Seattle City Council Governance, Equity, and Technology Committee 12/18/18
Good. Afternoon ever good afternoon good morning everybody thank you for being here for our governance. Equity and Technology, Committee on December, 18th. 2018. This, would be our last year in meeting for this committee. I. Will. Start. Off with, public. Comment and then we'll move into the three, agenda items we have which number. One is a ordinance. Relating to the regulation, of the for hire industry, in the taxi. And. TNC. World and the, second one would be a discussion, on an, update on the community surveillance, working group, and the third one will be a discussion, in possible, vote on, the, great, the use of gray key technologies. As a surveillance. Technology. Okay so, let's start with public comment thank you being here we'll start off with Jessica, McCoy we asked you to try to stay on a two minutes if possible Jessica. Be followed by Alex, Zimmerman, and then Ron Wilson. Morning. Council member morning, I am, Jessica McCoy, from Samaritan. And, I am just coming to give you a brief update on Samaritan. In our progress we. Wanted to let. You know that we've. Had a growing, need expressed, from the community, here on getting, more beacons. Both. From individuals, experiencing, homelessness as, well as shelters, and service providers, in the area. We've. Established. Some, new partnerships, over the last few months including. Partnerships. With the Salvation, Army with, the mobile medic fan I compass, Housing Alliance in, DES C and so we're working on training their case managers, to use the technology, but. They've also all requested, to be able to have these beacons, on hand, with them as. A refresher, Samaritan. Uses, this technology to link individuals, experiencing, homelessness with. Financial, capital and relational guidance and we're. Very excited we're, up to about 60, significant. Changing, outcomes from housing. To employment to being. Able to purchase work, clothes so they can accept a job or. Just get medication, every month so. We, are looking. Now to begin. Increasing. Our current, pilot of 500, beacons and I'd, love to speak with you afterward, on behalf of Jonathan, I know you've spoken with him before on. Who you'd like to invite for a demo and discuss, how we can expand this pilot to 2,500, beacons here in Seattle so, just not, to put you on the spot I don't have a question just a comment thank you for your words so. I would like to schedule a sort of a trial, I like to see the technology, and so I don't know if the problem could have been our committee are we went through the budget process but like you or Jonathan, to bring the technology maybe a few users, whenever. We used technology, there's, a process, the city as it goes well you'll see some of that today as a matter of fact but I'm very interested in your technology, I know how it works so. I guess, I'll say VIN who heads up our technology, works watching. What we're saying now and listening, so, I'd love to get that scheduled. Early. Next year January, February maybe. Have some users, of it maybe have some of our IT folks, and really show, how. It works but I'm excited, about it thank you for doing the work it wonderful thank you so much council member thank you our next. Speaker be Alex's, Zimmerman followed by Ron Wilson, and then Shankar, Narayana. Yeah. Thank, you very much. Thank. You mr. Zimmerman and, Ron. Wilson. Moving. Right along. This. This. Little cell phone I hear sure, everyone, in, attendance here, today is carrying one I've. Had. Intrusions. I. Provided. This counsel, dozens, and dozens I'm. Not. Miss. Stating. The, number of. Emails. And narratives. I have, delivered. To this, counsel. Narratives. Describing. The. Third-party voices. On my phone that the. Email. Saying that I wanted to sleep with show Amma Sawant. Describing. My red tennis shoes that I was wearing. These. Are traumatic, pieces, this, is very, disturbing. For. A phone to be able to have the. Kind of technology that, I believe the city IT is involved, in quite frankly they. The, theory that I have. Is that the city wants me to go away and. 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 a chance. To. Get a response back, after. All my request, for a 15 minute meeting I never, received, and, I have never received one call, back from, any council, members this is despicable I think. We ought to reelect, all new council, members if this city can't get its act together and address. The damages, that, I have, endured. And. Emotionally. And physically, I. Don't. Even know what I'm gonna 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 and it. Continues. To this day. Thank you Ron I'm. Very sorry that I.
Haven't. Had. Any response, from you people, and it's neglectful. It's, willful and. I think that there's intent, on the city to get me to go away and, I think that the IT is involved, thank, you sir. Last. Speaker sign up is shon-kar nari on. Good. Morning councilmembers chunker narayan for aclu, I'll be addressing, the. Great key issue this morning and, I. Have both process, and substantive, concerns. About where we are on gray key and, I'd like to make a few quick points about that one is that gray. Key is surveillance. Technology, in our view it's it, enables, the unlocking, of a phone. For. The primary, purpose of observing or, analyzing the, movements, or behavior of that phone owner in other words it allows the download, of, the. Information, stored on that phone that, is really problematic. There, is no exemption, in the surveillance ordinance, for, an. Agency declaring, that it will use a, technology, with the warrant that's, just not there there is a opt. There's, an opt-out. Exemption. But there's a line in the privacy, impact assessment that, suggests that the. Ordinance is being interpreted. Such. That if, an agency simply declares, that it's going to use a technology, with a warrant it's exempt, from scrutiny that is simply not the case it's not supported, by the language of the ordinance it's, not supported by the legislative, history of, the, ordinance and where, there's doubt the ordinance, should be interpreted, in. Favor of more public transparency and accountability and, not less I'd. 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, many questions, were left blank or. Just. Had one-word answers, no, with, no, justification or explanation. That's. Not real public transparency, and we need to make, sure that no longer happens finally.
