>>> 11, 2022 MEETING OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CITY LIGHT
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT IS 9:31 AND I AM SARA
NELSON, CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT ?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
FOR THE PUBLIC, I WANT TO NOTE
THAT COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ IS
EXCUSED. THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA TODAY, BOTH
CONTINUATIONS OF OUR
CONVERSATION LAST MONTH IN OUR
LAST MEETING ON APRIL 27th ON
GROUP 4A OF THE SURVEILLANCE
IMPACT REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY
ALREADY IN USE BY THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED IF
THERE IS NO OBJECTION.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE
REMOTE COMMENT TIME TO ITEMS ON
THE AGENDA.
I THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR
PATIENCE AND COOPERATION AS WE
OPERATE THESE REMOTE PUBLIC
COMMENTS WHICH I WILL MODERATE
IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, THE
PUBLIC COMMENTS IS UP TO 20
MINUTES AND EACH SPEAKER WILL
HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES TO
SPEAK.
SPEAKERS ARE CALLED UPON WHEN
THEY ARE REGISTERED ONLINE TO
PROVIDE COMMENT AND EACH MUST
CALL IN FROM THE PHONE NUMBER
PROVIDED WHEN REGISTERED AND
USE THE I.D.
AND POSITIVE THAT WAS EMAILED.
THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
YOU RECEIVE AN EMAIL N LINE.
CONFIRMATION, IF NOT, PLEASE
CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDER.
I WILL CALL ON EACH SPEAKER BY
NAME AND THE ORDER WHEN THEY
REGISTERED ON THE COUNCIL
WEBSITE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK,
SIGN UP BEFORE THE END OF
PUBLIC COMMENT BY GOING TO THE
COUNCIL WEBSITE.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT LINK IS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
ONCE I CALL THE NAMES, STAFF
WILL UNMUTE THE MICROPHONE AND
YOUR PROMPT WILL INDICATE IT IS
YOUR TURN TO SPEAK AND THE
SPEAKER MUST PRESS á6 TO SPEAK.
YOU WILL HEAR A CHIME WHEN 10
SECONDS ARE LEFT AND THEN WE
ASK YOU WRAP UP YOUR COMMENT.
IF SPEAKERS DO NOT STOP THE
COMMENTS DURING THE ALLOTTED
TIME, YOUR MICROPHONE WILL BE
MUTED TO ALLOW US TO GO ON TO
THE NEXT SPEAKER.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED PUBLIC
COMMENT, DISCONNECT FROM THE
LINE AND IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW
THE MEETING, DO SO THROUGH THE
SEATTLE CHANNEL OR THE
LISTENING OPTIONS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA.
I WILL MAKE AN AMENDMENT AND
SAY THAT OUR CLERK WILL BE
READING THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE
THAT WILL BE SPEAKING.
THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW
OPEN AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE
FIRST SPEAKER.
>> OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS
CYNTHIA.
GO AHEAD.
>> I AM CYNTHIA.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> I AM CYNTHIA, INDEPENDENT
SECURITY RESEARCHER AND
DISTRICT 6 RESIDENT AND MY
COMMENTS ARE SUPPORT ALL-NIGHT
AMENDMENTS WITH THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
REGARDING THE UNDERCOVER AUDIO
RECORDING DEVICES, IT COULD BE
IMPROVED TO INCLUDE THE MODEL
DEVICE NAMES.
REGARDING AMENDMENT 2, IT COULD
INCLUDE THE INCIDENT CASE TYPES.
BOTH THE SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES COULD BENEFIT FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SIDING OVERSIGHT
AND REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPING
THEIR USE TO ONLY CASES
INVOLVING A VIOLENT OR SERIOUS
OFFENSE.
IT IS LIMITED BASED ON THE
OFFICERS TIME.
NEITHER ARE SET IN STONE.
IF SPD HAVE MORE STAFF OR MORE
FUNCTION, THEY WOULD BE USING
THESE FEATURES TOMORROW.
THE RESPONSIBILITY FALLS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO ADD GUARDRAILS.
THEY SHOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF
PROHIBITIVE POLICING.
PROHIBITING POLLING IN DATA
FROM AUTOMATED LICENSES AND
REQUIRING THAT THE CONTRACT BE
POSTED PUBLICLY.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PUBLIC
COMMENTS FOR SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY EXTEND ONE WEEK
UNTIL THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN
ANSWERED ON THE PRIVACY
DEPARTMENT' IS WEBSITE.
THE QUESTIONS ON THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE STILL NOT
ANSWERED.
YOU ARE DODGING THE KEY PURPOSE
WHICH IS TO PROVIDE
TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD BE
TIED WITH SPD PROVIDING
ANSWERS INSTEAD OF TINY PUBLIC
COMMENTS TO A PUBLIC CALENDAR
DATE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SIGNED UP
TO SPEAK?
>> NO, CHAIR, THAT WAS OUR ONLY
SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
TAKING THE TIME TO CALL IN FOR
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SEEING NO OTHER PEOPLE SIGNED
UP, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
IS CLOSED.
ITEMS OF BUSINESS, WILL BE
CLERK PLEASE READ BOTH ITEMS
INTO THE RECORD?
>> COUNCIL BILLS RELATED TO
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY,
AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF USES
EXCEPT FOR THE IMPACT REPORT,
THE 2021 EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW,
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
IS USING AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS, THE IBM I2 IBASE ,
DISCUSSIONS FOR A POSSIBLE VOTE
.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
TO INTRODUCE THESE ITEMS, A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND
INFORMATION, IN 2017, THE CITY
COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE
125376, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE,
REQUIRING CITY DEPARTMENTS TO
OBTAIN ADVANCED COUNCIL
APPROVAL FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND TO
REQUEST RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF
THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN IN USE WHEN THE
BILL WAS PASSED.
COUNCIL BILLS CB 120307 AND
CB 120309 WOULD IMPROVE THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
USE OF THOSE TECHNOLOGIES AND
ACCEPT THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT, S.I.R., AND AN
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW FOR EACH
TECHNOLOGY.
AT OUR LAST MEETING ON APRIL
27th, WE HAD A JOINT
PRESENTATION FROM SEATTLE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT
WENT OVER THE PROCESS FOR
REVIEWING TECHNOLOGY --
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES AND
DESCRIBING THE TECHNOLOGIES
THAT THESE PARTICULAR S.I.R.'S
WERE CONCERNED WITH AND HOW THE
OVERALL PROCESS FLOWED.
THEY ALSO WENT OVER THE RELATED
LAWS AND POLICIES THAT
AUTHORIZE AND LIMIT THE USE OF
SEX TECHNOLOGY BY THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
WE HAD A STAFF PRESENTATION
THAT WENT OVER THE CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND THE POTENTIAL
DISPARATE IMPACTS OF EACH
TECHNOLOGY BASED ON INPUT FROM
THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
WORKING GROUP.
AND PROPOSED POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS THAT COULD
INFORM AMENDMENTS TO THE
LEGISLATION BEFORE US.
TODAY WE WILL DISCUSS AND
POSSIBLY VOTE ON THE 10
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND POSSIBLY
VOTING CONCIL BILLS CB 120307
AND CB 120309 OUT OF COMMITTEE
. I WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK
AND LET PEOPLE KNOW THE LENS
THROUGH WHICH I WILL BE
APPROACHING THIS CONVERSATION
ON AMENDMENTS AND DECISIONS,
BECAUSE THIS PROCESS IS FAIRLY
NEW TO ME AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN
MY RATIONALE.
THE REASON FOR THE CITIES
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE IS TO
IDENTIFY, PREVENT, AND REDUCE
OR MITIGATE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES THAT COULD RESULT
FROM THE USE OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES.
IN THIS CASE, SPD , IN THIS
CASE WHAT SPD IS USING AN
INVESTIGATION.
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES ARE
DEFINED AS, THIS IS FROM THE
ORDINANCE, MEANS ANY ELECTRONIC
DEVICE, SOFTWARE, PROGRAM, OR
HOSTED SOFTWARE SOLUTION
DESIGNED TO PRIMARILY BE USED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SURVEILLANCE.
AS WE DELIBERATE ON THESE
AMENDMENTS, THE QUESTION I
BRING TO THE TABLE IS WHETHER
OR NOT -- DO THESE AMENDMENTS
BETTER PROTECT THE CIVIL
LIBERTIES OR PRIVACY OF
INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO AN
INVESTIGATION IN WHICH THE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE BEING USED?
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I WILL
BE CONSIDERING AS WE GO THROUGH
OUR CONVERSATION TODAY.
FIRST, I WILL MOVE COUNCIL BILL
120307 AND TURN IT OVER TO
LISE KAYE FROM CENTRAL STAFF TO
WALK US THROUGH THE PROPOSAL
AND THE AMENDMENTS.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR NELSON.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YOU MOVE THE BILL FOR
PURPOSES AND I SECOND IT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I AM LISE KAYE , FROM
CENTRAL STAFF.
