AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 surveillance impact report and 2020 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department’s use of Forward Looking Infrared Real-Time Video.
High Council Bill Agenda Item six Council Bill 120053 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 Surveillance Impact Report and 2020 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of Forward Looking Infrared. Real Time Video. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Before we get to that on Council Bill 12 0052, I recognize that I did not mention that the bill passes and the chair will sign it and ask that the clerk either fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Thank you so much. So as it relates to Council Bill 12 0053, Councilmember Peterson is chair of the committee. You are recognized to address the item. Thank you. President Burton Herbold, colleagues. The next three items on this afternoon's agenda are surveillance impact reports that our committee amended and approved unanimously. This is pursuant to the very thorough underlying surveillance ordinance revised in 2018. That ordinance makes sure we review technologies that have the ability to surveil so that we protect civil liberties while enabling technology tools for more efficient government services. Colleagues, as you may recall, we are working our way through several groups of surveillance impact reports as required by that surveillance ordinance. And we recently amended and adopted the so called group to Surveillance Impact reports for some of the existing technologies already in use by Seattle City Light Fire Department and the Police Department. Today we vote on the so called Group three surveillance impact reports, which are three existing technologies from us. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for your thorough amendments, which our committee approved unanimously last week. So these three council bills are in good condition for our vote this afternoon. I also want to thank the professionals at Seattle Information Technology Department, as well as our several staff analysts, Lisa Kay, my legislative aide, Kara Valliere, as well as the Volunteers of the Surveillance Working Group for their many, many months of work on these reports. Again, these are three technologies going to vote on them separately. The first one counts 4120053 covers, what's called forward looking infrared, real time video for King County sheriff's helicopters. And the as with previous surveillance in back reports, the committee adopted my amendment on requiring a report on equity metrics for these technologies. Councilmember Herbold also had a number of amendments to further define policies and reporting from speed and use of these technologies. The committee unanimously recommended approval of all the amendments and the three surveillance impact reports, and the first vote today will be on Council 4120053. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, are there any questions or comments around around the passage of this bill related to the or word or looking infrared real time video? Not seeing any real raised hands or virtual raised hands. So we'll move on to the roll call with the clerk, please. I'm sorry, Representative Herbold. I raised. My hand. Sorry, I didn't see it there. No, no problem at all. Thank you. Also, members on the floor. Thank you. I will be voting against approving this surveillance impact report authorizing the Seattle Police Department to continue to use. Forward looking infrared real time video. This is an infrared video camera that that is mounted on an airplane or helicopter and it can zoom in to show details on the ground in terrifying detail. It is technology that was developed by contractors beginning in the 1950s on behalf of the U.S. military. The Surveillance Impact Report analyzed the hypothetical ways that a technology could be used productively or could be used to infringe on civil liberties. And that hypothetical analysis is important. But in this case, we have clear experience showing how this technology is actually used. Defense attorney Naseem Bhutia fought for and eventually received the public records that exposed how the Washington State Patrol used this infrared video technology to continuously monitor and spy on the Black Lives Matter movement in Seattle last summer . The Capitol Hill Seattle blog published a video and images that seem unearthed in an April 6th article titled, quote, Remember that expletive plane flying over Capitol Hill during last summer's protest? Here's what it was up to, end quote. And I really recommend that members of the public review this important piece of journalism. The blog also showed the hours long flight path of the plane, seemingly hundreds of circuits around and around. Those of us protesting below in the first days of the Justice for George Floyd protests last June. Many of us in the streets or living on Capitol Hill remember that. Remember that incessant sound of a plane overhead day after day, just a few hundred feet above us. We now know that it was a Washington State patrol plane taking pictures with its special high resolution thermal camera and coordinating with Seattle police on the ground to compress the story, repress the Black Lives Matter movement. Compare that to what is written in this surveillance and bad report. Quote, A speedy policy mitigates against the potential for inappropriate use. A speedy policy 6.60 collection of information for law enforcement purposes defines the way information will be gathered and recorded in a manner that does not unreasonably infringe upon individual rights, liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Washington, including freedom of speech, press, association and assembly, liberty of conscience, and the exercise of religion, end quote. The report further states that, quote, Additionally, officers must take care when photographing demonstrations or other lawful political activities if demonstrators are not acting unlawfully or at least cannot photograph them. Further, a speedy policy 5.1 for all forbids bias based policing and outlines processes for reporting and documenting any suspected bias based on behavior as well as accountability measures. And for. These assertions in this report are unfortunately the exact opposite of what actually happens in reality. The irony would be funny if it were not so dangerous. I want to be clear that there are socially responsible users of our looking for ad