From: Linda Lye [llye@aclunc.org] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:43 PM To: Kalb, Dan; Luby, Oliver Subject: DAC Attachments: 2014.02.18 City Council Agenda DAC Suppl Report.pdf Dear Councilmember Kalb and Oliver, Thanks so much for making the time to meet with me. In advance of our 4 pm, I w anted to share with you some thoughts on potential resolution language. Ive shared this with some ot hers on the Council, so you may already have seen it, or a version of it. The ACLU is delighted that you expressed interest at the last City Council meeti ng on this topic in a Port-only approach to the Domain Awareness Center. I hope you continue to hold that view and would be happy to discuss any concerns you may have if questions have arisen for you since the last meeting. In order to implement a Port-only approach, the proposed resolution should be am ended to specify the surveillance systems / capabilities that are authorized for inclusion in the DAC and to make clear that no new systems or capabilities can be added without express City Council ap proval. When I say surveillance systems, I mean for example: shot spotter or port security cameras. When I say capabilities, I mean certain technological functionalities, such as facial recogni tion, other forms of analytics (like gait analysis, in which someone can be identified based on the way they walk) or other capabilities that havent yet been invented but are soon to come. Ive included so me potential language for your consideration below, and flagged issues of particular concern. Why a new City Council resolution is necessary: Resolution 84593 enacted last s ummer authorized the inclusion of various City-based surveillance systems (such as Automated Lice nse Plate Readers) so if the City Council wishes to authorize a Port-only system, new resolution langu age is required to make clear that the previously authorized City-based systems are now not authorized f or inclusion. The resolution should specify the surveillance systems/capabilities authorized f or inclusion. It is critical to be very specific in the resolution language what systems/capabilitie s are and are not included. You had suggested more generic language that would have said that the DAC is limited to Port-only surveillance systems, or something to that effect. I would be extremely concerned that this gives staff significant discretion to determine without City Council oversi ght what system is or is not Port-related. The staff may have some rationale as to why shot spotters are Port-related, but the question of what is and is not Port-related goes to the fundamental policy que stion of how broad a surveillance system the DAC should be. The Council, and not unelected s taff, should be the entity that makes that policy decision. What systems are at issue? The Supplemental Report (page 7 of the powerpoint) f or this item listed the systems that were included in Phase 1 and the systems slated for inclusion for Phase 2. The agenda items are linked here (there were 3 attachments it is the Second attachme nt, a copy of which is attached to this email for your convenience). According to this Supple mental Report (page 7), the following systems were already built into the DAC during Phase 1: Port Secu rity Cameras (approx. 135), Intrusion Detection System (IDS), Shot Spotter, City Traffic Cameras (appr ox. 40) and City GIS. According to the Supplemental Report, the following systems are slated for inclu sion during Phase 2: Port GIS, Port Vessel Tracking System, Port Truck Management System, Police and FIRE CAD Data, Police and Fire Records Management System, WEBEOC Notifications, Tsunami Alerts, Police and Fire Vehicle Location, NOAA Weather Alerts, USGS Earthquake Info, News Feeds and Aler ts. Page 8 of the Supplemental Report includes a map identifying the 40 City Traffic Cameras alrea dy included in Phase 1 (they appear to be in commercial corridors). Some of the systems built in during Phase 1 are City-based; they need to be and can be removed if the City Council wants to make the DAC a Port-only system. Two to three of the systems included during Phase 1 are City-focused and would have to be removed in order for the DA C to be Port-only. At the Feb.18 City Council meeting, Mr. Baig said, in response to a question fro m CM Schaaf as to the feasibility of removing systems included in Phase 1, that it would in fact be fe asible to remove a system that had already been included that it would simply take the City IT staf f working with the contractor to turn off that functionality. The City-based systems built into the DAC during Phase 1 are Shot Spotter, City Traffic Cameras, and possibly GIS. The ACLU recommends that Shot Spotter and City Traffic Cameras be removed so that the DAC is truly Port-only. The ACLU does not have enough information about whe ther City GIS is necessary for the stated goal of coordinating a response by the Citys first respo nders to an emergency at the Port. If the City Council believes it is appropriate to include City Traffic Cameras ( the ACLU does not agree), then we would urge you to specify that the only City Traffic Cameras authorized for inclusion are those specifically depicted on the map on page 8 of the supplemental report. Otherwis e, staff could without City Council oversight increase city traffic cameras in both number and location and add for example many cameras in residential neighborhoods. The City Council should assess which systems to include in Phase 2 based on the factual information to be presented by staff at the next City Council meeting. The ACLU does not hav e enough information about each of the systems listed in the Supplemental Report as slate d for inclusion during Phase 2 to assess whether they are truly related to furthering the goal of Port- security, or whether they go beyond that. We would encourage you to ask staff about what each of the se systems does and to include only those that in the City Councils judgment is tied directly to Port security, and to exclude those that serve other purposes. Implementing language would look like this: RECOMMENDATION 1: A new paragraph should be added to the proposed resolution: FURTHER RESOLVED: The previously stated limits on current and future technology allowed in the DAC specified in Resolution 84593 are superseded and shall be limited as follows: t he following operational capabilities already completed in Phase 1 are authorized for inclusion in the DA C: Port Security Cameras, Port Intrusion Detection System; the following operational capabilities previously