRIC OF JUST A MISUSE OF
THE PRETERM, DATA COLLECTION.
THAT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT
EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT TRYING
TO MOVE THE GOALPOST, WE ARE
ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET TO THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AND
BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SO
LITTLE TIME THAT I'VE HAD WITH
THIS DOCUMENT AND THE CS WG AS
WELL, THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH
THE DOCUMENT RIGHT NOW.
I HOPE THAT CAN BE FIXED.
>> APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS
AND APPRECIATE YOUR EARLIER
COMMENTS TOO ABOUT NOT IMPUTING
ANYONE'S MOTIVE.
I'D APPRECIATE THAT.
CAN SOMEONE RESPOND TO SHANKAR
STATEMENT THAT -- AND I WILL
COME BACK TO THE TIMING ISSUE
TOO.
-- ABOUT THE -- IF I'M HEARING
YOU CORRECTLY, YOUR CONCERN IS
THAT THE USE OF TRAFFIC
CAMERAS, THE USE OF IT THAT
EVEN WITH THE SURVEILLANCE
ORDINANCE AND THE S.I.R.S., THE
AGENCY CAN STILL USE IT FOR
SOMETHING NEFARIOUS?
>> THAT RECORDING IS NOW
ALLOWED UNDER THE DOCUMENT,
UNDER THIS CSIR THERE WILL NOW
BE RECORDING ALOUD THAT WAS
NEVER CONTEMPLATED OR EVEN
ASKED FOR BY THE AGENCY BECAUSE
IT USES THE TERM, DATA
COLLECTION WHICH CAN EITHER
MEAN VIEWING OR RECORDING AND
IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SPECIFY
THAT IT'S RECORDING.
>> THERE IS A TERM DATA
COLLECTION IN THE S.I.R.
THAT ALLOWS , UNDER THE RUBRIC
OF DATA COLLECTION, RECORDING
WHICH IS WIDE OPEN AND YOU
DON'T FEEL IT ADEQUATELY
LIMITED.
>> YES.
THAT'S RIGHT.
TO CLARIFY, I USE THAT AS AN
EXAMPLE AMONG MANY EXAMPLES OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IN THE
DOCUMENT.
>> I KNOW THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE OF
MANY THAT YOU COULD DO AND
QUITE CANDIDLY YOU HAVE HAD THE
S.I.R., NOT THE CSIR BUT THE
S.I.R.
FOR HOW LONG?
>> QUITE A LONG TIME BUT YOU
ALL ARE PASSING A DOCUMENT THAT
I THINK WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO
US.
>> THE S.I.R., WE ARE
STIPULATING DOCUMENTS ARE NOT CC
ME AS WELL?
>> SAY THAT AGAIN?
PAYMENT YOU'RE CEASING THE
DOCUMENTS AND NOT CCING ME
EITHER, TOO?
OKAY.
ANYWAY.
THE POINT BEING IS THAT YOU HAD
THE S.I.R.
WOULD USE THE TERM DATA
COLLECTION FOR HOW LONG.
HE SAID A LONG TIME.
IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.
SO THAT ISSUE COULD'VE BEEN
RAISED AS ONE OF -- AND THEY'RE
TRYING TO PULL IT TOGETHER NOW
TO SEE IF THAT RECITATION IS
CORRECT.
GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN.
>> HIGHER-LEVEL BECAUSE THIS IS
ONE OF THE PARTS THAT'S A
MOVING TARGET.
>> THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE
MOVING TARGET WE ARE DEALING
WITH.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT YOU HAVE
DONE A HERCULEAN EFFORT
SHEPHERDING AN EXTREMELY
COMPLEX PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT FRANKLY NO ONE IN THE
COUNTRY IS DOING. AND I HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO SHOW UP AT MOMENTS
DOING MY BEST TO GET UP TO
SPEED AT SOMETHING THAT'S
COMPLEX AND I'M PERSONALLY
STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP AND TO
TRY TO SHOW UP AND DO MY JOB
BUT THAT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE
MOVING THIS TOO FAST.
IT'S BECAUSE I HAVE OTHER
THINGS GOING ON.
I THINK THAT, AND I THINK -- I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
ENGAGEMENT THAT IS HAPPENED,
PARTICULARLY IN THE PAST FEW
WEEKS WHERE THERE WERE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
WORKGROUP AND THE CITY SITTING
DOWN AND WORKING THROUGH THAT
BECAUSE THOSE FEEL LIKE OFTEN
TIMES WHEN THERE IS A DEADLINE
THAT HAPPENS BUT IT FEELS LIKE
A LOT OF GOOD WORK HAS BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED.