I Just like to point out there's an extensive list of unity groups that are concerned with surveillance they. Would have liked to have been here but I know unfortunately I found out about, the. Report that exists that mentioned to us from a journalist, yesterday, and it would have been great for, us to get a heads-up thank, you, thank. You. Okay. That concludes our public comment thank. You for being here and we'll move into our first agenda item I didn't. Read it into the record any presenters come forward counsel, bill one one nine four two seven 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. Hello. So. I. Sort. Of mentioned what, we're examining. In. This ordinance during briefing, yesterday. But, Brian you you. Could give us he has some introductory words and you want to give some context, and then we'll let you sort of talk to it and see, what we got sure, thank you very much Brian good night Council essential staff in. December, of 2015 the City Council passed ordinance, one two four nine six eight relating, to the regulation, of the for hire transportation, industry under, which for hired drivers could determine whether or not to engage in collective negotiations. With, the companies that contract with those drivers the. Ordinance provides the subjects to be negotiated, will be specified in rules or regulations promulgated, by the director of FAS including. But not limited to 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 made to or withheld from drivers and the, minimum hours and conditions of work so. The bill before you today council bill one one nine four two seven would, make a few Seattle. Municipal Code amendments to sections that were created. With the 2015 ordinance first. The bill would remove as a subject of negotiations, the nature and amount of payments to be made to or withheld from drivers, second. It would prohibit the FAS director from including those types of payment provisions as a subject of negotiation, in any rules or regulations and, third. To the extent that interest arbitration is necessary, the, bill would remove from consideration, a comparison, of payments to other drivers. The. Bill also makes some technical Corrections to the code. Section 2 of the bill expressly provides that any City, rule or regulation that is inconsistent with this bill is superseded.
And. Just, lastly attached to the agenda is a proposed substitute, version of the bill for your consideration the. Proposed substitutes simply correct some typos that were contained in the originally introduced bill which. Did not use the proper formatting to make the desired code amendments and so the proposed substitute is indicated as version d2. Very. Good thanks for that overview and thanks for the write-up. That's been disseminated. And available, to the public accounts. Perm Brian you had some comments, I do thank you council president um, Brian. Thanks for that overview this, is a piece. Of legislation, part. Of a broader body of work obviously we've been doing around, the taxi and for hire industry for a number of years and. I. I. Think this legislation is the right place the right direction to go at this time a couple, reasons I want to share. When. We originally did the collective bargaining, legislation. We gave drivers. A whole host of things that they 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, compensation, we do do something similar with the taxi industry, and. I think that as we move forward it's important for us 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 we might be able to do something more swiftly and so I think taking that. Piece of. The. Body of work out of the collective bargaining agreement, and putting it back in the City Council's hands is something that I think makes sense at this time in light of kind. Of the couple, years we're into this already and, what, may come next, very. Good I. Agree. With everything you said I for, me it's about at, this point flexibility. For both the. All. Of 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. Inside. Look forward to this I think this is a good approach so I don't have. I'm. Not gonna grandstand, on this and it just seems like the right thing to do any other comments so we're ready to vote okay. Well. I'll go, ahead and move to substitute, d2. For the underlying version, I'll, second that all. Those in favor say, aye aye, opposed. The, ice habit, and. So council, bill 1 1 9 4 to 7 is passed. Substitute. I'm sorry the substitute, bill is substituted. And will present this in January I'll, go ahead and move the bill as substituted. Now I'm. Sorry I I'm, I'm got. Another hat on here so you're getting, a hit on my help so it has been substituted so, now we have, the. Council. 1 1 9 4 to 7 is ready to vote as I'm saying that correctly ok so, I'll now move it move, council bill 1 1 9 4 to 7 okay, all. Those in favor say aye aye opposed. The, eyes have it okay. So we substituted. 1, 1 9 4 to 7 4, 1 to 4 9 6 8 and we'll presented a full council I think on January, 7th as the Becklund go ahead I'm you didn't substitute it for 9 6 8 what you just substitute version, D 2 for version D 1 which was in your packets. Okay. So strike, what I said. So. Yeah you approved council. Bill 1 1 9 4 2 7 version, d2 correct. Yeah and 1. 2 4 9 6 8 was the prior one passing that was the one that passed in December 22, 10 okay, so we will present, 1, 1 947. Its next opportunity unless something changes we don't have a schedule yet we haven't approved the IRC but that's sort of our thinking, at this time okay I believe okay thank you Brian thank you very much okay. Let's move to the next second agenda item see if I can slaughter that one too, go. Ahead community, surveillance. Working, group update. So, we just wanted, to sort. Of daylight the issue there's not a lot to chat about here, but wanted. Folks. To know that we're trying to move ahead so once. You get your paperwork situated. Greg why don't you introduce, yourself, and just sort of talk. To us about what. You do know about how the working, group is coming along and etc, thank you council president I am Greg Doss Council central staff here to provide as you said an update on the working group by, way of some brief history as you all know the surveillance ordinate, requires city departments, to obtain, council, approval for. Those technologies, that are deemed surveillance, either, technologies. That are possessed now or technologies. That departments, would like to acquire. Last. September, the council passed ordinance one two five six seven, nine which, expanded, the public review process. For surveillance technology, the, council created a working group that would consist of members from communities, and groups that are historically subject. To. Disproportionate. Surveillance, including, Seattle's, diverse communities of color immigrant, communities, religious, minorities, and groups concerned with privacy and privacy, and protesting.
