My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-09-11 Closed and Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-09-11 Closed and Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/21/2017 12:51:50 PM
Creation date
9/7/2017 6:06:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
9/11/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
530
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.1.D. - Page 37 <br /> Tulchin Research—Poll Results <br /> In addition to these previously mentioned technology-specific surveillance measures, <br /> voters also would like to see reforms implemented at the state and local level of surveillance <br /> practices by law enforcement in order to provide more oversight,accountability and limits to this <br /> law enforcement tactic.Among them,two-thirds of voters would like to see local elected officials <br /> like City Councilmembers or County Supervisors approve new surveillance technologies before <br /> they can be used (67 percent support). Similarly, voters want to see policies set that limit <br /> surveillance use both locally (65 percent)and statewide (64 percent). Voters also want to see <br /> steps taken to require public reporting from law enforcement agencies regarding the frequency of <br /> use of surveillance technologies (62 percent) as well as providing public notification before <br /> purchasing any new surveillance technologies(58 percent). <br /> Support for Local and State Surveillance Reforms <br /> Here are some suggested proposals to improve transparency and accountability for police <br /> use of surveillance technology.Please indicate whether you support or oppose each <br /> Support Oppose Do <br /> Know •. <br /> Require the local City Council or Board of <br /> Supervisors to vote to approve new 67% 19% 14% +48 <br /> surveillance technology before it is used by <br /> local police. <br /> Develop and enforce local policies to set limits 65% 18% 17% +47 <br /> on surveillance technology used by police. <br /> Develop and enforce statewide policies to set <br /> limits on surveillance technology used by 64% 18% 18% +47 <br /> police. <br /> Require law enforcement agencies to publicly 62% 24% 13% +47 <br /> report how often they are using surveillance. <br /> Provide public notification prior to local police 58% 23% 19% +36 <br /> buying new technology for surveillance. <br /> Conclusion <br /> These findings show wide support throughout California for limiting how law enforcement <br /> uses surveillance technologies on the public. From internet and e-mail surveillance to cell phone <br /> and text messaging activities,voters from across a spectrum of demographic and partisan groups <br /> show strong support for reforming how law enforcement tracks our activities through technology <br /> by requiring the police to get a warrant before collecting this information. More broadly, voters <br /> want more accountability,oversight and limits placed on police surveillance tactics. <br /> Survey Methodology: Tulchin Research conducted a statewide survey in California among 900 <br /> likely November 2016 voters,including a statewide base sample of 800 voters and an oversample <br /> of 100 African American voters. The oversample of African American voters provides increased <br /> statistical confidence for that specific demographic, especially in looking at key sub-groups. <br /> Interviews were conducted online from July 10-14, 2015. The margin of error for the statewide <br /> base sample is+/-3.46 percent. <br /> 2016-2017 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.