AND IN THE RACE TO GET THINGS
FINALIZED, MY SENSE IS THAT THE
LANGUAGE BACK AND FORTH,
BECAUSE IT'S SO COMPLEX AND THE
WORDS MEAN A LOT, THERE ARE
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THOSE
MEAN.
AND SOMETIMES THAT'S JUST PEOPLE
, DIFFERENT PARTIES WILL HAVE
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AND I
NEED TO COME TO MY OWN
INTERPRETATION.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT
TO MOVE THIS AND I WILL COMMIT
THAT IF IT'S NEXT MONDAY THAT I
WOULD DO IT I CAN'T OVER THE
WEEKEND TO FIGURE IT OUT.
I ALSO WANT TO COMMENT TOO
ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT HOW
THE ACLU AND SHANKAR ARE
SHOWING UP ON THIS.
HE OPTED TO DESCRIBE I ALSO
FEEL THAT YOU ARE CLEARLY THE
EXPERT ON THE WORKGROUP THAT IS
IN MY EAR A LOT BUT I ALSO
BELIEVE -- I KNOW THAT ONE
AMERICA AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING
RIGHT NOW AND THEY ARE FACING
HERCULEAN CHALLENGES ACROSS THE
WORLD AND THE FACT THAT, OR
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND THE
FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT AS
DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THIS AND ARE
RELYING ON THE ACLU TO DO THE
HEAVY LIFTING THAT BOTH THE
TECHNICAL LEGAL STUFF IN THE
TECHNICAL AROUND THE
TECHNOLOGY, TO ME, DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THEY CARE LESS ABOUT
IT.
IT'S REALLY ABOUT ACLU.
FOR MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I
SEE IT'S THEY ARE RELYING ON
THE ACLU BECAUSE THIS IS YOUR
EXPERTISE WHAT THEY CARE JUST
AS MUCH ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT HAS
DIRECT IMPACTS ON THE WORK THAT
ONE AMERICA IS DOING TOO.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S
NECESSARILY A NEGATIVE BUT,
THAT'S JUST --
>> YES.
LET ME DESCRIBE THE TIMING ON
MY THOUGHT AT THIS POINT.
SO, I'D LIKE TO PASS OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY.
MY PLAN IS TO BRING IT TO THE
COUNCIL NEXT MONDAY BUT MY
DOOR IS STILL OPEN TO WHATEVER
BECAUSE I AM GOING TO
ANTICIPATE THAT EVEN IF WE PASS
IT AND SUCCESSFULLY PASS IT ON
THE DAIS I WANT THE WORKING
GROUP TO CELEBRATE.
I DO NOT WANT THEM TO FEEL AS
THOUGH THEY DID NOT PASS IT.
LIKE A LOT OF THE LEGISLATION
WE HAVE RECENTLY PASSED, WE GET
IT PASSED THE GOAL LINE, SORRY
TO SIMPLE TERMS BUT SOMETIMES I
CAN'T THINK THAT QUICKLY ENOUGH
-- WE GET IT PASSED THE GOAL
LINE AND WE WANT EVERYONE TO
HIGH-FIVE AND EVERYONE DOES NOT
HIGH FIVE.
THE LONG-WINDED WAY OF SAYING
THAT WE WILL CHAT BEFORE MONDAY
AND IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DIRE
NEED, AND I DEMONSTRATED A
HISTORY OF HOLDING THINGS UP I
HAVE TO COME UP BUT THAT IS NOT
MY INTENT AT THIS POINT WHAT
THE DOORS ARE OPEN AND I MEAN
THAT SINCERELY.
AND I LOVE YOUR POINT ABOUT --
AND READING A BOOK CALLED, THE
AGE OF SURVEILLANCE CAPITALISM.
IT'S JUST SCARY, NOT JUST WITH
CAMERA TECHNOLOGY BUT THE USE
OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND EVERYTHING
ELSE THAT WE ARE DOING.
AND I THINK WE HAVE A FRACTION
OF WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT THERE
IN TERMS OF ALL KINDS OF
SURVEILLANCE.
IT'S A FASCINATING BOOK AND I
GET THE STUFF BUT WE ARE ALSO
TRYING TO GET SOMETHING IN
PLACE AND WE HAVE 26 MORE TO
GO, OR WHATEVER.
LET ME DO THIS.