The. Ordinance created a seven member working group three appointments coming, from the council and for appointments, coming from the mayor, at, least five of those appointments have to come from the communities, and groups that I mentioned a moment ago the, working. Group is charged with creating a privacy, and civil liberties impact. Assessment, for each technology that comes before the council. Council, president's office is working to create a clerk file this week that would finalize, these appointments, the, appointments, were made after a process that advertised to the community, and also reached out to those groups that I mentioned. So, with that I can go ahead and read the list. Of members and their, their. Affiliations, or if you want, to comments or I'm happy, to do that I have no comments we want to get that out and go ahead and really the, names we have so far so the names we have the names that will be appointed are Oscar Mohammed, who's the program, manager, at the King County Department of Community and Human Services. And. I. Apologize for slaughtering name's, dr.. Neguin daya dye, who. Apologize. If I had said that wrong University, of Washington assistant professor, is, a mayor appointment. Michelle Merriweather, is the president, and CEO of the Urban League. Massey. Faladi. Who's. The Council on America he represents, the Council on american-islamic, relations. Another. A mayor appointment, rich, Stoltz, who's the executive. Director of one America one America, and that's a council appointment. Shankar. Who. Testified. A moment, ago, is. The technology and liberties Project Director for the ACLU of Washington, and Shankar. I'm sorry about your last name I'm gonna slaughter and, Iran. Thank, you Ryan Ryan thank you. And Joe Wooley who is a volunteer, from the community Technology Advisory, Board, those. Last, three or Council appoints correct yes yes, and then, by, way of update the working group will immediately receive, up to six technologies. To start reviewing as, soon as they're appointed, and these. Technologies are used by Seattle. Department of Transportation. Seattle. Police Department and Seattle, Fire Department and. 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, so. The executive is said that given the type timeline, between now, and the. Time, that, a first, impact, assessment, would be due which would be in January. January 31st, that. They're going to consider. Maybe. Piecemealing, these. Technologies. To the working group to give them more time and so we'll, see how that how that progresses the, the. The final deadline though is that the. City needs to submit to the council at least one technology, that has been fully reviewed by January. 31st, right that's our herelet yeah, just for a. Refresher. There, are a number of assessments that are required. As a part of the. Enabling. Ordinance, can. You remind, us what the difference between the privacy, impact assessment is. And the. Surveillance. Assessment. From. My. Review. Of my, notes here both. Of those are. Both, the surveillance impact, report, sorry and the privacy impact assessment are. Documents. Or, analysis. That's supposed to be done by the executive, which, is the which what, is the name for the, assessment, that the advisory group does and sort of what are the differences. Between the, different analyses. So, thanks Elgin I'll just start at a high level. The. Executive. Has a privacy, officer, and a privacy policy and, so, regardless. Of whether a. Technology. Is determined, to be surveillance, if it, has any privacy implications at, all then the executive, will do a privacy, impact assessment, whereby. They will ask the department, to describe how they're going to protect the data how, they're going to make sure that only the right folks are authorized, to see it many. Of the same kinds, of things that that, you all would hear about as. Part, of the surveillance impact, report, the. Surveillance impact, report, does all 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. This the surveillance impact, report only doesn't. Include everything that's in the privacy, impact, assessment because, the privacy, impact assessment includes. Technologies, that aren't. Defined. As surveillance in, but surveillance, report, is confined, to the things that are defined, as a survey that's true and I, might, be overstating it but the privacy.