real time video. It is useful, for example, for tracking wildfires and for finding people lost in the wilderness. But in real life, that is not how the Seattle Police Department uses this technology. The speed does not drag forest fires or search wilderness areas for missing people. In real life, the Seattle police use this technology to spy on almost exclusively peaceful protests, people exercising their First Amendment rights. It is also sometimes used to drag prince fleeing suspects, but it has a mass negative impact on progressive protests. So on balance, the effect is negative. The police found protesters marching in the streets, milling around, gathering, talking with one another, leading the rally, things we do every day and exercising our free speech rights because of the high resolution thermal imaging. The camera captures a lot of detail in one video, which is linked on the Capitol Hill Seattle blog article. The plane's camera hones in on one group of onlookers who are observing the protest and the police reaction from on top of a building roof. The police were looking for someone who allegedly threw a rock. An officer in the plane says, quote, There's a group of 6 to 8 people on that roof. We'll keep an eye on them. End quote. And even though he admits there were, quote, no object scene at this point, unquote, he continues to train his recording camera on them. The plane camera indeed continues to spy on these peaceful onlookers. And a few seconds later, the plane camera operator says he thinks the rock throw rock thrower, quote, was that other person that was running on that building up there on that other side. That's what I think. And quote, another officer recollected quote, Oh, that's the rooftop of the Seattle PD. End quote. And around and around the airplane circles. This is exactly the type of indiscriminate surveillance of political protest that the Seattle surveillance ordinance claims to be addressing. If council members will not object to this surveillance, then what will they object to or do they see these votes as nothing more than a rubber stamp? It is shameful, but not a surprise that the Seattle Police Department and other police agencies saw their role in the wake of the murder of the George flight to be a militarized repression of the Black Lives Matter movement, including chemical weapons, flashbang grenades and blast balls guided into a peaceful protest by forward looking infrared real time video. It is outrageous that council members who spoke passionately about opposing that militarized police response are now considering giving permission to the city to continue using the data from this fight. Acknowledging owned by the King County Sheriff's Office against ordinary people who are merely exercising their First Amendment protest. Rights. Finally, I want to quote from some of the public comment that is included as an appendix to the surveillance and fact report. The question posed is, quote, What concerns, if any, do you have about the use of this technology and what? Here are some of the quotes. I mean, there are many quotes that I would invite council members to read, but here are just a few that my office picked from the public comment responses that this will be used to target black people and protesters. It's expensive, and that money is better used to feed and clothe people in our city. This is a creepy tool to put in the hands of people who have already proven they can't be trusted with the tools they use. They shouldn't be a surveillance state. Our police should not be able to monitor us from the air with technology that can see us. I am concerned that this technology is or will be used against protesters exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. And that will have a chilling effect on those rights and create safety issues for protesters. Thermal imaging will be abused to surveil, track, direct and disrupt legal protest movements. This technology will not be used to keep anyone safe. Rather, it will be used to surveil members of the public, specifically protesters, in order to arrest, attack and harm them, as media has already used tools at their disposal to brutalize protesters. Why does the Seattle Police Department feel they need feel the need to use military surveillance equipment on its domestic population? And the last comment I'll read is, no matter what you say in response to public comment, we know you're just using this to help oppressed citizens and protesters. Come on. So in closing, I will vote no on this. Thank you. Councilmember Swann. Any other comments? From Council members on this item. Councilmember Abbas. Haider, you come on camera to get some say? Yeah, I do have a few questions. I'm sorry to do that in full council. I know President Pro Tem that's not the desired place to do this. But obviously I'm concerned about the report that Councilmember Salonen just referenced. And I will also note that my team and I did ask central staff quite a few questions about this technology, because that is a concern of mine as well. And I do remember some of the reports and incidents. I know we don't typically have central staff on this call. So for the sake of maybe the sponsor and councilmember who raised the questions, I'll just point out that when I asked about the detailed images that this device, I believe, which is I believe currently you will project what I understood from the answers is that the way this camera works, those people don't show up. It's actually just red blobs and there's no defining images. So I'm really concerned about the state technology that was used. I'm obviously in alignment with what the concerns were that were used from that state technology, especially as it relates to last year's surveillance of protesters and the consequences of that and want to continue to fight against that type of technology. I do want to have a better understanding, though, about this specific technology and if it's slightly different, if it truly is just blobs versus defining or definitive images, because I would be very concerned and I continue to just sort of be skeptical about this technology in general . But obviously in opposition to anything that would be defining for the purposes of future arrests or targeting of folks. So I wanted to get that out there because I thought I had done some research on this and had heard that it was no defining images and simply red big blobs. Councilmember Peterson Councilmember Mosquito, you are correct. Your research with central staff