I AM JOINED BY REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AS YOU MENTIONED, I WILL
DESCRIBE THE FIRST SET OF
AMENDMENTS WHICH APPLY TO
COUNCIL BILL 120307 . THIS
WOULD APPROVE THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S CONTINUED USE OF
AUDIO RECORDINGS.
AS YOU MENTIONED, THESE DEVICES
ARE USED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
A WARRANT TO RECORD
úCONVERSATIONS DURING A CRIMINA
INVESTIGATION.
THE COMMITTEE TODAY HAS FOUR
AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU, THEY ARE
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD . I WILL SHARE MY
SCREEN WITH YOUR PERMISSION,
CHAIR NELSON.
IS THAT WORKING?
>> YES.
>> GREAT.
I WILL JUST BE PROJECTING EACH
AMENDMENT AS THEY COME FORWARD
FOR DISCUSSION.
AMENDMENT 1 WHAT ASKED THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT BY
OCTOBER 31st OF THIS YEAR ON
HOW THE DEPARTMENT ENSURES THE
RECORDINGS ARE AUTHENTIC AND
THE ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION OF
THE RECORDED INDIVIDUALS.
FROM MY STAFF REPORT, SPD SAID
THE CASE DETECTIVES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING
INDIVIDUALS AND VIEWING
RECORDINGS OBTAINED FROM THESE
DEVICES.
I WILL TURN THE MICROPHONE TO
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
>> I THINK THE STATEMENT I HAVE
IS OVERRIDING FOR EACH OF THE
ISSUES YOU WILL COVER, THAT
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE BASED ON
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING
GROUP.
I WANT TO LAY THAT OUT AS A
FOUNDATION FOR THESE
AMENDMENTS.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO WALK TO
EACH AMENDMENT?
>> YES.
GO AHEAD.
WE ARE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER
AND I APOLOGIZE YES, PLEASE DO
GO INTO DEPTH IN AMENDMENT
NUMBER 1.
>> I THINK AMENDMENT 1, WE CAN
MOVE ON.
>> YES, I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO
ADD.
>> I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
HAS BEEN DONE BY THE
SURVEILLANCE WORKING GROUP.
TO PUT FORTH THESE -- TO INFORM
YOUR AMENDMENTS.
I DO COME BACK TO THE QUESTIONS
I HAVE BEFORE, HOW WILL THIS
REPORT -- I WILL ASK IT IN
PLAIN ENGLISH, HOW ARE
RECORDINGS ALREADY
AUTHENTICATED?
WHAT EXTRA STEPS WITH THIS
AMENDMENT REQUIRED THEM TO DO?
IN WHAT WAYS IS THE
AUTHENTICITY OF RECORDINGS THAT
HAVE BEEN IN USE -- HAVE THEY
BEEN PROBLEMATIC IN THE PAST?
I NEED MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
WHY THIS AMENDMENT IS IMPORTANT
CONSIDERING THAT IT DOES ASK
FOR WORK BY SPD, THEY ARE
SHORTSTAFFED , AND I WANT TO
GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING --
>> I ONLY ASK SPD TO TELL US
WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING
EACH AMENDMENT ONLY ASK SPD TO
TELL US WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY
DOING, HOW DO THEY GUARANTEE
AUTHENTICATION?
TELL US HOW THEY DO THIS
FUNCTION.
>> IT DOES ASK FOR A REPORT BY
OCTOBER 31st, 2020, AND SO,
THAT IS ASKING FOR AN
ADDITIONAL ACTION.
AGAIN, I WILL RESTATE MY
QUESTION AND ASKED A SUBJECT
MATTER SPECIALISTS IF YOU CAN
GET TO PERHAPS TRY TO ANSWER MY
QUESTIONS.
BECAUSE THAT, I DO BELIEVE, --
I THINK THE AMENDMENT IS
DESIGNED TO ASK THE QUESTIONS
SO WE GET EXACTLY THAT
INFORMATION.
>> OKAY.
THE RECORDINGS IN QUESTION ARE
PART OF STANDARD INVESTIGATIVE
PROCESS.
SO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, WHEN
WE ARE ASKING HOW SPD ENSURES
THE AUTHENTICITY OF RECORDINGS
AND THE ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION
OF INDIVIDUALS IN AUDIO
RECORDINGS OBTAINED, ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT IN GENERAL HOW
ARE AUDIO RECORDINGS
AUTHENTICATED IN GENERAL
PRACTICE?
OR DID EACH RECORDING?
AND I WILL ALSO ASK CAPTAIN
BRITT IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT?
>> THANK YOU.
LIKE YOU SAID, THE AUTHENTICITY
OF THE RECORDING IS ESTABLISHED
BY STANDARD AND THE SKITTER
PROCESS.
ANYTIME WE CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION, ANY EVIDENCE
OBTAINED IS VALIDATED FOR ITS
AUTHENTICITY.
FURTHER, WHEN WE GO TO COURT IT
IS VALIDATED BY THE COURT
PROCESS REGARDING
ADMISSIBILITY.
DEFENDANTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY AND
WE MAKE OUR CASE IN COURT AND A
JUDGE IN PRETRIAL MOTIONS
DETERMINES THE VALIDITY OF THE
OF THE AUDIO RECORDING.
THERE ARE CHECKS AND BALANCES
BEYOND OUR INVOLVEMENT IN THAT.
WHEN WE ARE CREATING A RECORDED
WE ARE SEEKING A RECORDING, THE
STANDARD INVESTIGATOR PROCESS,
WHICH COULD INCLUDE WITNESS
TESTIMONY AND INFORMATION FROM
OFFICERS ON THE SCENE OR
DETECTIVES INVOLVED IN THE
INVESTIGATION, WHAT ALL FEED
INTO VALIDATING THE AUDIO
RECORDING AS PART OF THE
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> BRIAN'S HAND IS RAISED.
>> I WANT TO ECHO WHAT THE
CAPTAIN SAID, THERE IS NO
TECHNOLOGICALLY MECHANISM TO
AUTHENTICATE, THIS IS DONE TO
THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.
ALL OF THIS IS DONE PURSUANT TO
A WARRANT.
THE TARGET OF THE USE OF THE
WIRE IS PREESTABLISHED BY THE
WARRANT APPLICATION AND THEN,
AS THE CAPTAIN SAID, THE USE OF
THIS IS IN TERMS OF PROSECUTION
WERE BOTH THE DEPARTMENT,
THROUGH THE PROSECUTOR, HAS THE
OBLIGATION AND THE BURDEN TO
PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS
AND PRESENT IT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD.
I FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY
CONTROLS IN PLACE ON THIS.
THIS WOULD BE OUR ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION.
WHETHER WE NEED THE AMENDMENT
MOVING FORWARD, I DON'T KNOW,
OR WHETHER WE CAN ADD IT INTO
THE S.I.R.
WITH THIS QUESTION ANSWERED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> I WANT TO REDIRECT THE ISSUE
BACK TO LISE KAYE , DO YOU
FEEL, HAVING HEARD THE RESPONSE
FROM SPD , THAT THAT GETS AT
THE INTENT OF THE WORKING
GROUP?
OR IS THERE SOME ADDITIONAL
TEXTURE, IF YOU WILL, TO BE
DESIRED TO UNDERSTAND THE
AUTHENTICITY OF RECORDS
PROCESS?
>> I WAS NOT PARTY TO THE
WORKING GROUP DELIBERATIONS.
IN JUST READING THE COMMENTS
AND CONCERNS, AND SOME OF THE
COMMENTS RAISED BY MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC, AND DOING MY OWN
RESEARCH, I THINK THE QUESTION
WOULD BE REALLY, WHETHER THE
AUTHENTICITY IS VERIFIED AND
HOW IT IS VERIFIED BEFORE IT
GETS TO THE COURT?
I UNDERSTAND THE COURT WILL
MAKE A RULING AND THAT IS A
STRONG CHECK ON THE USE OF
THESE, PARTICULARLY THROUGH THE
WARRANTS, BUT I SUSPECT HE
WARNED -- THE INFORMATION COULD
POTENTIALLY BE INACCURATE IF
THESE RECORDINGS WERE NOT
AUTHENTIC AND THAT IN OFFICE IN
THE --
>> A DESIRE FOR THE DEPARTMENT
TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROCESS
BEFORE IT GETS CAUGHT INTO THE
COURT SYSTEM.
>> YES.
I THINK THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT DID SPEAK TO
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES BUT
THOSE ARE NOT TRANSPARENT.
AS TO YOU, BRIAN, I DO NOT
THINK THE COUNCIL CAN AMEND
THOSE REPORTS AS IT IS SUPPOSED
TO DOCUMENT HOW THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT OPERATES.
WE WOULD POTENTIALLY WANT TO
UPDATE THE S.I.R.