Impact Assessment, does. That sort of preliminary, determine. Whether the. At least the, city. Believes in Si are is needed, it. Can so. It's sort of could somewhat, screen out for example in this gray key. Technology. I think. That they had concluded it didn't require an SI, R and that could be a difference of opinion there so so, I look at the I call it a P ia the P is sort of a preliminary step, a global. Step to see if the extra, analysis. Is necessary, at least in the city's mind it, could be used that way yes and. However. As demonstrated. By a great key, even. The well, once we get the working group up they, will still know everything, that a PIAA has they'll, see all the PII is to see if they, agree or not they, would see the PIAA, and because. They would go that extra step of doing the council surveillance, impact 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, then create. Their own report, to give to you all. Okay. Are. Those your opening remarks sure, you you have more that's, all I had on the on, the, serve. On the working group okay a, few things one is we, pretty, much it wasn't great. We. Didn't move mountains on the working group we pretty much got those, that had come from the community, that were pretty vested. I think Shankar, and a lot of folks had made recommendations and. We. Pretty much kept with. Pretty consistent, with that as I recall, I. I didn't, understand what. Nothing. To pick on you Shankar, but his comment about something, that. He didn't get till late. I does. Just nonsense, in terms of not the point he made was nonsense but what, we've been trying to do all along as daylight everything, when we get it I mean I got this document, I think yesterday myself, so, with. Respect go ahead I'm sorry but I think he was talking about the, gray key item that's next on the agenda and, the memo that was written maybe, the memo but with, a notification, that this was coming up on the agenda came from our office, last Thursday, so but. I, understand, that I just. My. Feathers. Get a little ruffled when there's, an insinuation. At all that we're being less than transparent, because. What. I've been trying to do particularly, on these issues is just daylight everything, I want, some of the strongest. Critics, on that, working group to make sure I may disagree with them in. Fact I do, but, that's okay that's part of the process but in terms of hiding, the ball or not being transparent, that that's not gonna happen at least while I'm sheriff technology, so anyway, I'd, rather have open disagreements, anyway so that, way I can stand corrected, as often, and in fact my wife correct, around 7:00 this morning so I'm used to it I mean it being corrected but-- so but. Anyway okay. So. Anyway so it looks like we're gonna have a good working group we should have all that finalized, I think by Jed by our next book well, we got to go through committee one more time I think your your office is trying to do it this week okay I think there was one snag, on one person, who just. An. Agreement or something like that a verbal approval that they were willing to serve and so I think we're almost ready to put the get to that place so we know we're up, against a time deadlines who look forward to that so I look forward to working working. With the working group thanks.
For The update and. With. That what there's a good segue I think to go into the next agenda item so, unless, there's anything else to say about the working group. Chunk. Are pretty informal, since this is our last did we miss anything on the working group any points, that you want to make on the working group aspect, of that. Good. Come on to the mic Schenker, so. The viewing audience can, hear your point. Thanks. Comes, from over Harrell. We, appreciate, the. Process by which a number of folks on our recommendation. List were have. Been added to the working group I think my only point about. Notification. On the working group in particular was, that those, folks were not informed, that the working group was being discussed today I only. Found out when I learned about grey key coming up went, to the agenda and found the working group on the agenda as well I think, you, know we do well to operate. With. Notifications. To all those folks because they have been engaged consistently. On surveillance, over quite. A long time now thank. You okay so. Okay. Siding, with the statement, of I, see, what you're saying and then I didn't I didn't have I, get off auto sectors run right yeah just one cigarette I'll give you some mic times like sugar, I didn't uh quite. Frankly we thought it appropriate sort. Of at the last minute to talk about working or just to get a status cuz people were, asking about it so it wasn't a big deal I was just I said let's that's daylight where we are so the folks upstairs could know we're putting it together so I'd. Agree we maybe have done a better job sort of up putting. Together the agenda her second on there Ron, what do you got sir yeah you. Guys should know that I didn't receive any notice of this meeting either you did vassal along with nor I trained I observed. The Cairo. News team, okay. Mentioning, this meeting, to be held and, I, hadn't I'd receive, all meeting. In, committee information. Yeah times, and events or. Get. Alerts yeah. Okay, I was hearing. It on Cairo okay, I. Don't. Say on that one so. Okay. So this I read the next clerk file into it and have a discussion on Greek II clerk, file three one four four one one determination.
Of Gray key technologies, as surveillance, surveillance technology. Okay. Greg once you give us some context, Thank You council president Darryl a Greg Goss again to here to talk about clerk file three one four four one one it. Was prepared at the direction of councilman burr her bold and contains a memo from central, staff to this committee on gray key technology, but. Before I summarize gray, key or the memo I'm gonna do, a little bit of brief background, on, surveillance, and and, why. You all are here right now looking at this the, surveillance ordinance, requires the executive to establish, a process for determining whether, or not a technology. As surveillance and, 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. This with the SI our. Surveillance. Impact, report, to. Go through the public process to. Go, through the working group process and to come to you all if it, is not determined to be surveillance, as I said. A moment ago there's still a privacy, impact assessment on, the city side the. Executive, side that's done to make sure that the privacy. Rights of those, involved, are protected. On. Klerk, file three one four four one one. The. Memo, indicates, that the executive, had, performed, an initial, surveillance, review, of the gray key technology, and in that initial review had thought that it is not surveillance. So, as you point out councilmember, Harold there could have been subsequent reviews, or at, a later time they, could have changed, their mind but the documentation. That they go through and the, process, that they go through for initial review, determined. That it was not surveillance, and so. A, little, bit about why they made that determination, well. I what. I can tell you is that there. Is a different, interpretation of, the definition, I think. That, we. Would probably need the executive, to give, us their specific. Rationale. What, I can say is that the, the. Assessment. That they did talks, about, using, gray key 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. And. I. Think. The question, might be whether, or not if, we're talking about active, tracking, as in like a camera. Watching. Someone. Or whether we're talking about forensic. Or passive, tracking where you could get into a phone and see, where someone has been I. Think, if that, is the, way that the executive, made the determination, then. It is a case, where it is clearly, just a. Difference. In interpretation and, I know the executive had done due diligence and, had, had some conversations. With the law department but, there was no formal. Law. Department document. That that classified, it one way or another Greg when you're saying the executive, are you referring to the IT. And/or. The police department or the executive cabinet. When. You say the exec you I'm referring, specifically, to the CTO who, is charged, under the ordinance, to make the determination, about whether something. Is surveillance and the, CTO will look to his or her privacy, officer, to do that initial assessment. And that. Initial assessment is what. What. Was done and and and that initial assessment determined, to not be surveillance, okay, and. I'm, just looking at the definition. Of surveillance in your memo I. Don't, see an. Explicit, exemption that. Fits. The. The. Analysis, that, it. Sounds, like the executive is using to claim an exemption or. They are they claiming an exemption or they claiming something, I. Think. They're just in. Their assessment, they're not seeing that the tool is being used for active surveillance and. Therefore. They don't they don't think it needs to go through the SAR process, rather, just the privacy impact process. Which again is thorough it just doesn't involve you all in the community in the working group so councillor bolt is I have. Many. Questions, about. How. This technology is used, what. Surveillance, means what we intended, for savings for, surveillance mean for example in this in, this example using. Gray. Key if, they have a phone in it they can look at through.