is sound. And that is, you know, the reference to an airplane was not the same technology as the King County sheriff's technology that we're voting on today. It's a different technology where it's just thermal imaging where you don't it doesn't show the details. That's what we're voting on today. So central step into the. Sorry for having not been in the benefit of the committee. May I ask a follow up question? Yes, absolutely. Go ahead. Is there any sort of signboards that are or could be put on the use of the technology so that it's not used in situations like hovering over expressions of First Amendment rights? I mean, I was understanding that this was more for a search function, and I'm not sure what the extent of that search function is, but that still is very different than a hovering over First Amendment right demonstration. So is there any sort of sideboards that we have currently that we could point to to how it can be used? So that's why this amendment that was passed in committee, we recognize that, you know, one of the things that they are required to include in these policies is a definition of the purpose in use, including circumstances where officers may request assistance from the county for these these forward looking infrared real time video content. So one of the amendments that passed in committee was was a recognition that that was something that was was missing and that we need to to receive is a is a is the definition of the purpose in use, even given that this is this is technology that is already being used. The council the committee thought it was really important to to get those sideboards in. Thank you very much for letting me use some time during full council asked those questions. I also understand Councilmember Herbold, I believe along comes Member Peterson. You offered a series of amendments to address a number of questions that I know I had, and I was told by central staff that some of those have been addressed. But I really appreciate the reminder on where those can be used. And I will continue to express concern about the state technology that was just referenced as well, and anything that would be honing in on anybody's ability to have identifying information. And perhaps I'll do a follow up with the Chair of Public Safety, just to make sure that we're continuing to monitor to make sure that this isn't being used inappropriately, even though we try to put some sideboards on a speedy before we know that there's been some ignoring of those rules and want to make sure that that's not the case with this so that it truly remains not identifiable and not used for First Amendment expression surveillance. Thank you. And I just want to also just very quickly want to highlight the additional amendments in case there are questions that councilmembers might have amendments included recognizing that we need to receive from a speedy policies that specifically define the timeline for deletion of images to protect the privacy of individuals not connected to any investigation. Policies that specifically describe how they're going to ensure that this technology is not used in a way to disproportionately surveil communities. And then lastly, an amendment that requires an annual report of the use of this technology and helicopter deployment. These are all areas that have been flagged for the committee by the the Technology Working Group. And council members like you who have your hand up, is that is that a hold over? You want to speak again? I would like to speak again just to respond. You have the floor. Thank you. I think it is important for council members who are asking these questions to look at the video themselves and see how defining the images are there before you zoom in. But once you zoom in there, that's stunning how much clarity there is. And if council members maintain that this is a different technology, as Governor Paterson has said, then you should hold off on this bill and show the video to the council and the members of the public and the committee meeting that is announced well in advance so that members of the public can judge for themselves whether this is whether or not this is a violation of their rights. And just to clarify the amendment of in committee. Obviously, I'm not a member of the committee, but the amendment that was mentioned from Councilor Herbold, what it does is, I mean, essentially it says that I approve this bill now and say that the problem, you know, that there's really nothing essentially to protect civil liberties. And that is a problem. We have to you know, we acknowledge that the problem exists, but it doesn't stop approval of the legislation. I don't understand how we as a legislative body can do that if we know that there is a problem and that and we know how this technology can be used because we have seen how it can be used. We have seen the absolutely abysmal track record of a police department that, as I quoted in briefing just a week or two ago, that in a study of 500 different police departments comes very, very close to the end in terms of its accountability and racial bias and so on and so forth, how it is that can justify, you know, giving this police department, this technology, I mean, to be very accurate or to be very specific. The Seattle Police Department ranked 477th out of 500 police departments that were studied. So it's not like it's some problems that this department is very much the epitome of things not working well in a police department. And so if councilmembers are concerned about a potential violation of civil rights by the SPD, then you should vote no on this bill today and let the committee hold hearings on the forward looking into real time video technology so that we can have transparency and public accountability. Thank you. Thank you. Want any additional comments? I am not seeing any. So with that, will the clerk please call the passage for the passage of the roll call on the passage of the bill. 12 0053. So, aunt? No. Strauss Yes. Lewis Yes. Morales Yes. Mascara. I Peterson II Council President pro tem honorable yes. Six in favor one oppose. Thank you so much. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Thank you. Now, item seven. Will the clerk please read item seven into the record? Agenda item seven Council Bill 120054 An ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2020 Surveillance Impact Report and 2020 Executive Overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of situational awareness cameras without recording.