included in Phase 1 shall be removed from the DAC: Shot Spotter, City Traffic Cameras, and City GIS [DEPENDING ON THE STAFF REPORT, YOU MAY DECIDE IT MAKES SENSE TO INCLUDE City GIS IN THE AUTH ORIZED SYSTEMS LISTED IN THE PREVIOUS CLAUSE]; only the following operational capabilit ies shall be included in Phase 2: [THE COMPLETE LIST SET FORTH IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOL LOWS BUT PLEASE INCLUDE ONLY THOSE SYSTEMS THAT IN THE COUNCILS JUDGMENT ACTUALLY FURTHER PORT SECUTITY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF] Port GIS, Port Vess el Tracking System, Port Truck Management System, Police and Fire CAD Data [NEED MORE INFO O N THIS ONE], Police and Fire Records Management System [NEED MORE INFO ON THIS ONE], WebEOC Notifications[NEED MORE INFO ON THIS ONE], Tsunami Alerts, Police and Fire Vehic le Location [NEED MORE INFO ON THIS ONE], NOAA Weather Alerts, USGS Earthquake Information and New s Feeds & Alerts; and that the addition of any new capability or data source, including bu t not limited to new surveillance or security sensor systems, new components of existing surveillanc e or security sensor systems, or analytics capability, shall require approval of the Council, includi ng confirmation of compliance by the DAC and all City and Port data sources with the Citys Privacy a nd Data Retention Policy to the extent allowed by law; Crucial language: As noted above, it is critical for the Council to enumerate the systems that are and are not included because the Council may have a very different view of what is Port-related than staff. Thus, we would have grave concerns about language that did not list systems and capabilities an d instead merely said only Port-related systems and capabilities are to be included in the DAC. This wo uld cede far too much discretion to staff to make what is fundamentally a policy decision that sh ould rest with the City Council. In addition, it is also essential to keep the following language: the addition o f any new capability or data source, including but not limited to new surveillance or security sensor s ystems, new components of existing surveillance or security sensor systems, or analytics cap ability, shall require approval of the Council. The purpose of this is to make sure that new types of s urveillance systems (e.g., automated license plate readers, drones, etc.) arent added without City Co uncil approval, or that additional cameras arent added to existing systems (e.g., there may only be 40 city traffic cameras now, and the fact that there are only 40 traffic cameras in residential neighborhoods may assuage some concerns about privacy invasions, but staff should not be allowed t o unilaterally add traffic cameras, including in residential neighborhoods without Council approval ). Similarly, this language would ensure that no new capabilities (such as facial recognition, gait analysis, or other predictive analytics software) are added without express City Council approval. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION: While we recommend that the City Council remove Cit y traffic cameras, if the Council concludes they should remain in the DAC, I would strongl y urge you to use the following language referencing traffic cameras to make sure that Council approva l is required before more cameras are added and/or placed in additional (e.g., residential) locations not identified in the Supplemental Report. Language that differs from our primary recommendation abov e appears in underline: FURTHER RESOLVED: The previously stated limits on current and future technology allowed in the DAC specified in Resolution 84593 are superseded and shall be limited as follows: t he following operational capabilities already completed in Phase 1 are authorized for inclusion in the DA C: Port Security Cameras, Port Intrusion Detection System, and the 40 City Traffic Cameras in the non-residential locations specifically identified in the Supplemental Report prepared for the Ja nuary 28, 2014 Public Safety Meeting; the following operational capabilities previously included in Ph ase 1 shall be removed from the DAC: Shot Spotter and City GIS [AS NOTED ABOVE, DEPENDING ON THE STAFF REPORT, YOU MAY DECIDE IT MAKES SENSE TO INCLUDE City GIS AMONG THE AUTHORIZED SYSTEMS IN THE PRIOR CLAUSE]; only the following operational capabilities shall be included in Phase 2: [THE COMPLETE LIST SET FORTH IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOLLOWS BUT PLEASE INCLUDE ON LY THOSE SYSTEMS THAT IN THE COUNCILS JUDGMENT ACTUALLY FURTHER PORT SECUTITY, BASED ON THE INFORMATION TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF] Port GIS, Port Vessel Tracking System, Port Truck Management System, Police and Fire CAD Data [NEED MORE INFO ON THIS ONE], Police and Fire Records Management System [NEED MORE INFO ON THIS ONE], WebEOC Notifications[NEE D MORE INFO ON THIS ONE], Tsunami Alerts, Police and Fire Vehicle Location [NEED MORE I NFO ON THIS ONE], NOAA Weather Alerts, USGS Earthquake Information and News Feeds & Alerts; and th at the addition of any new capability or data source, including but not limited to new surveilla nce or security sensor systems, new components of existing surveillance or security sensor systems, or analytics capability, shall require approval of the Council, including confirmation of compliance by t he DAC and all City and Port data sources with the Citys Privacy and Data Retention Policy to the extent allowed by law; Crucial language: As discussed above, if you include any City Traffic Cameras, w e urge you to specify that it is only the 40 traffic cameras depicted in the Supplemental Report that are authorized for inclusion. Staff should not be able to add cameras in either number or location (e.g., residential areas) without Council approval. Thanks very much for your interest in this issue. Apologies for this lengthy ema il. Id be happy to answer any questions or discuss any concerns. Sincerely, Linda Lye Staff Attorney ACLU Foundation of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 tel. (415) 621-2493 fax. (415) 255-8437 _______________________________________________________________________ This message and any files or text attached to it are intended only for the reci pients named above, and contain information that may be confidential or privileged. If you are not an intended r ecipient, you must not read, copy, use or disclose this communication. Please also notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete all copies of it from your system. Thank you.