WE WOULD WANT TO --
>> I BELIEVE --
>> GO AHEAD.
>> FOR CONVENIENCE, I ONLY HAVE
THE S.I.R.
PRINTED IN FRONT OF ME, FOR
AUDIO RECORDINGS, DOESN'T
RESPOND TO A CONCERN BY THE
WORKING GROUP ON THIS MATTER?
>> NO.
IT DOES NOT.
>> WELL, WHAT I HEARD
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING, THE WORKING
GROUP WANTS TO UNDERSTAND
BETTER THESE PROCEDURES BEFORE
THESE COME IN TO INVESTIGATION
--
>> NO, NOT BEFORE
INVESTIGATION, BEFORE, SPD
REFERRED TO THE INHERENT
CONTROLS EXISTENT IN THE COURT
PROCESS.
THE LIMITATIONS AROUND GETTING
WARRANTS, THE PROCESS, AND THE
REQUEST IS ABOUT WHAT THE
INTERNAL PROCESSES ARE TO SPD
BEFORE THOSE OTHER LEGAL
PROCESSES, NOT SO MUCH BEFORE
INVESTIGATION, BUT BEFORE THE
INHERENT CONTROLS OF THE LEGAL
SYSTEM.
BEFORE THEY KICK IN.
WHAT POLICY CONTROLS DOES THE
DEPARTMENT HAVE?
I AM HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THIS FOR
NOW, TERRY NELSON, AND WORK
WITH YOU ON HOW TO BRING
SOMETHING FORWARD THAT BETTER
ADDRESSES BOTH OF OUR
QUESTIONS.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , AT LAST
MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS
MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD BE
BENEFICIAL, GOING FORWARD, IT
SEEMS THERE COULD BE BETTER
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
THE WORKING GROUP.
THE WORKING GROUP DOES TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THE QUESTIONS THAT
ARE POSED BY MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC.
IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE COULD SIT
AROUND A TABLE AND SPD COULD
PERHAPS EXPLAIN A LOT OF THE
INTERNAL PROCESSES THAT GOVERN
AND LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO USE
THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
AND BASICALLY HOW DO THEY
LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION AND HOW
ARE CONTROLS IMPOSED BY THE
COURT?
MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP BECAUSE,
TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE
SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE WORKING
GROUP, I THINK ONLY FOUR ARE
IMPANELED, ONE IS A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ACLU
BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAMILIAR
THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE OF THESE
POLICE PROCESSES.
WITH THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL PUT THIS AMENDMENT
ASIDE AND LET'S MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
AMENDMENT 2 IS ON YOUR SCREEN
WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF
BIOMETRICS WITH THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS
AUDIO RECORDING SYSTEM UNLESS
THE COUNCIL APPROVES.
YOU WILL SEE THAT BIOMETRICS IS
DEFINED AS TECHNOLOGY USED TO
IDENTIFY A PERSON BASED ON
FISCAL CHARACTERISTICS WHICH
MAY INCLUDE THEIR FINGERPRINTS,
DNA, RETINA, VOICE, OR FACE.
I WAS ADVISED BY SPD AS I
PREPARED THIS , THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT USE
BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THESE DEVICES.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE
SPONSOR.
>> I SEE MR. STRINGER'S HAND
UP.
WAS THAT UP FOR THE PREVIOUS
ITEM AND I MISSED YOU?
>> IT IS FOR THIS.
GOOD MORNING.
I WAS SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON
WHAT THE USE OF BIOMETRICS
MEANS AS FAR AS COLLECTING
BIOMETRICS AND ABROGATING THE
DATA WITH AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS, OR USING ANY KIND OF
BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE AUDIO
RECORDING DEVICES.
I WAS SEEKING SOME CLARITY ON
THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT AND I
WOULD LIKE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD TO SPEAK TO THIS
AMENDMENT AND INCORPORATE
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION.
>> YES.
JUST TO START WITH WHAT I
UNDERSTAND TO BE THE ANSWER,
AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG,
WE ARE SPEAKING BROADLY AS IT
RELATES TO THE USE OF
BIOMETRICS IN REFERRING TO THE
ACQUISITION OF TECHNOLOGY THAT
WOULD ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT TO
IDENTIFY A PERSON BASED ON
CHARACTERISTICS -- FISCAL
CHARACTERISTICS , WHICH MAY
INCLUDE FINGERPRINTS, DNA,
VOICE, OR FACE.
THIS IS FOCUSED ON THE
ACQUISITION OF TECHNOLOGY THAT
WOULD ALLOW YOU TO DO THIS.
THIS IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN
OUR LAST COMMITTEE MEETING, A
BELT AND SUSPENDER APPROACH, WE
ALL AGREE THAT THIS WOULD BE A
SEPARATE TECHNOLOGY.
UNDER THE SURVEILLANCE
ORDINANCE THE UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT SPD WOULD HAVE TO COME
BACK AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS
OF DEVELOPING A S.I.R.
FOR THAT . MUCH LIKE WE DID ON
FACIAL RESIGNATION -- FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY, WITH
THE COSPONSORSHIP OF
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN , WE
TOOK THAT BELTS AND SUSPENDER
APPROACH WITH FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY AS WELL
TO OFFER SOME ASSURANCES TO
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO WANT THE
COUNCIL TO MAKE THE EXTRA
STATEMENT ABOVE AND BEYOND JUST
THE RECOGNITION THAT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES GO THROUGH THIS
PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WELL, BRIAN?
>> I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD IS CORRECT, THIS IS
PART AND PARCEL OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE ITSELF,
WE CANNOT ACQUIRE TECHNOLOGY
THAT ALLOWS US TO DO THIS
ABSENT ANOTHER TOUR OF THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
I WORRY THAT SOME OF THE
PHRASING OF THIS COULD HAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO TAKE DNA, WE
DO TAKE FINGERPRINTS, AND WE DO
HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS USED TO
EXAMINE THAT DNA.
IF THAT IS PART OF THE
VALIDATION PROCESS, TO THE
PERSON THAT WE ARE RECORDING,
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD A ROOM
WE CANNOT SEE INTO AND THERE
WAS ONLY ONE PERSON IN THERE,
WE COULD RELY ON DNA ANALYSIS
TO SAY THE PERSON THAT WAS IN
THE ROOM WAS SO AND SO, THAT
CORRESPONDS TO THE BOYS WE ARE
PRESENTING TO A COURT.
IT IS NOT SO MUCH A TECHNOLOGY
AS AN INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS
THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE PRIOR
AMENDMENT THAT COULD BE USED TO
VALIDATE THIS.
SIMILARLY, THE VOICE, WE DO NOT
HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT COMPARES
VOICES, BUT WE MAY HAVE A PRIOR
REPORTING OF A PERSON AND YOU
USE THAT AGAINST THE AUDIO
RECORDING TO VALIDATE THAT WE
HAVE THE CORRECT PERSON.
>> WHEN I SAID THAT IT WAS
BROAD, I FAILED TO RECOGNIZE
THAT IT IS BROAD AS IT RELATES
TO BIOMETRICS ON OR WITH THE
AUDIO RECORDING SYSTEMS.
SO, IT IS RELATED TO A
PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS HOW IT IS WRITTEN.
I THINK HE IS CORRECT, THERE IS
SOME AMBIGUITY IN TERMS OF -- I
THINK THE INITIAL RESPONSE THAT
THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT USE
BIOMETRICS IS PROBABLY INTENDED
ON A HIGH LEVEL.
IN TERMS OF, WHEN YOU GET DOWN
TO THE ACTUAL ANALYSIS OF HOW
YOU WILL AUTHENTICATE OR HOW
YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE
RECORDINGS, IT SEEMS THAT THESE
ANALYTICAL TOOLS ARE IN FACT
USED.
AM I ACCURATE?
>> THEY COULD BE, YES.
I THINK I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE
INTENT OF THIS AND I AM NOT
SPEAKING ABOUT THAT.
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS AND
I WORRY ABOUT COLLATERAL
EFFECTS.
>> I THINK THAT IS A SERIOUS
CONCERN.
I THINK THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL
RISK IN THIS AMENDMENT
COMPROMISING CURRENT PRACTICE.
>> THIS IS NOT READY FOR PRIME
TIME?
>> APPARENTLY NOT.
>> AT LEAST WE ARE USING THIS
TIME TO DAYLIGHT THESE
AMENDMENTS.
LET'S MOVE ON.
>> CAPTAIN BRITT, ANYTHING TO
ADD?
>> NO.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> AMENDMENT 3. THIS WOULD ASK
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
IDENTIFY THE MANUFACTURERS AND
VENDORS OF THE AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT
THAT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE
COUNCIL.
