AgdaPkt 2017-09-11 Closed and Joint SA PFA

Browse Search

6.1.D. - Page 20 City Responsef East Palo Alto Public meetings, Town Halls Hillsborough Menlo Park Redwood City San Carlos Sheriff's Office Menlo Park* Social media Brisbane Did not reach out to residents Foster City *Colma,Pacifica,and South San Francisco stated in the survey that in the future they would use social media to inform residents. Nome cities stated they did not reach out to residents(Brisbane and Foster City).Belmont responded that the city did reach out,but did not provide any examples.Broadmoor Police Protection District,Colma,and Millbrae currently use surveillance tools,so this question did not apply to them. Planning by cities or the County to introduce ordinances to manage surveillance technology According to the Grand Jury survey, neither the County nor any cities in San Mateo County are currently considering an ordinance that outlines processes and procedures for deploying and managing surveillance tools. Other Bay Area responses to community concerns about surveillance Oakland Domain Awareness Center(DAC) In 2013, the City of Oakland was building the DAC system, a large surveillance system comprising 700 cameras placed in schools and public housing, with facial recognition software, ALPRs, and 300 terabytes of storage.54 In response, a coalition of activists alerted the community to the potential harm widespread surveillance could do to privacy and civil liberties. At city council meetings, speaker after speaker voiced concerns about surveillance technology and requested participation in the decision-making process.55 As a result, in 2014, the Oakland City Council voted to confine the DAC surveillance to the Port of Oakland. The council also prohibited use of facial recognition software, ALPRs, and eliminated data retention. The council also created an ad hoc citizen's committee, which later became Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission.56 Recently, this commission has proposed a "Surveillance and Community Safety Ordinance,"57 which would require the city's departments to disclose any new surveillance technologies they plan to acquire. Agencies would need approval from the City Council before purchasing the tool or technology. The law would require open public hearings, to allow the public to evaluate the costs and benefits of technologies before 54 Brian Hofer,"How the fight to stop Oakland's Domain Awareness Center Laid the Groundwork for the Oakland Privacy Commission,"ACLU of Northern California(blog),accessed Sept.21,2016.https://www.aclunc.org/blog/how-fight-stop- oaklands-domain-awareness-center-laid-groundwork-oakland-privacy-commission. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Text of proposed ordinance,accessed May 6,2017:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3253520-oakO6l975.html. 2016-2017 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13