[back]
May 15

Surveillance Legislation

Good morning sf.citi members,

I am writing to you this morning with a brief update on the Stop Secret Surveillance legislation. Yesterday, the Board of Supervisors officially passed Supervisor Peskin’s Surveillance Legislation with support from Supervisors Mar, Peskin, Safai, Yee, Brown, Fewer, Haney, and Mandelman. Supervisor Stefani was the only dissenting vote, alongside excused absences from Supervisors Walton and Ronen. Comments during the meeting included the following (below).

This legislation is up for a second hearing at the full Board within one week. Assuming it passes the second hearing, this ordinance shall become effective 30 days after enactment. Enactment occurs when the Mayor signs the ordinance, the Mayor returns the ordinance unsigned, does not sign the ordinance within ten days of receiving it, or the Board of Supervisors overrides the Mayor’s veto of the ordinance.

Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.

Jen

– – –

Item 14. 190110 [Administrative Code – Acquisition of Surveillance Technology] Sponsors: Peskin; Yee, Walton, Ronen, and Haney

Supervisor Peskin Comments:

  • This came out of Rules Committee with a positive recommendation.
  • This is an ordinance about keeping departments that use surveillance technology accountable and does not halt the use of these technologies to be used in the future. This legislation ensures the safe and responsible use of technology for the safety of our residents and visitors.
  • Essentially, this legislation would require departments to adopt a process to acquire this technology through public policies.
  • Peskin agrees that organizations can and should use technology for efforts that keep our residents and visitors safe, but, it is when people and organizations abuse power that there need to be rules in place.
  • COIT to be the organization overseeing the policies, deferring to their expertise and having a standard expectation across all departments.

Supervisor Stefani Questions:

Would there be a different policy for each technology that is used?

  • No, the department can submit the policy that covers all technology. They do, however, have the choice to submit for each one if they want.

Drafting the policy – Would it be the departments or COIT?

  • The ordinance does not mandate a certain process. The department could submit to COIT, but COIT could give them a template policy document that each department can use. It would be up to COIT to determine how they’d like to set the system up.

Do we need more staff?

  • Unclear, but the budget analyst determined that it did not have a fiscal impact

Concerned with the workload to the police department. Are there any police officers that would need to be pulled off the streets to oversee this process?

  • Greg with SFPD: It would require approximately 2-4 employees to review over the next year or so.

For existing contracts, the amended legislation states that departments need to submit a policy proposal but are able to continue using the technology while the Board of Supervisors reviews the policies submitted. What if the policy they submit is not approved by the Board of Supervisors?

  • The department would need to cease operation of that technology.

If a department such as MUNI is not approved by the Board of Supervisors, would that put riders and drivers at risk?

  • MTA Spokesperson: If the Board of Supervisors did not approve the policies submitted, then yes, the MUNI drivers and riders would be put at risk.
  • Peskin clarification: This legislation does not intend to limit surveillance, it is to ensure that the surveillance is being used in a manner that the public feels comfortable with.

Supervisor Brown Questions:

Does this legislation affect the ability to share data with state or federal agencies if needed?

  • Nothing in this legislation restricts the department from sharing information.
  • The legislation does restrict the City from using the information given to them by third parties. In order to regularly receive information, they need a policy approved by the Board.

Supervisor Safai Questions/Comments:

Explain the MOU referenced in the legislation.

  • There is a provision in the ordinance that allows the department to use surveillance technology during a fire. Example: If there is a fire and drones can only be used to see what is taking place, this would constitute an emergency and it would be okay to use.

Think this is a forward-thinking piece of legislation and appreciates the work. This will require more work on everyone’s part, but it is necessary to ensure that departments are using the technology in an appropriate way.

Yee Questions/Comments

It is only fair that we know what city departments are doing with technology. It was not long ago that we asked Uber/Lyft for what they do with the information. If we have this standard for the public, we should have this standard within our City departments.

Ayes: Supervisors Mar, Peskin, Safai, Yee, Brown, Fewer, Haney, Mandelman

Noes: Supervisor Stefani

Absent: Supervisors Walton and Ronen

ATTACHMENTS