Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.D. - Page 22 <br /> long will we have the information? Who'll have access? How will we know if there's <br /> misuse or abuse? I think we ought to know those answers before we spend millions of <br /> dollars in public funds." <br /> The ordinance also provides that the Board of Supervisors, "...shall assess whether the <br /> benefits to the impacted County departments and the community of the surveillance <br /> technology outweigh the costs—including both the financial costs and reasonable <br /> concerns about the impact on and safeguards for privacy, civil liberties and civil rights." <br /> "I firmly believe we can both protect the public, and respect the public's privacy and due <br /> process rights," Simitian said. "In fact, I believe we're obligated to do both." <br /> The new measure is noteworthy, in part, because it both addresses specific existing <br /> technologies (like surveillance cameras, automated license plate readers, and cell-site <br /> simulators), but also attempts to be"future-proof,"by describing the kinds of surveillance <br /> covered.62 <br /> Bay Area Rapid Transit's (BART's)proposed Surveillance Policy <br /> According to representatives at BART, the BART Board of Directors will be considering a <br /> proposal that would require board approval of any surveillance tools used by BART police or <br /> other BART entity. <br /> The ACLU of Northern California, the Oakland Privacy Working Group, and the Electronic <br /> Frontier Foundation(EFF) all have indicated support for such the surveillance policy, which has <br /> been presented to BART's technology committee in December 2016. A senior attorney at EFF <br /> stated: "BART could take a big step forward toward accountability and transparency by passing <br /> the ordinance, which will ensure public and collective board oversight of whether to acquire <br /> dangerous and invasive spying tools."63 <br /> Proposed California State Senate Bill <br /> SB 21 (2017), the Police Surveillance Transparency bil164 sponsored by Senator Jerry Hill, D— <br /> San Mateo, would extend existing privacy standards for ALPRs and cell-intercept devices to all <br /> surveillance technology used by law enforcement agencies. <br /> "SB 21 ensures that the same privacy protocols and standards that currently apply to license plate <br /> readers and cell site simulators apply to all other surveillance technology, including those <br /> developed in the future," Senator Hill said.65 <br /> This bill was passed by the California State Senate on May 31, 2017 and was then sent to the <br /> California Assembly.66 <br /> 62 Press Release:"Joe Simitian:Cutting-edge surveillance ordinance approved for Santa Clara County,"accessed May 6,2017. <br /> https://www.sccgov.org/sites/d5/newsmedia/press-releases/Pages/Surveillance0rdinance.aspx. <br /> 63 Joe Kukura`BART Considers Measure to Limit Surveillance,"SF Weekly,January 26,2017. <br /> http://www.sfweekly.com/news/bart-considers-measure-to-limit-surveillance/. <br /> 64 Text of bill is available at http://Ieginfolegislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtm17bi11_id=201720180SB21. <br /> 65"New Legislation,"Senator Jerry Hill,accessed April 3,2017. <br /> https://Icrospubcontact.1c.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/imgs/SD 13/2017/jan/Hill_eNews_010317_Full.htm#article 1. <br /> 66"CA SB2112017-2018IRegular Session,"Legiscan,accessed June 1,2017. https://Iegiscan.com/CA/bill/SB21/2017ncric. <br /> 2016-2017 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15 <br />