LET'S GET A BOAT AND THEN WE
CAN HAVE MORE COMMENTS BUT I
WANT TO GET THE VOTE BEHIND ME.
I WILL MOVE TO PASS COUNSEL
BILL 119519 AS AMENDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
POSSIBLE BOAT MOST VOTE ON
MONDAY.
LET'S SEE.
AND ANY OTHER CLOSING REMARKS?
>> GREG, LISA, YOU GUYS HAVE
DONE AMAZING WORK AND I'M
GRATEFUL BECAUSE I HAVE RELIED
ON YOU HEAVILY TO GET MY
FINGERS HANGING ONTO THE EDGE
OF THE SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
HOW SOON CAN WE HAVE
ESSENTIALLY A CLEAN VERSION OF
WHAT PASSED OUT TODAY THAT I
CAN ASK THE BOARD TO PROVIDE
SOME COMMENTS ON SO THAT I CAN
REALLY DIVE IN TO DO THAT WORK
IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS?
>> I CAN GET YOU THAT TOMORROW
MORNING.
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
>> AND I GUESS I DO TAKE A
LITTLE UMBRAGE SOMETIMES -- AND
I DON'T THINK YOU SAID THIS AND
I MAY BE OVERLY SENSITIVE -- WE
HAVE TRIED TO BE COMPLETELY
OPEN AND TRANSPARENT IN THIS
PROCESS ONE PEOPLE ARE SAYING
ARE NOT GETTING DOCUMENTS, I
GOT THESE AMENDMENTS THIS
MORNING MYSELF SO THIS JUST
SORT OF HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE
DOING THINGS IN THIS PROCESS
BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN AN
INTENTIONAL SLOPE, AS IS THE
POKER TERM FOR THOSE PLAYING
POKER.
ONTO POKER NOW.
THANK YOU ALL OF YOU FOR THIS.
I KNOW THIS IS BEEN
EXCRUCIATING ON SOME LEVEL BUT
ALSO VERY IMPORTANT WORK AND,
SHANKAR, THANK YOU TO YOU AND
YOUR ORGANIZATION FOR PUTTING
OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES.
WE APPRECIATE THAT.
WITH THAT -- THE QUESTION -- I
DID NOT HEAR THE QUESTION?
PAYMENT THE AUTHORITY TO
RECORD.
>> THERE WAS A QUESTION --
COUNCILMEMBER, O'BRIEN?
PAYMENT THERE WAS A QUESTION
ABOUT THE USE.
>> AND I WILL LOOK TO JASON TO
HELP ME HERE.
I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING S.I.R.
SAYS THEY DO NOT RECORD THE
DATA.
AND THE CSIR BEING A SUMMARY OF
THE S.I.R.
IT DOES NOT SAY EVERYTHING THAT
THE S.I.R.
SAYS BUT WHAT IT DOES IS IT
TALKS ABOUT RECORDING THAT
HAPPENS.
IT SAYS FOR ANY RECORDING THAT
DOES TAKE PLACE THE OPERATOR
WILL RECORD NO MORE INFORMATION
THAN IS NECESSARY FOR A TRAFFIC
MANGEMENT FUNCTION. OPERATORS
WILL MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO
LIMIT CCTV OR STILL IMAGES OF
TRAFFIC CONDITION, TO TRAFFIC
CONDITIONS.
>> BUT TO TRY AND 18 POINT,
THAT'S WHAT SDOT SHALL TRY TO
DO BUT THAT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY
SAY THAT ALL THEY CAN DO .
CORRECT?
>> I'M GOING TO -- IT LOOKS
LIKE HE'S GOT --
>> I WAS GOING TO HIGHLIGHT
SECTION 3 AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
PAGE WHERE IT SAYS THE SYSTEM
WILL NOT BE USED TO COLLECT ANY
DATA OTHER THAN THE FOLLOWING
AND IT DOES LIST THREE VERY
EXPLICIT REASONS WHY THE DATA
WOULD BE COLLECTED.
>> THAT IS IN THE CSIR.
>> IT WILL NOT BE ARCHIVED
EXCEPT IN SPECIFIC SCENARIOS.
EXAMPLES INCLUDE MONITORING THE
EFFECTS OF CHANGE IN TRAFFIC
SIGNAL TIMING.
THERE ARE SOME SPECIFICS IN
HERE THAT LIMIT.