Every. Phone we have perhaps a GPS tracker so they can see the past whereabouts. Of whoever, on the phone so that would be a surveillance. In the past sense they could see where they, had been, but. I I'll, wait for you to get through your overview first because I have questions okay I'm done go ahead oh are you sure yeah oh no. Well then let me just finish, real quickly by saying that the the ordinance. Allows that, if the executive or in this case I'm sorry 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, council, review public, review working group process and so, that's that's why you're here now is the, the. Memo attached. A clerk file three one four four one one would. Make, a council determination. That, this is indeed, surveillance. Technology, and should go through. The more formal si, our process, with the community, and by, voting the clerk file out you would make that determination and, send to the CTO a signal, that, that. Technology, had to be treated as a surveillance, technology, very. Good so, a few preliminary thoughts and just around. The table in the discussion. This. Is actually sort of a good trial, run and sort of the the process that we're about to begin, because when. I first, I've. Been aware of gray key there's been a lot written about gray key and the national, basis and I. Don't think we the city has, it yet but we're about to purchase it perhaps. Spring. Of next year so we're considering the purchase correct, actually the third quarter third quarter of is when the department indicated they would purchase it yeah, that's spring right. And, when I looked at, well. Let me ask us a specific, question the, the executive. Indicated, there they were using this technology specifically. For investigation. Of Internet crimes, against, children that, ikat cases, so, child. Porn that kind of crime. How. Would. We know that or, what are they stipulating. That that's. Excite. And other types of cases I, it's. Entirely possible that they might just in this initial, impact, assessment, that they filled out they. Had said that they would use it for ikat cases they, may also use it for other cases they, if. The, technology, were to be approved through, the council, process, or just the regular privacy, process, they. Would need to. They. Would be able to use it however they they want it so my first flag. If you will is how. Do we, make, sure that the, stated, use, is. In fact the the use, that, how do we make sure that technology, is not. Misuse. Or different, than they're saying going through the process and so I want, to make sure that that becomes a case because if it goes through the PIAA. And the SAR, process, and it's blessed, by the council. How.
Do We make sure she used for in. Compliance. With what we approved, because in this situation, and quite. Frankly I wouldn't have a problem with it being used in homicide cases but I do have a problem with the deviating, from what everything, that was approved and so I don't know if there's documents, or if, we. State. That in the surveillance, wardens. That they have to use it for its. Intended use according. To the processes, that maintain your right on if they if they went through the the SAR process, they would have to identify what, uses they were going to use it for how. They would use it who would have access to the data how it would be protected when stored and a variety, of questions, along those lines. And. So it's, I think. Assuming. That 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 that it is used in a. Forensic. Way but. To. Create. Some assurity. That it's, actually, you. Know the, reason why they're claiming it's exempt, is, because. It could there, they would only be using it in the case that there was, a warrant, issued, the. Again. The definition of surveillance doesn't, make, that distinguish, distinction, between looking, backwards, or looking forward, in surveillance but. That. Would be the piece that I'd. Want to know whether or not there was a an, approach, that, we had to audit. You, know again less about the types of crimes but more about, whether. Or not is actually being used, in. A backwards, look. In. The case of a warrant or whether, or not they're they had the flexibility, to use the technology, in, some in some other surveillance. Way of people who are perhaps. There, there isn't a warrant and they're suspected, of, of. Activities. That the department, wants to watch and. I don't know I don't know how we'll do that I don't do you understand point there I think that they could only use that that they would only be using the technology if they had a warrant, use it and I, don't know that. The. The assessment, that they done that they've done talks about used, by warrant, they, would also salute, by warrant they, exclusive. I didn't see it doesn't say right, necessary, but, if. The, police if a person consented, to allow the brace to look at the phone then. That. Is a situation where, obviously they're there. The. Surveillance ordinance, wouldn't apply because they're, giving consent if, there's a warrant then then, obviously they're not giving consent and so it's, a tool that's being used and the question is whether or not it's surveillance, that's. All right I I. Think. This is an. Opportunity for us to figure, out how this process works, this, is kind, of new territory for, for. All of us and I. Think you know we. Spend a lot of time. Hearing. From a number of folks internally and externally about. Concerns, and I think there's, a bit for me that we have to try this on and wear it a little bit and see how, it works and I think I. Mean. I think the, the. Clerk file that they, would designate this from the council as a. Surveillance. Technology, that would require this I think is, an important exercise to go through I think this actually is a really, good example of the, types. Of questions we're, gonna want to work through and ask and, have some transparency, around and understand, these questions I I. Appreciate. The the memo of outlying, what's, there and I think that this, has the potential to. Be an amazing tool, for fighting. Crime it has the potential to be really invasive on people and want, to hear specifically, how it's gonna be used how we monitor, it how we make sure it's not used unattended, ly we want to hear the trade-offs like you, know how is this gonna be a huge thing and helping solve certain cases and without it you can't do it but with it we can do some great things and, hear from private the public about their, concerns about it and work through it so. I agree with everything you, said I think, because. I, I. Don't think at this point it's 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 I wanted, they light it because of the point, she made an example, would be as. I understand, the, technology. That, the. Police, department our Police Department would be in physical possession of the phone that. They're not going to give it they're not gonna. Install. The technology, and give it back to the at, this point I guess this person would be a defendant, so I'll call them a defendant, at this point right they're being charged with a crime right that's. Likely I would assume okay so if. It's if it's it.
Well. It could they perhaps, they wouldn't be a defending state I'm in charge it and they're trying to find the basis for a charge or maybe they're just a suspect so I'll call this person suspect, to be a little more clear so. If they have the suspects, fallen, in they are saying specifically, we are only going after Internet. Crimes against children that. Is why we're installing great, key. Technology. We're not even going after homicides. We're going after child. Pornography, cases and we have this and we want to be able to see if, in fact this person has visit sites through their phone and do what they're gonna do. Yes. They can look to where, their. Physical, whereabouts have been there the the geography, they're there they're passed tracking. But. I don't. Know if that's as important, as what they're really. Going after but. So. So I would, I probably, agree that that is still surveillance, looking in someone's past I don't know I don't have a problem with that. But. I, just. Don't understand, where, the. Well. I'd. Rather have the department. Here perhaps IT and, the, police department, on who are using this to banish not exactly, 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're also concerned that this new system we, have, will just block all this kind of technology that there'll be an impediment and there's they're, gonna waste time and money and effort and I have little, appetite for that as well so, I'd rather hear the other side of the story I think and, it, is Shankara also specifically, say or the ASA the ACLU, has brought up some issues but. I don't think I think it's premature to, say that it goes through the SI. Are now what I did here is that the PIAA, was done efficiently. So. Perhaps. The. City could improve, that PIAA. And then, perhaps we can have the, community. Working, group what. Are we calling it the privacy working group they're just that community, working group any working if I could say, what's on your statement they, hadn't done the full Pio yet they they, just had done that initial, assessment so. The PIAA hasn't, been. So. The P is so so the P ia hasn't been done yet but it but there's something out there that warrant, of the comment that it was done i. Caramel, in the word efficiently, or in adequately, or something this wasn't complete, it, was their initial review, yeah they have a software, that goes through and asks them questions and, they complete. That software, and answer. All those questions and, it's, sort of a first cut and then, based, on that and and, other things they then. Either move forward with the full p. IA they. May move forward with the full p IA anyways, but i just wanted to be clear that they, had only done this first look a, preliminary. Look, so. So, so my take on this is simply that i don't. Think it's before. A p IA is even done before. The. Users. Of the technology sort. Of made their case on their specific use for us, to suggest that it's surveillance, under the ordinance and should go through this fairly, stringent process, is premature, that's. The only point i guess that make it go ahead so. Just as a clarification. Greg, are you saying that the executive. Itself, acknowledges. That the p ia was. Non. Sufficient and that they intended, to do something more complete, they. Haven't done the P is the. Initial. Review. I. Know. That they would have had to do a p IA anyways, and that they would have done a p IA whether, or not they would have gone the other route and done the s ir and brought it before you is is, the question because they I mean they. Clearly state that. They, don't. Believe. That's. That is correct, technology, is subject, to the. The. Surveillance ordinance, so why. Would, we think that if they did another. Assessment they'd come up with a different a. Different. Outcome, I. Don't. Have an answer for that. Well. I don't think I don't think it's I don't think it's technology. I don't think it's surveillance, technology I mean I would agree with that assessment. Okay. I disagree, it's not so much that it's premature. It's. More that you don't, agree with what the clerk. File would do. That. And it's, premature if the p IA hasn't, been done, yet. Third. I think was a preliminary preliminary. One. That was done. But. They're giving they're sort of have. They formally, said the SAR, was, not required, or is that just in conversations. Stuff asked, them whether or not they were gonna do the SAR, and their.