AS WAS MENTIONED AT THE FIRST
HEARING, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
DOES NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE THIS
INFORMATION TO AVOID THE RISK
OF COUNTERMEASURES AND BECAUSE
OF SAFETY CONCERNS FOR
OFFICERS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , I
BELIEVE YOU ARE ASKING FOR
MANUFACTURERS AND VENDORS AT A
30,000 FOOT LEVEL AS OPPOSED TO
ONE THAT WOULD BE RISKY TO THE
POLICE OFFICERS.
>> YES, A MUCH MORE NARROWLY
TAILORED ASK THAT HOPEFULLY
DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME
VULNERABILITIES THAT SPD HAD
EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH LAST
TIME.
>> HOW IS THIS A NARROWER ASK?
>> ONLY REQUESTING THE
IDENTITIES OF THE MANUFACTURERS
AND VENDORS, NOT MODEL NAMES
AND NUMBERS.
>> OKAY.
CAPTAIN BRITT?
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THE
EFFORTS TO BROADEN THE ASK TO
PROTECTIVE THAT, THIS REQUEST
STILL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO
CAUSE THE SAME RISKS IDENTIFIED
PREVIOUSLY.
SHOULD A MANUFACTURER OR A
VENDOR THAT IS DISCLOSED IN
THIS PROCESS HAVE A LIMITED
NUMBER OF DEVICES OR SIMILARLY
OPERATING DEVICES, IT WOULD
STILL LAY IS OPEN FOR THE
POTENTIAL OF COUNTERMEASURES
WERE DANGERS TO OUR COOPERATING
WITNESSES OR UNDERCOVER
OFFICERS THAT UTILIZE THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
>> ISN'T THIS INFORMATION THAT
WOULD BE DISCLOSED UNDER A
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUEST?
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF
THE INVESTIGATION, THE REQUEST,
AND THE DECISION OF THE JUDGE
OVERSEEING THE CASE?
>> I AM NOT SAYING ABOUT A
PARTICULAR CASE, THE CITY MAKES
A PURCHASE, AND WHO YOU ARE
MAKING THE PURCHASE FROM HIS
PUBLIC INFORMATION.
>> I WILL DEFER ON THE LEGALITY
OF THE DISCLOSURE.
>> REBECCA?
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THE
QUESTION?
>> THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN
THIS AMENDMENT, THE
MANUFACTURERS AND VENDORS OF
THE PURCHASE AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS, THAT IS PUBLIC
INFORMATION, CORRECT?
>> IT COMPLETELY DEPENDS.
WE WOULD BE PROVIDING THIRD-
PARTY NOTICE TO THE VENDOR AND
THE VENDOR WOULD MOST LIKELY
INTERVENE IN THE REQUEST.
>> OKAY.
BACK TO MY FRAMING QUESTION,
HOW DOES THE LISTING -- THE
LISTING OF THE IDENTITIES TO
PROTECT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES AND
PREVENT AGAINST DISPARATE
IMPACTS?
>> I THINK THE RECENT
EXPERIENCE THE CITY HAS HAD HIS
A REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY IT
IS IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY TO
KNOW WHO WE ARE DOING BUSINESS
WITH.
A CONTRACTOR WHO WE NO LONGER
DO BUSINESS WITH, THEY HAVE A
HISTORY OF ILLEGAL SALES,
BRIBERY, AND PRIVACY ADVOCATES
WERE RAISING THE FLAG ABOUT OUR
INVOLVEMENT, PURCHASING THESE
PRODUCTS.
BECAUSE OF THAT TRANSPARENCY,
WE HAVE MADE DIFFERENT
PURCHASING DECISIONS WITH
PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS.
>> OMARI?
>> I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
I THINK THE WORKING GROUP HAS
EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT
DEVICES ARE USED.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, IT HELPS
THEM PUT TOGETHER, IF I AM
UNDERSTANDING THEIR PERSPECTIVE
OF WHAT IS PRESENTED AND WHAT
IS THE CAPABILITIES OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES TO ASSESS IT, A
LOT OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE
IN THE SAME -- IT IS A
MICROPHONE THAT RECORDS AND THE
INTENT OF THE ASK IS TO
VALIDATE WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE
OUT THERE.
I THINK IT IS ONE OF THOSE,
WANTING TO VERIFY IS THE REASON
BEHIND THE ASK.
I THINK IT HAS TO BALANCED WITH
THE POLICE NOT WANTING IT TO BE
REVEALED.
THAT IS THE BALANCE IN
QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL OF RENDERING THE
FUNCTIONALITY OF THESE DEVICES
MOOT.
AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, SOME
VENDORS ONLY MAKE ONE PRODUCT
AND IT WOULD BE FAIRLY EASY TO
GET THE SPECS ON THAT PRODUCT,
EVEN IF YOU DON'T -- EVEN IF
THE MORE BROAD ASK HAS BEEN
NARROWED TO MANUFACTURERS AND
VENDORS, AND NOT MAKE AND
MODEL.
OMARI?
>> THAT WAS MY HAND STILL UP,
SORRY.
>> OKAY.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS,
I WILL NOW MOVE THIS AMENDMENT.
IS THAT WHAT I AM SUPPOSED TO
DO?
>> SORRY, I THOUGHT WE WERE
GOING TO ALL OF THEM.
>> THAT IS EASIER FOR ME.
>> I THINK THERE IS ONE MORE ON
THIS BILL.
>> YES.
WE WILL MOVE TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER 4. THIS AMENDMENT IS
SIMILAR TO ALL OF THE
AMENDMENTS PASSED FOR PREVIOUS
SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORTS,
WHICH PROVIDES METRICS TO THE
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER FOR
THE USE OF THE ANNUAL EQUITY
ASSESSMENTS.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ASK THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE
THE METRICS BY THE END OF THIS
YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS FOLLOWS THE REQUIREMENTS
THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED ON
RECORDING, ON THE METRICS THAT
THEY USED FOR ANNUAL EQUITY
ASSESSMENTS THAT THEY ALREADY
DO.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DO.
IT REPLICATES THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THE
S.I.R.
FOR PREVIOUS TECHNOLOGY
APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.
IT IS A TEMPLATE AMENDMENT,
HOPEFULLY NOT A BIG DEAL.
>> I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THOSE
OTHER S.I.R.'S, COULD YOU SPEAK
WHETHER YOU COULD USE THE OTHER
METRICS FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY,
THIS GROUP OF TECHNOLOGIES?
>> IF I MAY, THE ISSUE IS THAT
THE S.I.R.
HAS A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT
THE DEPARTMENT HAS ANSWERED AND
ONE IS, WHAT WILL BE THE
METRICS YOU WILL GIVE THE CHIEF
TECHNOLOGY OFFICER SO THEY KNOW
HOW TO MEASURE EQUITY IMPACTS
OF YOUR PARTICULAR DEVICE?
THOSE METRICS HAVE NEVER BEEN
PROVIDED IN ANY OF THE S.I.R.'S
THAT HAVE COME TO COUNCIL . THE
DEPARTMENTS ARE WAITING TO SEE
WHAT THE COUNCIL WILL DO BEFORE
THEY PROVIDED THE METRICS.
THE COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED
SOMETHING SAYING WE WOULD LIKE
YOU TO GIVE THE METRICS SO BE
CTO KNOWS HOW TO DO THE
ASSESSMENT.
>> BASICALLY, ARE WE TRYING TO
GET OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE USE
OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IS USED MORE
OFTEN IN INVESTIGATIONS IN
WHICH A PARTICULAR GROUP OF
PEOPLE ARE BEING INVESTIGATED,
COMPARED TO ANOTHER GROUP OF
PEOPLE?
BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT
TECHNOLOGY IN USE DURING AN
INVESTIGATION.
IS THAT THE POOL WE ARE LOOKING
AT TO APPLY THE METRICS TO?
>> YES, THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY
OFFICER HAS DONE EQUITY
ASSESSMENTS AND LOOKED AT ONE
OR TWO OF THE TECHNOLOGIES.
I MAY ASK OMARI TO SPEAK ABOUT
THAT BUT IT IS PROBABLY LOOKING
AT ANY DATA THEY CAN TRACK IN
TERMS OF DISPROPORTIONATE CIVIL
LIBERTIES IMPACTS FROM THE USE
OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
>> YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP FIRST,
OMARI.
>> THE EQUITY METRICS, BY THE
ORDINANCE, THE CTO IS REQUIRED
BY SEPTEMBER 15th TO SUBMIT THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
COMMUNITY EQUITY IMPACT
ASSESSMENT OF POLICY GUIDANCE
REPORT THAT WE CALL THE EQUITY
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR SHORT.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS WE
ARE LOOKING AT IN THAT, ONE IS
EVALUATING THE ORDINANCE IN THE
PROCESS IF WE ARE MEETING THE
RACIAL AND SOCIAL INITIATIVE
GOALS AND LOOKING AT IF ANY
COMMUNITIES OR GROUPS IN THE
CITY ARE DISPROPORTIONALLY
IMPACTED BY THE USE OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES.