ú>> SO, IT'S A COMBINATION OF
BOTH DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE
IT SO THAT SDOT WILL NOT RECORD
OR CANNOT RECORD FOR ANYTHING
OTHER THAN A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
PURPOSE.
>> YOU ARE SAYING IT RIGHT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE VERY
CLEAR THAT THAT IS EXACTLY AN
EXAMPLE OF THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCE I'M TALKING ABOUT.
WHAT THIS SAYS IS THE SDOT CCTV
SYSTEM WILL NOT BE USED TO
COLLECT ANY DATA FOR ANY
PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE
FOLLOWING.
AND IT ACTUALLY THEN SAYS
LIVESTREAM FEET OF CURRENT
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL,
COLLECTING DATA CAN ACTUALLY BE
USED AS A TERM FOR RECORDING,
RIGHT?
THE UNDERLYIG SDOT ACTUALLY
SAYS NOWHERE THAT THIS
RECORDING CAN HAPPEN YET THIS
LANGUAGE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
ABLE COME AND HE WILL ALL LIVE
STREAMS TO BE COLLECTED, I.E.,
RECORDED.
I JUST WANT TO SAY IF THE
INTENT IS NOT TO RECORD AND I
UNDERSTAND FROM THE AGENCY THAT
OTHER THAN LIMITED TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING STUDIES, THAT WILL
NOT HAPPEN, LET'S MAKE THAT
CLEAR.
LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE
PUBLIC.
LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE
AGENCY.
IT DOES NOT SOUNDED LIKE IT
SHOULD BE CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE
THE AGENCY IS SAYING WE DON'T
INTEND TO DO THIS.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE READER
THIS LANGUAGE, THAT CAN HAPPEN
NOW.
SO --
>> I HEARD IT DIFFERENTLY.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND
WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR POINT BUT
I THOUGHT THE LANGUAGE CAPTURED
THE LIMITATION ON THE USE.
>> WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
YOU, SHANKAR.
IN FACT, ON PAGE 3, IN A
RECORDING THAT DOES TAKE PLACE,
THE OPERATOR -- NECESSARY FOR
THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
FUNCTION.
I THINK IT'S VERY EXPLICIT.
>> I THINK THE INTENT WAS NEVER
TO PROHIBIT ANY RECORDING EVER.
I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO
ENSURE THAT WHEN RECORDING TOOK
PLACE IT WAS ONLY FOR TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING
STUDIES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER MOSQUEDA?
PAYMENT THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE
WHERE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO
HAVE THE FINAL BILL AND THEN DO
HAVE A CROSSWALK WITH WHAT
MAYBE WE HEAR FROM CENTRAL
STAFF OR STAKEHOLDERS OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND
THEN MAKE SURE THAT WE DO WHAT
WE HAVE DONE TODAY.
I DO CLARIFY THAT IS NOT WHAT
THE LANGUAGE SAYS OR SEE IF
THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE -- NOT TO
TOTALLY AMEND MY BILL BUT WHAT
WE IDENTIFY.
>> SINCE THIS IS AN EXAMPLE.
I THINK THIS IS GOOD EXAMPLE.
THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OVER THE
LANGUAGE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ON
THE LIMITATIONS OF USE BUT
SHANKAR IS SAYING THAT IT'S
NOT.
I THINK THIS IS WHAT THIS IS
AN EXAMPLE OF.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WAS WE COULD
LIMIT IT.
THE LANGUAGE SEEMS VERY CLEAR.
WE SAY WHEN WE ARE USING A, WHY
WE USE IT AND WHAT WE WILL NOT
IS AT FOUR AND A PUTS
LIMITATIONS ON USE AND IT HAS
THE WORD, SHALL, IN THERE.
I DON'T SEE HOW.
I THINK HE HAS INCORRECT -- I
UNDERSTAND POSSIBLY THERE COULD
BE SOME NEFARIOUS USE SOMEWHERE
DOWN THE ROAD, I GUESS, BUT IT
IF IT IS THEY ARE VIOLATING THE
POLICY.
THEY ARE VIOLATING THE POLICY
AND THAT'S THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS IF THERE IS THAT
KIND OF NEFARIOUS USE THEY ARE
VIOLATING THE POLICY.
I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE.
ANYWAY.
WE WILL HAVE A CLEAN VERSION BY
TOMORROW.
WE WILL GET IT TO SHANKAR AND
TAKE IT FROM THERE.
EVERYONE, HAVE A GREAT DAY.
>> AND CONGRATULATIONS.
>> AND THE LOOK FORWARD TO
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.