Response, Was that they, would do. The PIAA and and. Go from there so they. They, have not. They've. Not committed, to doing an SI R so at what would. How. In. Your memo it says staff, I t's review. Second, page third paragraph. Seattle. IT staff, review, included, a determination, that gray key does not meet the definition of surveillance technology, so, to, me from, their perspective, end of, story. And, it. The question is whether or not before. Us is whether or not the council thinks it should be considered surveillance. Technology, because it's. It's I, don't see a mechanism. For them coming back and. Giving. Us a different answer but, they do go I mean the memo does go on to state that they they. Acknowledge a high privacy, risk and that they will because. Of since the interest of the council that and the public they would do a BIA. Which we talked about earlier went. Before, we moved on to this item they do private, privacy 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, they could do a privacy, impact assessment and, change their mind later but, as you point out right now there's no indication that that would have and and their initial review and their initial discussions, some, of which were with the law department they come to the conclusion that it's not surveillance. So. Unless. Something significant. Came up in the PAA review. I wouldn't, wouldn't. Expect their, determination, to change so. Council. President Harrell I, I. Think the points, you raise around the the, ripeness of moving toward and the clerk file are fair questions and, I'm. Not I'm. Not sure until, we get into some of these that we're gonna really know I mean, I think you stated something. Along the lines of you know I don't want I don't want a burdensome, process to, get in the way of you. Know folks, ability to do their job and and you, know, find, find criminals. And, I agree with that I, also. You. Know the whole point of this is I'm also concerned about a tool, that has the potential of being, pretty. Invasive in people's privacy, how. Do we move forward with that and I think. You. Know on anything when we start out the. First couple may take a while because it may be the first time we've done it and they're not sure what we want and we have some back and forth but, we're gonna have to do that at some point I mean I the whole point of this is we're gonna dig into it on some piece of technology and. It may turn out that like this is a really good process this is a really important thing to go through on this specific technology, but we learned that wow, that took like four, months and eighteen steps and we have to streamline, it it, may turn out that we need a pre-screening. Tool to. Say we're just gonna you, know come present to us and we're gonna take you out of this loop if you if it passes the initial test because we because that oh the next one's too burdensome but. I I. You. Know whether this one is the right one or not I don't know I mean I think that's a policy question determined, but I do think that. We. Should jump in relatively, soon on something go through the process this one to me feels pretty right because I think it has the right mix of the things that. Were concerned about it has the potential to add some significant, benefit you know want to hear from the department what it is I'd, want to hear how they're gonna, restrict. The use how, they're gonna disclose the use how they're gonna make, sure that not every officer has this on their desktop, and can do this thing whenever they want to those types of questions. And then understand what it actually does III, agree, it's, just a question of timing yeah that I.
Don't. Want to jump every time at, the ACLU says it raises, issues I want that analysis, man I want to see that I wanted to give the executive and the the IT group, the technologists. The opportunity. To do a full-blown. Privacy. Impact, assessment I, think. There should be four to that at that point we can say hey, this has go see an essay are we think this does raise the issues they, may see on the other hand we never look at the GPS tracking we are simply, looking at child, pornography, sites that they are visiting that's it they, may say that in the assessment, in which case I would say well that's a good thing for you to do we want you to have that technology, and go after those people. So. So. I don't like wasting time energy and resources on, good technology, so at this point I just don't think we have the data to, make a decision I think we just have some hypothetical. Concerns we're saying okay go through the system at least give the, department's. The opportunity, to do a full-blown, privacy. Impact assessment and that's why I wanted to delight it early and, I'll continue today like, these early, even before the PIAA s are done. When. There's purchases, and if we have a good, department, whether it's the police department or any other department s Dodd is an example they. Should be forthright they should prior, to purchases, during the budget time they should let us know what they know we have a strong, surveillance, ordinance in place now so. So. Isn't so the so, prior, to the purchase still, there's. Still some process, to be done so I just think it's pretty mature to require, it now, before the P is done I can smell horrible thank you um as it relates specifically, to the timing I think the timing makes, moving, forward, with this clerk file and this counsel determination, ideal the. Executive. Is not contemplating, purchasing, this. Technology, until third quarter, so. That's sometime in, late, mid summer so. That would give us some time to. Activate. The. Advisory. Group and then, secondly. I think, it's really important, that the, only way that we can guarantee that we're having the kind of discussion that. You're saying. That you think we would benefit. From is. By. Identifying. This as a, as. A surveillance. Technology, for the surveillance, technology. Review because, the, privacy, impact, statement, is not required, to be submitted to the council under the ordinance, I understand that there's there's. There's, no requirement. That, the. Executive, continue, to have the conversation about the technology, the only way that we can compel the executive, to do so is by filing the clerk file that's, incorrect, they, have to they, have to do a full-blown P I before they make the purchase correct yes. They. Can't purchasing do they go through the, stringent process of a P IA which, at which point we can, say it, has go through an SAR, but it's there's no requirement, for it to come back to us to authorize it that's, you're you're both correct the. Council above. Council. If the council was to become aware. That a PAA had been done and a full analysis, had been done and the, council wanted, to pass. This clerk file later. They, could do it later or, they. Could do. It now based, on the initial assessment, that's why I asked a question earlier that the community, the working group will always know what P is R in that and, I know that's not necessarily the. If.
A P IA is done there's no requirement. That the council be notified, so. That's, the difference is. That. The the surveillance ordinance, process, would would. Require. The council to pass an ordinance would require the working group to look at it if the, p IA was done there's nothing that says that the council would for sure get, to see it so, that. Might have been in either an oversight. Or. Just no one thought of it because i assume, that p is would. Be day, lighted in front of everybody, it's, go ahead maybe. And. It's not clear to me that we're in a fight, with the executive on this one it seems like there's, conversation. Happening back and forth we may have disagreements, on how to classify it but that's cuz we're good through stuff so you. Know. Kinds, of President had a difference to you I I I, mean I. Would be comfortable passing the clerk file today I also would be comfortable with just making a clear statement to, the executives, that we, we, want you to do a PII on us and we, would like you to bring, that back to Council by a certain date if. We don't see it by the date the intention, is to move forward the clerk file, that. Would mandate. This is surveillance so, that so that we would require you to do that and when, you come back at a certain date we will evaluate what, the next step is well, and I appreciate that and let me make something clear I've had no. Conversations. With the, police department, the executive, or the itea on great key I mean I don't they I may be just. Making my own argument and they may say hey Errol, we, want to do an SAR I don't, know but. So. I was more I like, this as an exercise to say that I was trying to make the pi/8 work now but one of my takeaways, is I thought all, the PAS, were fairly, well known to both the council and to the working group so I'm going to go back and look at the ordinance in that process what, I like to do is. You. Know it sound like it's 2 to 1 if you want to move before this front but what I'd rather do is this, isn't too time-sensitive quite Canada, like ask more conversations, with center staff and you all then NIT, to sort of better understand, the the, use of the technology and.
What The plans are and maybe we and, the in the PIAA process. I. Will. I'll probably draft, something to really alert them that yes there could be some surveillance issues I don't want to be the person that's it's invading, folks privacy, on this technology, I thought as I understood the technology based on a write up very. Limited, use very specific use going after I CAC. Cases. Not. Surveillance. Okay. And. That. Doesn't, raise you, know one has a right to privacy. When they are visiting child pornography, sites so they don't have that right. That private right now if, there's room for abuse, by. The department, and looking at it. Surpassed. Surveillance. Issues, where they've been on all, this other stuff or other. Cases out of there I kick other than the specific use then yeah maybe we should expand. It but, I don't even know if what I said was a core in terms of their specific limited use because I haven't had the conversation with them and I want to have those conversations quite, candidly before, I say let's go through the whole process but go, ahead. That. Works for me I think the, if. There is. You. Know third quarter of next year doesn't feel like it's particularly urgent I don't know what the ramp. Up is to proving this and all that but I just. Would say if we're gonna I would hate to get to a point where we're. A month before they're gonna buy it no and and then we like we want to do surveillance an, SAR and they say well now that would put it off a year and. I. Mean the other January we'll do a clerk file or you'll or, the issues, that have been dressed have been addressed to so I'm, not gonna wait the last minute I'm comfortable but I'm also certain. Gonna look at how the the. PAE. Process, works because I I want to make sure that again what. Concerns, me just to be transparent, is that these pis. Are done and if no one's reading every single file. And we don't I don't have to always rely, on someone, to look at every single file that that should be more of a delighted process, it, seems like it seems like, you. Know I don't know that it requires a, presentation. A committee but, there should at a minimum be, a website, that shows all the PIAA is in order and what they are so that anyone who wants to track that can go look at it as opposed to do, a public records request if you want to find our PA and it's it's very possible that that, they've done this their website is really thorough okay it's okay so I'll get a little more information but I'm out we'll work on this in January that better I'll show you just.
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 filed today I would, not have asked. For this to be on the agenda today if I understood. That you had concerns and the information, that I had received from your office is that you were prepared, to vote on this so yeah I just want to be clear, I'm. I'm. Not, interested, in having. This, discussion, in, committee, and I really, would have preferred that if you weren't ready to vote on and to not just not bring it for until you were that. We that's. Accurate that when, I first heard about I said yeah let's go ahead and put it on the Jeanette I and then, when I sort of dug deeper. Last. Night, I. Said. Oh we're actually gonna trigger process, but I told Greg this morning I wanted to have this discussion because. I'm. Glad you flagged it and so I appreciate, that that process and I appreciate that working. With me on this so we'll get through it and I'll put some manage behind this in January and work with the departments, and if, happy to followup with the department's okay thank you thank you very much for raising issues shucker I thank you for raising the issue okay, and with that will stand adjourned everyone, have a great rest of the afternoon.
2018-12-19 14:33