IN ADDITION TO WHAT ADJUSTMENTS
WE SHOULD BRING TO THE LAW AND
NEWER APPROACHES WE SHOULD
CONSIDER IN THESE REVIEWS.
WE ALSO CONSULT WITH THE
WORKING GROUP AS A PART OF
THAT, THEY GET A DRAFT AND
PROVIDE FEEDBACK AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON IT.
I THINK THE IDEA IS, THESE
AMENDMENTS AND THE S.I.R.
PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
DEPARTMENTS TO PROVIDE TO US
THE METRICS UNDER WHICH WE WILL
EVALUATE THEM BY AS AN
OVERSIGHT FUNCTION.
THIS IS HOW THE EQUITY
MEASUREMENT IS BEING PUT INTO
THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE THE CTO
IS REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THAT
EVERY YEAR AND SEE IF THERE ARE
DISPROPORTIONATE USES IN THESE
TECHNOLOGIES GIVEN THE WIDE
RANGE OF TECHNOLOGIES, THE
DIFFERENT USE CASES, WE RELY ON
DEPARTMENTS TO GIVE US THAT
INFORMATION AS FAR AS WHAT
MAKES SENSE AS FAR AS TRACKING
DEPLOYMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE HE, WE USED PEANUT
BUTTER AROUND THE CITY, A
QUESTION ABOUT EQUITY IS WHERE
ARE YOU DEPLOYING IT VERSUS WHO
ARE YOU USING IT WITH?
THERE ARE DIFFERENT
MEASUREMENTS OR DIMENSIONS OF
EQUITY WE WANT TO LOOK AT.
THIS IS GIVING THE DEPARTMENT
THE OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE THESE
ARE USED IN INVESTIGATIONS, I
WOULD IMAGINE THE POOL OF THE
DEMOGRAPHICS OF PEOPLE WHO
WOULD BE USED ARE THE SAME BUT
I WILL LET SPD SPEAK TO THAT .
>> WE ARE ALWAYS INTERESTED IN
EXPLORING THE IMPACTS OF OUR
OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES UNDER
THE RACE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
LENS AND HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO
THIS AMENDMENT.
IT IS DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY IN
THE WORLD OF POLICING, TO
ACCURATELY COME UP WITH METRICS
TO ANALYZE THIS THAT
LEGITIMATELY ASSESSES THE
IMPACT OF THIS.
TO WHAT OMARI JUST SAID, THE
DENOMINATOR IN THIS CASE WOULD
LIKELY BE INDIVIDUALS WHERE WE
HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO
INVESTIGATE OR REASONABLE
SUSPICION TO INVESTIGATE.
THAT WOULD BE YOUR DENOMINATOR.
WITHIN THE POOL OF THAT GROUP,
IS THERE A DISPROPORTIONATE USE
OF THIS TECHNOLOGY ON ANY
DEMOGRAPHIC OR CERTAIN GROUP?
I THINK IT WOULD BE A NARROWLY
TAILORED METRIC OVERLAID ON TOP
OF OUR GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS
METRIC.
WE WILL HAVE TO DIG DEEPER AND
FINDING OUT WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR
INVESTIGATION FILES TO CREATE
THAT DENOMINATOR.
CERTAINLY, BY DECEMBER, WE CAN
PROVIDE THE METRICS AND THE
PLAN TO ASSESS THE EQUITY OF
THIS TECHNOLOGY.
I AM HEARTENED TO HEAR AND I
WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THIS TYPE
OF AMENDMENT IS GOING TO ALL
DEPARTMENTS AND NOT JUST THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT WITH
RACE AND DATA IN THE PUBLIC
SPHERE, I WENT TO THE WEBSITE
TO FIND OUT WHAT OTHER
DEPARTMENTS PROVIDE RACE DATA.
I WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY OTHER
DEPARTMENT OTHER THAN THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I AM GLAD TO HEAR THIS AS BEING
EQUALLY APPLIED AND WE HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY.
MOVING ON.
>> I THINK THAT IS THE LAST
AMENDMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR
BILL.
DO YOU WANT ME, CHAIR NELSON, I
CAN GO BACK AND MOVE
INDIVIDUALLY THE TWO AMENDMENTS
.
>> THAT IS FINE.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT 3, AS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA,
REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT TO
PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE CLERK
IDENTIFYING THE MANUFACTURER
AND VENDOR OF THE AUDIO
RECORDING SYSTEMS IN THE
REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> I WILL BECAUSE WE SPENT A
LONG TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
APPRECIATE THAT.
HAPPY TO -- FOR THE RECORD, I
APPRECIATE THE COURTESY SECOND.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO
ADD.
THIS IS NOT INFORMATION THAT
WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON
A LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATION.
THIS IS INFORMATION THAT I
BELIEVE IS PUBLIC INFORMATION
BECAUSE IT IS SIMPLY THE NAME
OF A MANUFACTURER WHO IS ALSO
THE VENDOR.
IT IS NOT INFORMATION ABOUT A
SPECIFIC PRODUCT.
AND IT IS ABOUT THE PURCHASER
-- IT IS ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF
THE VENDOR WHO SPD PURCHASES
PRODUCTS FROM, AND THAT IS
PUBLIC INFORMATION BECAUSE IT
RELATES TO THE USE OF OUR TAX
DOLLARS.
IT IS NOT INFORMATION THAT IS
PRIVILEGED OR CAN BE WITHHELD
TO MY UNDERSTANDING BY THE
REQUEST OF A THIRD PARTY.
>> THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS
FROM MY COLLEAGUES?
WHAT I HEARD HER SAY IS THAT
MANUFACTURERS COULD MOVE TO
BASICALLY TRY TO BLOCK THE
RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK THAT IS A RISK.
>> OKAY.
I COME BACK TO, DOES THIS
ENHANCE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF
SEATTLE RESIDENTS?
THAT HAS TO BE BALANCED AGAINST
THE ABILITY OF THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DO
THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS.
I AM GOING TO SIDE WITH THE
CONCERNS OF THE DEPARTMENT ON
THIS ONE.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS,
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 3?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR NELSON?
>> NO.
THE BILL IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE NEXT
AMENDMENT.
>> CAN I JUST MOVE IT?
>> YES.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
AMENDMENT 4 AS LISTED ON THE
AGENDA REQUIRING THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE
NOTIFICATION ON THE METRICS
THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE
CTO FOR USE IN THE ANNUAL
EQUITY ASSESSMENTS THAT THEY
DO.
>> I SECOND THAT.
>> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO
ADD BEYOND RECOGNIZING
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AS THE
PREVIOUS CHAIR WHO HEARD THIS
LEGISLATION AND CREATED THIS AS
A PRECEDENT TO REPLICATE IN THE
TECHNOLOGIES OF MOVING FORWARD.
>> OKAY.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO ADOPT
AMENDMENT 4 AS PRESENTED ON THE
AGENDA.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR
ATTENTION.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE ON ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT
4?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR NELSON?
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSED.
>> AMENDMENT 4 IS ADOPTED AND
IT IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS
ON THE AMENDED BILL?
OKAY, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON -- WILL THE
CLERK CALLED THE ROLE ON THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT
THE BILL PASSED AMENDED?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR NELSON?
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION PASSES AND IT
WILL BE PORTED TO THE CITY
COUNCIL FOR FINAL
CONSIDERATION.
WE CAN GO ON TO PASSAGE OF
COUNCIL BILL 120309.
I MOVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS
PASSAGE OF THE BILL, IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED, THERE ARE FIVE
AMENDMENS TO THIS BILL AND
BEFORE CONSIDERATION OF EACH
AMENDMENT, THE CENTRAL STAFF
WILL PROVIDE A HIGH-LEVEL
OVERVIEW OF THE BILL AND WALK
US THROUGH THE FIRST AMENDMENT
BEFORE THE SPONSOR MOVES IT.
PLEASE BEGIN THE PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN AGAIN.
>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
AMENDMENT 5.
>> I THINK WE WILL TALK ABOUT
AMENDMENT 1.
>> EXCUSE ME, IT IS AMENDMENT
1, IT IS IN MY LIST.
>> IT IS ONE OF FIVE.
>> SORRY.
>> THAT IS FINE.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
APPROVE THE IBM I2 IBASE LINK
ANALYSIS SOFTWARE . AND EXCEPT
THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT.
THIS TECHNOLOGY IS USED TO --
DURING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
TO HELP DETECTIVES VISUALIZE
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS, KNOWN ENTITIES,
VEHICLES, LOCATIONS, AND OTHER
DATA.
THERE ARE FIVE AMENDMENTS.
THE FIRST FOUR ARE SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND THE
FIFTH BY COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I CAN
MOVE AHEAD TO AMENDMENT 1.
>> THAT IS FINE, THANK YOU.
>> I WILL SHRINK IT ON THE
SCREEN SO IT WILL ALL SHOW UP.
AMENDMENT 1 WHEN ASKED THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT, BY
JANUARY 31st OF NEXT YEAR, ON
DATA RECORDS RETENTION
POLICIES, GUIDELINES APPLICABLE
TO THE USE OF THE OPERATION OF
THIS TECHNOLOGY.
THE AMENDMENT ASKS THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO IDENTIFY TO THE
EXTENT FEASIBLE RETENTION
POLICIES THAT COMPLIED WITH THE
MINIMUM REQUIRED BY STATE AND
FEDERAL LAW AND DEFINE A CLEAR
PROCESS FOR THE DELETION OF
RECORDS.
YOU HEARD THAT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT RETAINS MANUALLY
ADDED DATA AFTER FIVE YEARS,
WHICH IS THE FEDERAL MAXIMUM
REQUIREMENT.
THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR
INTELLIGENCE FILES REQUIRES
RETENTION UNTIL NO LONGER
NEEDED FOR AGENCY BUSINESS.
THE FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS FOR
RETENTION OF UP TO FIVE YEARS.
SPD APPLIES THE FIVE YEARS TO
DATA.
THAT CONCLUDES MY OVERVIEW.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> I APOLOGIZE IF I WAS HER
INTENT AND THE FIRST PIECE OF
LEGISLATION WAS FOR US TO VOTE
ON EACH AMENDMENT AS THEY COME.
I AM HAPPY TO DO IT THAT WAY.
I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT WAS IN
YOUR INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU
WANTED TO VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1
FROM LISE KAYE, THEN MOVED TO
THE NEXT ONE.
>> I BELIEVE THE PROCESS WE
JUST WENT THROUGH WENT WELL.
WHY DON'T WE CONTINUE WITH
THAT.
>> OKAY, PERFECT, THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
IN THAT CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO
ALLOW US TO GO TO THE
AMENDMENTS AND I WILL SPEAK TO
THEM WHEN I MOVE THEM IF THAT
IS OKAY?
>> YES.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO REPEAT
MYSELF.
>> LET'S -- I WILL ASK A
SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT THIS.
BECAUSE, THIS PARTICULAR ONE,
WHILE WE ARE ON IT, THE
QUESTION IS, WILL RECORDS BE
RETAINED FOR FIVE YEARS MAXIMUM
FOR THREE YEARS MAXIMUM?
WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND IS, TO WHAT EXTENT
WILL RETAINING THE RECORDS FOR
LESS AMOUNT OF TIME, HAVE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON CONTINUING
CASES, OR APPEALS, AND THAT IS
WHAT I HAVE ASKED SEATTLE
POLICE ABOUT.
IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THIS PUT
THE CITY AT ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE
IF THE RECORDS ARE NO LONGER
AVAILABLE IF THE CITY IS TRYING
TO DEFEND OURSELVES, OR, AID IN
DEFENDING A SUSPECT THAT WILL
SUBJECT TO THESE
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT
PROMULGATE A PARTICULAR RECORD
RETENTION POLICY.
IT ASKS WHAT THE RECORDS
RETENTION POLICY IS.
IT SAYS, THE REPORT IDENTIFIES
A RETENTION POLICY THAT
COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM
RETENTION STATE LAW AND FEDERAL
LAW, BUT ALSO INCLUDES A
DELETION OVERSIGHT PROCESS TO
ENSURE DELETION OF MANUALLY
ADDED DATA AFTER THERE'S
PACIFIED RETENTION PERIOD.
IT SPEAKS TO BOTH THE MINIMUM
RETENTION PERIOD ALLOWED BY
STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.
>> SPD, WHAT WOULD BE THE REAL
LIFE IMPACT OF THIS?
>> I GUESS I WILL JUMP IN FIRST
AND LET CAPTAIN BRITT CLEANUP
ANYTHING I SAY.
A COUPLE OF THINGS ARE IN PLAY,
ONE, WHEN WE GENERATE A LINK
ANALYSIS, THAT IS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE UNDERLYING
INVESTIGATIVE FILE, AND THE
RETENTION FOR THAT DOCUMENT
WOULD TRACK WITH WHATEVER THE
INVESTIGATION IS.
FOR EXAMPLE, HOMICIDE CASES ARE
MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY.
IF THIS WAS A HOMICIDE CASE, IT
WOULD TRACK WITH THAT.
IF IT WERE SOMETHING ELSE, IT
WOULD TRACK WITHIN THE
RETENTION FOR THAT TYPE OF
CASE.
THIS REQUEST, AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, IS TO IDENTIFY THE
RETENTION POLICIES AND PRESENT
THAT BACK TO THE CLERK.
I SEE NO PROBLEM DOING THAT.
I DO NOT SEE THIS AS MANDATORY
TO COMPLY WITH MINIMUM
RETENTION PERIODS.
THERE IS A VALUE BUT THAT DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE MANDATORY.
CERTAINLY, THE FEASIBILITY, I
AM CERTAIN THE LEGITIMATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT NEEDS WOULD GO INTO
THE DISABILITY DETERMINATION.
>> THE OPERATIVE LANGUAGE IS
THE REFERENCE TO STATE LAW THAT
RETENTION SHOULD BE UNTIL NO
LONGER NEEDED FOR AGENCY
BUSINESS, WHICH YOU GET TO
DEFINE.
>> IF THAT IS THE REQUEST, I DO
NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE
SPELLING THIS OUT AND IDENTIFY
WHAT WE ARE DOING.
THAT IS A FAIR REQUEST.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE,
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. AMENDMENT 2 WHAT
ASKED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
REPORT, BY OCTOBER 31st OF THIS
YEAR, ON THE NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS IN THE PAST THREE
YEARS FROM WHICH THE SOFTWARE
WAS DEPLOYED.
>> I THINK THE ONLY THING I
HAVE TO ADD IS THAT THIS IS
RECOMMENDATION 12 FROM THE
WORKING GROUP.
IT IS NOT AN ISSUE ADDRESSED IN
THE S.I.R.
IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BECAUSE
OF A BELIEF THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS TECHNOLOGY
IS BEING USED AND THE NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS PER YEAR.
THIS DATA WOULD -- IT IS DATA,
NOT PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING DATA
AND GOVERNED BY PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE LAWS ANYHOW.
>> OKAY.
SO, TO REMIND PEOPLE, I THINK
PERHAPS A DESCRIPTION OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES IS WARRANTED
BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT IBASE ALLOWS THE
DEPARTMENT TO SEE LINKS.
IT IS NOT A TECHNOLOGY THAT
ACTUALLY CAPTURES INFORMATION
FROM INDIVIDUALS OR TRANSMITS
IT.
SO, IT IS LIKE -- IT ALLOWS FOR
OFFICERS TO SEE THE
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS AND PREVIOUS CASES.
CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO HOW
OFTEN IT IS USED AND WOULD IT
BE EASY TO GET INFORMATION?
WHAT DID THE EASY TO REPORT ON
THAT INFORMATION, THE NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS?
>> I WILL SPEAK TO THAT.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD
BE READILY ABLE TO PROVIDE.
THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS PER
YEAR, IT IS A MATTER OF, IF YOU
ONE RUN TRANSPORT LINK
ANALYSIS, IT COULD SHOW 32
INCIDENTS.
THE EXAMPLE LAST SESSION WAS 17
INCIDENTS RELATED TO ONE LINK
ANALYSIS.
THIS DOES NOT CREATE A DATA
SET, THIS SIMPLY ANALYZES DATA
THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
THIS WOULD BE LIKE ASKING US
HOW OFTEN WE PUT TOGETHER A
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, ALL
THAT IS IS DISPLAYING THE DATA
THAT IS ALREADY THERE.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE
WOULD BE PREPARED AT THIS
MOMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE LAST
THREE YEARS.
IT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED
TO AFFIRMATIVELY START TO
TRACK.
>> I AM HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THIS
ONE AND DISCUSS MORE WITH THE
WORKING GROUP.
THE DATA SET THAT PERHAPS WOULD
SATISFY THE TRANSPARENCY
REQUESTS.
IF NOT INCIDENTS, WHAT?
I AM HAPPY TO TAKE THIS
AMENDMENT BACK TO THEM FOR
ADDITIONAL REFINEMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT.
>> THANK YOU.
AMENDMENT 3 WHAT ASKED THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT, BY
JANUARY 31st OF NEXT YEAR, ON
THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
ABOUT THIS SOFTWARE.
IT ASKED TO REPORT A POLICY OR
PROCEDURE TO PREVENT EMPLOYEE
AXIS TO PRINT FOR UNRELATED TO
THEIR ASSIGNED INVESTIGATIONS.
SPDREPORTED LAST WEEK THAT
TWO ANALYSTS AND ONE CIVILIAN
SEATTLE I.T.
EMPLOYEE HAD ACCESS AND ONLY
TWO CIVILIAN ALLIES CAN PRODUCE
THE VISUALIZATIONS FOR
DETECTIVES BUT MULTIPLE
DETECTIVES CAN ASK FOR THIS
KIND OF ASSISTANCE.
>> OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
CAPTAIN BRITT?
>> IN SPEAKING WITH THE ANALYST
ON THE CALL LAST WEEK, WE HAVE
DRAFT POLICY READY TO WORK
THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE
PASSED, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
MEET THE JANUARY OF 2023
REQUIREMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MOVING ON TO AMENDMENT 4,
PLEASE.
>>
>> IT IS THE EQUITY METRICS
AMENDMENT THAT CONSIDERED FOR
THE AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES.
>> NOTHING MORE TO SAY ABOUT
THAT ONE.
>> NOPE.
>> WE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT IN
THE OTHER BILL.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S GO ON TO THE LAST ONE,
PLEASE.
>> THIS AMENDMENT SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
IT WOULD REQUEST THAT THE
EXECUTIVE INCLUDE FUNDING IN
THE MIDYEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
FOR THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL TO RETAIN A CONSULTANT
TO EVALUATE AND REPORT ON THE
CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH
THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE BY SPD
BY MARCH 31st OF NEXT YEAR.
THE REQUEST ASKS THAT THE
REPORT INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF THE
ACCURACY OF THE DATA MANUALLY
INPUT INTO THE SOFTWARE, THE
ACCURACY OF THE LINKAGES
IDENTIFIED BY USERS OF THE
SOFTWARE, AND DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUALS
AND GROUPS IDENTIFIED IN
VISUALIZATIONS THAT USE THE
SOFTWARE.
I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU.
WORKING FROM THE DISTRICT
OFFICE TODAY, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME.
AMENDMENT 5, THIS AMENDMENT
WOULD REQUEST THAT THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET INCLUDE
FUNDING FOR AN INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION ON THE RISKS
ASSOCIATED WITH IBASE
TECHNOLOGIES, INCLUDING CIVIL
LIBERTIES, ACCURACY OF
LINKAGES, THAT THE SYSTEM
IDENTIFIES.
THE COST OF THIS ASSESSMENT IS
AROUND $100,000.
NO MORE THAN OTHER CONSULTANT
REPORTS.
I KNOW FROM FUNDING THE WATER
SAFETY STUDY THIS LAST YEAR,
THOSE NUMBERS CAN CHANGE.
I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT IDEA
TO HAVE THIS ASSESSMENT AS ANY
ASSESSMENT WOULD BE OVER SEED
BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL EVEN
THOUGH IT IS COMPLETED BY AN
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT.
I RECOGNIZED THIS REQUEST WOULD
REQUIRE FUNDING AND NOT
PROHIBIT THIS USE OF
TECHNOLOGY, JUST MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT IT IS NEEDED AND WE SHOULD
WORK TO FUND IT.
IF WE HAVE SUCH A RISK
ASSESSMENT, IF THIS TECHNOLOGY
IS MISUSED, IT WOULD SEND
SOMEONE TO PRISON WRONGFULLY.
HAVING A THIRD-PARTY
ACCOUNTABILITY DOES PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR SPD,
FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE , AND
FOR THE PEOPLE OF OUR CITY.
A POCKET OF FUNDING TO EVALUATE
THE RISK IS WORTHWHILE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF IT
PREVENTS PROSECUTIONS BASED ON
FAULTY INFORMATION, THAT IS
MONEY WELL SPENT.
IF IT SIMPLY IS
UNACCOUNTABILITY MEASURED THAT
DEMONSTRATES SPD IS USING THIS
IN THE CORRECT FASHION , THAT
IS A GOOD USE OF FUNDING
BECAUSE IT DOES PROVIDE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND THIRD-PARTY
EVALUATION FOR ALL PARTIES
INVOLVED.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
HAVE YOU SPOKEN WITH THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL?
ABOUT THIS?
ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, AFTER
PASSAGE OF THE S.I.R., IT IS ON
THEIR PLATE TO EVALUATE FOR
ONE YEAR OR THREE.
THE DEPLOYMENT OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES.
THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A LOT OF
THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT, DISPARATE
IMPACTS, AND SO ON.
WOULD THIS BE -- DO THEY START
DOING THIS WORK UNTIL THE
CONSULTANT WORK IS FINISHED?
CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MECHANICS
OF HOW THIS WILL WORK?
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE
REPORT WOULD BE LOOKED AT BY
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND
COMPLETED BY A THIRD-PARTY
CONSULTANT.
>> GOT IT.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT?
I DID HAVE ONE -- IBASE LINKS
DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS, IF
DATA IS ENTERED INTO A CASE, AS
WEAVER WE WERE PRESENTED LAST
TIME, BULLETS WERE FOUND IN
SEATTLE ABOUT A CASE INTENT,
WOULD THIS CONSULTANT REPORT
VERIFY THE PROCESSES BY WHICH
THE ACCURACY OF WHICH DATA IS
INPUT INTO CASES AND OTHER
JURISDICTIONS?
>> THAT IS A QUESTION FOR
SOMEONE ELSE.
GROWING UP, THERE WERE TWO
PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE
WITH MY NAME AND MY FATHER'S
NAME, I WOULD RECEIVE MAIL FOR
THAT PERSON.
THIS WAS WHEN THINGS WERE MORE
SIMPLE.
NOW, WITH SO MANY LAWS OF
TECHNOLOGY, BEING ABLE TO
CONNECT, BRIAN DESCRIBED IT IN
THE LAST MEETING, IF YOU SEE
THOSE OLD DETECTIVE VIDEOS OF
PICTURES ON A WALL LINKING WITH
THE STRING FROM EACH THING TO
ANOTHER.
IN A WORLD WHERE TECHNOLOGY IS
DOING THAT FOR US, I DO THINK
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION TO
ENSURE WE ARE NOT MAKING THE
OLD MISTAKES I DESCRIBED, ABOUT
HAVING TWO PEOPLE WITH THE SAME
NAME, OR ANYTHING ELSE.
THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION, I
THINK THAT IS ITERATIVE AND
INPUT WOULD BE WELCOME.
>> POINT TAKEN.
JUST TRY BEING SARA NELSON.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, YOU HAVE
OMARI AND BRIAN WITH THEIR HAND
RAISED, AND I HAVE A COMMENT.
>> I DO NOT KNOW IF BRIAN WAS
FIRST, COULD THE PERSON WITH
THE HAND UP FIRST PLEASE SPEAK.
>> BRIAN, GO AHEAD.
>> YOU WERE FIRST, I AM
CERTAIN.
>> MORE OF A COMMENT, WANTING
TO FLY FOR THE COMMITTEE THAT
THE OIG DOES DO AUDITS ON A
REGULAR BASIS.
IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE YEARLY, IF
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN, I DON'T
KNOW IF THEY WERE CONSULTED IN
THE DRAFTING OF THIS BUT MAKING
SURE THAT IS IN LINE WITH THE
AUDIT FOR THAT YEAR OR WORKING
THAT INTO THEIR SCHEDULE FOR
THEIR ANNUAL AUDITS.
I WANTED TO FLAG THAT AS A
POTENTIAL CONCERN.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT AND THAT
WAS A MORE ELOQUENT WAY OF
SAYING WHAT I WAS TRYING TO
SAY.
RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE CHARGED
WITH ANNUAL AUDITS.
I DO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE
EXPRESSED THAT THEIR STAFFING
NEEDS MAKE THAT DIFFICULT.
MAKING SURE THEY ARE IN
ALIGNMENT IS IMPORTANT.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
BRIAN?
>> WE DID NOT SPEAK UP EARLIER
BECAUSE IT IS NOT REALLY OUR
PLACE TO SAY WHAT THE OIG
SHOULD BE DOING, THEY HAVE
ACCESS TO OUR SYSTEMS, AND
HEARING THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS
IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS ALMOST
AN AUDIT OF OUR INVESTIGATIONS,
RATHER THAN AN AUDIT OF THE USE
OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.
WHEN WE CREATE LINKS BETWEEN
ENTITIES IN I2 IBASE, IT IS
BECAUSE A BELIEF THERE IS A
LINK, IF IT IS NOT MADE, IT
WILL BE SEPARATED.
THERE IS A HOST OF AN
INVESTIGATOR PROCESSES THAT GO
ALONG WITH THIS.
AND ABOUT INTEGRATING
INFORMATION FROM OTHER
JURISDICTIONS, CERTAINLY WE MAY
BE BRINGING INFORMATION THAT
OTHER JURISDICTIONS PROVIDE,
AND I KNOW WE THINK ABOUT THIS
IN TERMS OF PEOPLE INTO THESE,
BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT ALSO
DEALS WITH LOCATIONS,
SHOWCASING ANALYSIS, A HOST OF
THINGS THAT GET CONNECTED
WITHIN THIS SYSTEM.
IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT PEOPLE AND
THE CIVIL LIBERTIES, DOES HAVE
THAT AND IT IS A COMPONENT.
MY CONCERN IS, WHETHER THIS
BECOMES AN AUDIT OF THE
INVESTIGATION AT-LARGE OR
WHETHER WE ARE TRYING TO AUDIT
THE USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IN
INVESTIGATIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. MAXEY, FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
IN TALKING ABOUT
INVESTIGATIONS, I DO NOT THINK
IT IS THE INTENT TO AUDIT YOUR
DEPARTMENT BUT HOW THE
TECHNOLOGY IS BEING USED, ITS
CAPABILITIES, AND MAKING SURE
THAT IT IS PROTECTING CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
I SEE THIS, WITH THE THIRD-
PARTY ACCOUNTABILITY,
PROTECTING SPD FOR UNWARRANTED
WITTICISM, OR DAYLIGHTING
VULNERABILITIES WE NEED TO
PROTECT.
>> THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?
>> BRIAN SPOKE TO MY QUESTION
ABOUT LOOKING AT EXTERNAL
AGENCIES.
IN TERMS OF OIG'S WORK
CAPACITY, THAT IS A REASONABLE
QUESTION AND A REASON THIS WAS
STRUCTURED IN A WAY TO HAVE OIG
HIRE AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT IS
MULTIPRONGED, ONE IS TO
MINIMIZE THE IMPACT BECAUSE
THEY'RE BUSY, RECOGNIZING THAT
THIS IS GOING TO A LEVEL OF
DEPTH BEYOND WHAT THEY WOULD BE
DOING IN THEIR ANNUAL REPORTS
AND REQUIRE PROBABLY A LOT MORE
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSULTANT WHO
WOULD BE DOING IT THAN IN THEIR
ANNUAL REPORTS.
>> OPERATIONALLY, I AM
WONDERING, I DO NOT HAVE AN
OPINION, IS IT POSSIBLE TO
CHANGE THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE WE
VOTE ON THIS LEGISLATION AND
FOR COUNCIL SO THAT IT IS NOT
AS BROAD AS BRIAN WAS TALKING
ABOUT?
BUT IT STILL GETS INTO
PROTECTING THE CIVIL LIBERTIES
OF THE PEOPLE SURFACED IN THE
DEPLOYMENT OF IBASE?
>> YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
YOU COULD AMEND THIS IN
COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD
PUT A PERIOD AFTER CIVIL
LIBERTIES RISK AND HAVE NO MORE
SPECIFICITY WITH AN AMENDMENT
TO THE AMENDMENT.
OTHERWISE, IF THE COMMITTEE
PASSES THIS THE WAY IT IS NOW,
COUNCILMEMBER COULD BRING IN AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL AND
HAVE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE FULL
COUNCIL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN, WITH
THE RESPECT, I THINK THIS
AMENDMENT SPECIFIES THAT WE ARE
LOOKING AT THE IBM I2 IBASE
LINK ANALYSIS SOFTWARE, I DO
NOT SEE IN THIS AMENDMENT WE
ARE REQUESTING AN AUDIT OF
INVESTIGATIONS.
I THINK THIS IS WELL-WRITTEN AS
IT STANDS.
I DON'T SEE US NEEDING TO
CHANGE IT.
OUR CONVERSATION MAY HAVE TAKEN
US INTO DIFFERENT TANGENTS AND
DIRECTIONS BECAUSE WE ARE
HAVING A LARGER CONVERSATION
THAN WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE
PIECE OF PAPER.
>> OKAY.
BRIAN?
>> SPECIFICALLY, THE LANGUAGE I
AM LOOKING AT IS THE LINE THAT
SAYS OF THE ACCURACY OF
LINKAGES IDENTIFIED BY USERS OF
IBM I2 IBASE SOFTWARE.
THAT IS THE LINE THAT, IN MY
MIND, READS WE NEED TO TEST AND
VALIDATE WHETHER THEY GOT THE
-- THE ACCURACY OF THE LINK,
WASN'T SUPPORTED BY THE
INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS, THAT IS
WHERE IT DIGS DEEPER.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK
YOU, BRIAN, FOR THE FEEDBACK,
WITH RESPECT, I DO THINK THAT
IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP YOUR FOR
THE TIME BEING, THAT IS THE
SMALLEST ASPECT OF THIS REQUEST
AND I DO NOT NECESSARILY -- IF
WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
WITH THE THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT
SO WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE
SOFTWARE, I DO THINK REMOVING
THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA
MANUALLY INPUT -- IF THE
MAJORITY OF THE DATA IS
MANUALLY INPUT, WE HAVE JUST
CUT OUT THE MAJORITY OF THE
INFORMATION.
SO, I AM NOT NECESSARILY TRYING
TO ANALYZE HOW THAT INFORMATION
IS IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY --
BEFORE BEING INPUT, ONCE IT IS
INPUT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE DATA IS CORRECT.
I THINK THAT, HONESTLY, FOR SPD
, THIS IS ANOTHER WAY TO
DEMONSTRATE FROM A THIRD PARTY
THAT CRITICISMS ARE UNFOUNDED.
THIS IS A BALANCE AMENDMENT
PARTY CONSULTANT, A THIRD-PARTY
VALIDATION OF YOUR WORK AND
MAKE SURE THAT CIVIL LIBERTIES
ARE NOT BEING COMPROMISED.
>> THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR
GENERAL DOES SERVE TO FUNCTION
AS THE AUDITOR, THE
INTELLIGENCE AUDITOR FOR THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> IS THERE A WAY --
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, WOULD
YOU BE AMENABLE TO, WHEN
CRAFTING THE SCOPE OF THIS
CONTRACT, WORK THIS OUT?
I THINK A REFINING ON ACCURACY
OF, THE WORD ACCURACY OF, MAYBE
THROUGH THAT PROCESS COULD
PERHAPS MEET THE COMMENTS MADE
BY BRIAN WHILE MAINTAINING THE
ACCURACY OF HER MISSION?
>> I WORK WELL WITH OTHERS AND
WELCOME INPUT.
I WILL TAKE HIS INPUT.
YES.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY, WE ARE NOW IN POSITION --
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT?
OKAY.
GOING BACK, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD , YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO
MOVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT.
A LITTLE SLOW ON THE DRAW HERE.
VERY APPRECIATIVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT
1, THAT REQUESTS THAT THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE A
REPORT TO THE CLERK THAT
INCLUDES THEIR DATA AND RECORDS
RETENTION POLICIES.
>> SECOND.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO ADOPTED
AMENDMENT 1 AS PRESENTED ON THE
AGENDA, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO ADDRESS
IT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT 1?
>> NOT NECESSARY, THANK YOU.
>> WILL BE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLE ON ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
THE AMENDED BILL IS BEFORE THE
COUNCIL, PLEASE WALK US THROUGH
THE NEXT AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , I
CANNOT RECALL IF YOU TABLED
AMENDMENT 2 OR 3, COULD YOU
PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT --
>> I TABLED AMENDMENT 2, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, AND I MOVE
AMENDMENT 3 LISTED ON THE
AGENDA, THAT IS THE REQUEST FOR
THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
PREVENTING EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO
THE IBM I2 IBASE SOFTWARE LINK
ANALYSIS.
>> SECOND.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
AMENDMENT 3?
>> NO.
>> WILL BE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 3?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
THE MOTION CARRIES, THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED AND BEFORE
THE COUNCIL.
NOW, WE GO ON TO AMENDMENT 4.
>> I MOVE AMENDMENT 4 AS LISTED
ON THE AGENDA WEARING THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DIVIDE TO
BE CLERK THE NOTIFICATION ON
WHAT THE METRICS ARE THAT THEY
USE PROVIDED TO THE CHIEF
PATHOLOGY OFFICER FOR THE
ANNUAL EQUITY ASSESSMENTS THEY
ALREADY DO FOR THE IBM I2 IBASE
LINK ANALYSIS SOFTWARE .
>> SECOND.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 4,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, ANY
FURTHER COMMENTS?
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 4 BACK
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS MARK X
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT 5.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE AMENDMENT
5 TO COUNCIL BILL 120309 .
>> SECOND.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 5 AS
PRESENTED ON THE AGENDA.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES?
OKAY.
WILL BE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 5?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
AMENDMENT 5 IS ADOPTED.
WILL BE CLERK LEASE CALL --
WILL BE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BILL
PASS AS AMENDED?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> YES.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSED.
>> HALF OF GROUP 4A HAS BEEN
PROCESSED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE
AND THIS WILL GO FORWARD TO
FULL COUNCIL ON MAY 17th.
THIS CONCLUDES THE MAY 11th
MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND
CITY LIKE COMMITTEE, THE NEXT
MEETING IS MAY 25th AT 9:30
A.M.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THIS
MORNING BEFORE WE ADJOURN?
ANY JOKES OR POETRY?
ANYTHING ELSE?
ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, THIS
MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU,