AN ORDINANCE relating to surveillance technology implementation; authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2018 surveillance impact reports for the Seattle Department of Transportation’s use of closed-circuit television traffic cameras and license plate readers.
This legislation. Let me back up by saying the first council bill, 119519 was the first bill in consideration for the requirements of the 2007 surveillance ordinance. And I think many of you in particular, Councilmember Gonzales and others, for the passage in the work, looking at the surveillance ordinance and what we're trying to do. And under our current system, the chief technology officer was required to compile a master list of surveillance. Surveillance technology used by city departments, basically do an inventory of everything we are using. And 29 technologies were identified in four departments, those departments being City Light, the Department of Transportation, the Fire Department and Seattle Police Department and so forth . The 29 technologies the department must prepare what we call a sur air surveillance impact report for each existing or proposed technology. To the extent there will be an acquisition that the project management team would you would use and the Air Surveillance Impact Report would be submitted for all retroactive technologies and newly proposed technology such that there is an open and transparent conversation on everything we're using and everything we may use in the future. And so this process, which is quite comprehensive, is a five step process. That's the initial draft of the air. And there you have the department drafting it, putting it out there for public consumption, all of the public reporting requirements listed in the surveillance ordinance. And then from there a fairly comprehensive public engagement piece where a public hearings, public meetings are scheduled in the department and the departments provide feedback with center staff, monitoring that to make sure that we are aware of what's going on. There is a community surveillance working group, that River that reviews the SLR, and they create what's called an impact assessment document addressing privacy and civil liberty concerns. And we want to thank the ACLU and Shanker in particular, for his leadership, being a strong member of the community surveillance group and and working on the impact assessment. And from there, the CTO, Syed Bashir, provides a response letter. It sort of memorializes the working groups concerns and there's sort of a process sitting down, if you will, a meeting of the minds to identify all of the privacy issues, the surveillance issue, the city's technological needs, identify all the issues that surface. And from there it is presented to the council. And that was done. That was been has been going on for quite some time. And I'd like to see the department say it's been a labor of love, but it's been quite resource intensive for several months, if not years. Today we're looking at two technologies, the use of traffic cameras that uses closed circuit television, CCTV and automated license plate readers. Recall those LP hours just by way of background. The lawyers have been there. Well, let me back up. The traffic cameras have been in use since 2000, for almost 19 years now, and the lawyers have been in use since 2007. And the traffic cameras, as an example, are used in almost every state in our country. So looking at these two technologies. And looking at the privacy needs that are that are addressed. You have what we're called SARS, presented to the council. We took a look at the SARS, and they were indeed treaties. They were maybe a few inches thick, if I'm not to embellish that. And there were there were a lot of resources and time and effort put in put into those SARS. It was at least the chair's opinion that that was helpful. But to some extent, we needed an executive report, if you will, a summation, a primer, whatever you want to call it, but a condensed report. And so that became known as the the Condensed Surveillance Impact Report to CSIR. And so those two documents for these two technology, one each for technology, the two SARS and to condense SARS became part of the package attached to the legislation. And the legislation self of course creates a private right of action that these are integrated documents. They all work together. And there was a what I'll call a negotiation process that was fairly involved, fairly in-depth, and it was the chairs. I don't think I have the power to order it, but to the extent I do, I ordered I use that term loosely that the department sit down with any privacy advocates and hash it out and then just try to wordsmith as much language as possible, but come up with a great document that we can be proud of to take to the Council. And that was done. And through that process, there originally 19 points that were raised, which were still in that area of we can't quite get there yet. And we went back to the table and central staff was at the table with the departments and the working group. And from those 19 points there are roughly about four points that were still somewhat of some disagreement. And it was the chair's opinion, I think, members of the committee's opinion that had raised significant legal issues that need to be addressed. And we need to talk about some of those legal issues in executive committee as would be appropriate when legal issues are raised. So from that process, I want to tell you that as we made several amendments at the committee table last week and all of those amendments that the chair accepted and were voted on and agreed to by the table are incorporated in what I will call amendment number 11. So Amendment number 11 addressed some concerns that Councilmember Herbold had raised and think Councilmember O'Brien had raised. And I think Councilmember Gonzales perhaps. But we came up with a package of amendments at the table and those were reviewed by law and accepted. And so we have. That suite of amendments ready to go. And we need a little time to harmonize those changes with the base legislation and the SIRC since they were changes to the CCR started using the sacraments and that is ready. So if we are to consider that amendment number 11, that encompasses the amendments made at the table. The legislation would be ripe to vote on today. Councilmember O'Brien has a series of amendments, and I'll relinquish the microphone to Councilmember O'Brien in a second. Councilwoman Bryant has some amendments that, if accepted, we would still need one more week to harmonize the CSI hours with the sewers. And so my encompassing amendment would wait. And so it would be inappropriate me to do that until I see where we come out on the amendments. Now, let me say before Councilman O'Brien proposes his amendments, that I'm not sure exactly how many there are, but I think there are four. And. And I appreciate Councilmember O'Brien's because he's got the the oil heating legislation as well as he's been working on feverishly. He's been really working hard these last several weeks. So I sincerely appreciate the efforts put into what he's trying to do this with this surveillance ordinance. But I will tell you that I come out not supporting them, not so much. Because of the substance is bad policy. In fact, I don't think the substance changes a lot, but there was a process that was done. And and we're looking at two technologies of 29. And this process to me, is fundamental. And doing this right as a city in that process was to make sure that ACLU and Shanker in particular, because of his expertize in this area, really crafted and wordsmiths a piece of legislation that's a healthy process as a public process. And that was done. And my impression now is that that was sort of a deal, and that's how we're going to have to move forward when working with communities and the language. Now, that is, in my understanding, was agreed upon during that process by Shankar and others is what we are revisiting now. And one could argue that's still part of the process. But I will tell you, with 27 more technologies to go, that will erode the city's ability to come up with meaningful policy, because we could wordsmith this forever. And I will share with you that these two technologies, one have been around for 19 years, one for 12 years , that this is a retroactive view. And if we are to negotiate with communities and and experts and come up with agreed upon language and let's have a good process and so forth, so that's my record. On looking at these amendments somewhat biased because we've been working on this so feverishly and I've asked two departments to step up big and they stepped up big. I believe their hearts, their minds and their intellect were in the right position. This is one of the best surveillance ordinances known to this country, and I think it's ready to be voted on. So having said that comes from Bryan, you still, I'm sure, would like to walk through some amendments and the chair would entertain them. Madam Clerk, I'm not sure which ones. I have to suspend the rules on which ones are right, because all of them so. Except for mine. So we won't have to suspend the rules in mine because I did it the right way, by the way. But in all seriousness, if there's no objection to suspend the rules, rules we you hear from council member O'Brien. You know, Jackson customer in Brown. You have the floor. Thank you. Council President. Just in opening remarks, I, I appreciate your opening remarks and the process you've laid out here. And I fully respect, you know, where you are and my amendments. You have led a very intense and thoughtful and thorough process to date. And yet here I am still proposing amendments. But I hope you and others don't see that as criticism of this process. As I have dug into this and I appreciate the acknowledgment of of the past few weeks really trying to understand this and even some of the stuff we heard in public comment today. It is complex. And late last night, as I was working on this and discussing it with with my wife and a friend of hers. It was immediately the conversation turned to how complex this stuff is and what do we do about technology and where is it going? And it's changing so fast. And what are people doing with our data? And I. I don't know. How is government we are going to. I don't yet know. How is government? We are going to act adequately, manage all the data that we're capable of capturing. And I think the process you've run so far on two technologies is outstanding. It was extremely time consuming and these are two of the easier ones. And I think we have a lot of work to do to figure out how we adequately safeguard this field that is constantly evolving and it has critical implications to the things that I think we share on this floor. And so I see this as the work you've done to date, including the amendments that I propose as an opportunity to pause and learn what we learned so far. But this is something that I think is going to be constantly evolving as we go forward with that. Colleagues, there are you should have four separate amendments that are on the what I'll call the salmon colored pieces of paper, the mirror, the four yellow ones that were handed out in a timely fashion. But there were minor changes that are one significant, three minor changes that had to happen, maybe two significant, two minor changes that had to happen. And it came after time. So thank you for suspending the rule so I can consider those. I'm going to walk through them in the order of the amendments. And so the first one I have is numbered Amendment five. So it says proposed Amendment five to Council Bill 119519 version to a this the document in front of you outlines nine different things they would change. These are things that last week had been reviewed by the departments and there was and I want to be careful not to mischaracterize anybody. But my take was there was kind of broad consensus from from our start in general that these would be consistent and allow them to do what they wanted to do. Council President And the second time I could walk through all nine of these pieces in attempt to clarify, I'm not sure that I will be able to clarify everything because it's somewhat technical. Or I could just take questions from people if they wanted me to walk through a specific item or over another. So I mentioned that it's on the salmon colored if you're looking at the top and perhaps maybe you printed it out without on color. It's dated 923, 2019, and it says V2 behind that date in the header. Just to be clear that when we discuss this and vote on it, we all know we're voting on the same thing. So the question is whether we take questions. We just want Councilmember O'Brien to sort of plow through. I'm. I can move swiftly if you'd like to do. I'd like you to move swiftly. And because I had a question on a few of them. So why don't you talk about what we're trying to do on this amendment? And I'm going to largely read from from the items, but I'll move swiftly. So first with this, this is these are all the changes that are incorporated in Amendment five. So to establish that closed circuit TV can only be used for the purposes outlined in Section 1.2, which is to monitor general traffic conditions on public rights of way traffic conditions after an unplanned incident in traffic conditions impacted by a planned event. It also says a closed circuit TV cannot be used in conjunction with facial recognition or lights license plate reader technology. I'm going to stop at number two. Since we have suspended the rules, I will ask, we may not need it. Both Greg and Lisa. This at least sit at the table in case some questions come up. I'll stop you in point number two, because this is why I'm not supporting this particular amendment. This this is an example. And number two, there's certainly not I would agree with number two where it says CCTV cannot be used in conjunction with physical facial recognition or license plate reader technology. I agree with that point. So why would I oppose it? If you look at and I don't expect you turn to the page, if you look at the SLR, which is a governing document, 4.2, it clearly states that, well, let me back up in the director's assessment of the technology. It clearly says and I'll read you that. The language in the report, it says. Facial recognition technology is not in use at the Department of Transportation. Should it be considered in the future? The surveillance ordinance specifies that any material or substantial changes to the current camera technology will be subject to the surveillance ordinance and require another SBIR process. So, I mean, just tell you what that says in the document already, that they're not using it and should they use it, another SAR would be triggered. So when I see that and there are other sections 4.2 in the OCR and page 23 which clearly says exactly what this technology is to be used for. Which is our commitment to use it only for those purposes that says these systems are built strictly for this purpose and no information about the plates that are captured to create travel times is stored or used for other purposes. Now, that language was agreed upon during this first cut, if you will, because we wanted to make it clear that is not to be used. And if it is to be used in another way, another SDR is created. So I'm using number two as an example of it's both redundant and necessary, and there are some other issues embedded in some of these that quite candidly. We've presented to you and negotiated a deal. Okay. So you could go with number. You could either rebut number two or go with number three. And I'll just state I don't disagree with anything you said. Council President Harold, the, the the essay itself is quite an extensive document. And my interest in putting this in the the condensed essay are, which is just a six page document is to highlight to make sure that for folks that are trying to track this in the public, they may not be able to find the language that you found. And I think facial recognition software is a critically important piece of what we're doing. Again, I agree with what you said, that this doesn't add it. It was already part of it, but the highlight in the condensed version, so that it is clear that someone who may have time to read a six page document but not a multi 100 page document, would be able to pull that out immediately. So I'll keep moving through this. Number three clarifies it closer to TV, maybe use for traffic, continuing studies images used for social media traffic updates and training materials, which are all current practices at our site. The fourth thing it does, it authorizes longer retention of still images used for training for social media traffic updates. Just to add, again, the intent is we don't take still images from these closed circuit TV cameras, but occasionally they will use still images, take a still image of it to post on, say, a Twitter feed that says there's an accident at this corner and show an image of it. That photo then would live on Twitter for a little longer, so it allows that to happen. Number five, under data minimization retention, which is section 3.2, it clarifies that the line items A through C or the only purposes for which the system can be used, which is live stream stream feed of current traffic conditions, recorded video traffic or for engineering studies or still images. Traffic conditions use and training materials are included in social media updates. It restrict social media updates to the subject of traffic only. It also requires written approval of each incidents of recording and retention, of instance of recording, and that we retain that for ten years, which is the existing city policy . Written approval is required for the for the recording of still images and the potential posting of social media annually. So again, if someone needs to record part of this closed circuit TV for a traffic engineering study, they would need to get written approval to record it. They could give blanket approval to make on an annual basis to take still images for from the closed circuit TV to use for social media so that every time someone wants to snap a picture for a Twitter account, they need to go to a written approval. So that would be a once a year and we give the guidelines for that. But for the other studies we need on a case by case basis, written approval. Let's keep going. We're. You're talking about Amendment five, still correct? Correct. I'm talking about number seven on Amendment five. So it's just let's go. Just stop it. Number go eight, nine for anybody. That would just take that by saying that things catch my breath. And so then the last two restricts operation of closed circuit TV to users who have undergone SDI training, including the handling and deletion of data. Again, making sure the folks that are using this have been trained on it and then requires live stream broadcasts to be consistent with the condensed air. I am by no means nearly an expert as either Greg or Lisa, and so it's probably appropriate for my colleagues to confirm with them that what I read was not misinterpreted or misleading at all. Or maybe there's something that we need to be clarified. I want to just make sure we're open to that. So as Councilmember O'Brien described all of amendment number five. Did you see something? I'm sure does. No, I was answering. Councilmember O'Brien, we don't have any comment. He read it accurately. Okay. So this is why I oppose this amendment, and I'll just take a vote in. And since we have other. We have a busy day. Some questions or if clarifying questions. Let me comment on this, since I'm the. Well, one would take your questions. First, I'm fine. I wasn't sure what order you wanted to go to, but didn't want to miss the opportunity to ask some questions here as as the the original sponsor of the surveillance technology ordinance. I just want to get some clarification on this proposed amendment. And this answer is probably or this question is probably applicable to all of the proposed amendments that we have here, particularly as it relates to the condensed SARS. But in terms of what is represented on proposed Amendment five to this Council bill, is anything are any of the specific changes that are articulated in the amendment not included in the underlying sir. Yeah. Gahanna is okay for council staff. We haven't done a point by point comparison and we expect that there would need to be some amendment, some revisions made just to harmonize it. Okay. So my understanding of how this has been described, both in council briefing and on the dais, is that the condensed ACR is intended to be, in effect, an executive summary of the contents of the survey. Did I hear the intent incorrectly, Councilmember O'Brien. No, that's that's my understanding, too. So ordinarily, executive summaries would would be completely 100% aligned with whatever the content is in the underlying document. So I'm now hearing from council central staff that that may not be the case and that there may be new requirements in the condensed ACR that are not actually reflected in the ESA. Correct in my if I may, my attempt here was that to focus on amending the six page document and then the SLR, which is hundreds of pages, with the understanding that as we make changes to the condensed version, it will require similar changes in the ACR. And again, I think the SARS. So the the and as Council President Harold said, if we do adopt, I think any of my amendments, we would not be able to vote on this to attach to the SARS, because that will require some changes. My understanding is that the departments have been tracking closely the proposed changes in the CCAR and I believe have an awareness of the things that need to be changed in the SARS. And what I've heard is it would just take them a couple of days to make those changes. But I, I am barely have my head around the complexity of the six page document. I definitely cannot personally speak to the complexity in the multi-hundred page document. So I mean, I think setting aside the complexities of each document, I think where my line of questioning is coming from is I'm concerned that we're using the condensed SARS, which were not envisioned or imagined or even. Articulated in the underlying surveillance technology audience that were using this additional tool to amend the underlying asset are thereby creating some potential conflict between a condensed SARS and the underlying SARS. And so what I'm hearing now is that that is actually true. We are creating conflict through adoption of these amendments with the underlying SARS. I think if we adopt these at the moment, there will be conflict again and won't be passed or adopted yet. My understanding in talking to folks who will be doing that work is they are prepared to reconcile those and have it be resolved within a week so that those conflicts would go away. And while I understand that and I appreciate that, I think where my concern is is that we're we're we're. We're effectively creating two different tools and multiple bites at the apple to modify the essay are in the essay are supposed to be the underlying document that is legally binding on the departments. And so I think it's inconsistent that that effect is in my mind appears to be inconsistent with the description of the condensed as they are and the intent, which is that it's for a couple of purposes, one, primarily for readability, so that if somebody from the street wanted to review Assayas, they could easily and identify the information and the obligations and the duties and responsibilities and then and and to to be effectively an executive summary of the underlying ACR, which is hundreds and could be up to hundreds of pages depending on the technology. So I guess I'm not I'm I'm, I'm, I'm having difficulty reconciling how your intent, which as described appears to be sort of. More technical in nature is actually not extremely substantive in nature in terms of actually modifying the NASA's. And I suppose there are lots of ways to meet the stated goals and purposes that you've described, including requiring the departments to make a more readable document of the underlying SSR and post that publicly so that people understand the rules of the game as it relates to whatever technology that they are using, as opposed to making substantive changes via a condensed SLR to as substantive as they are. So I think if I hear you correctly, your preference would be or would have been for me to be making amendments to the SARS document at this point, not the CSIR. Right. I mean. Substantive. I think Council President Harold raised that one. There was simply pulling language from the air, simplifying and putting in the CSIRO. That may have been an appropriate amendment to this and I acknowledge I did not I chose not to go into the as they are and amend it. But if that is in the future, how the Council should be weighing in on amending this technologies to go through that, I think that's something for us to think through and I'm certainly open to that. I'm not sure that I personally will be the one doing that because of my timing here. But yeah, I mean, I do think that that again, this is the first two technologies out of a list of dozens of technologies that that a city council perhaps not this city council will have to consider. And we are setting precedent in terms of how we are going to set up our process and how we're going to evaluate these these complex technologies and these complex policy issues. And in my mind and my understanding, the underlying answers are legally binding documents, and they have been incorporated into the ordinance at this point. And I think that the appropriate place to make these types of amendments are in the underlying C.R. and if we are truly interested in making those seers accessible and digestible and understandable to the general public, then we need to impose that requirement upon the agencies utilizing those technologies to do so rather than using, you know, condensed layers which are purported to be executive summaries as the place to do a mandatory work to the underlying science. Which leads me to my last question, which is are the condensed SARS also incorporated into the ordinance, or are these just separate and apart? Councilmember The condensed SARS would be attached to the ordinance and incorporated by reference same as the regular SARS. So now we have an easier to track compliance with and we have a condensed as are to track compliance with. That's correct. And if any of Councilmember O'Brien's amendments passed today, you would not vote on the bill. You would give a week or so to the departments to be able to bring those things into harmony. And then next week you could pass it with all of them being in sync. So. So I think I've articulated what my concerns are so far. I mean, I really do think we have an opportunity to set up a process that is clean and crisp here. And I and I don't say that to insult the process that you have undergone. Council President. I just am concerned that we're going to be creating two parallel documents that that in the future could be read in conflict and in thereby inadvertently create a situation where the city will be found liable or out of compliance with a surveillance technology ordinance, even though it had a meaningful, good faith intent to comply with a surveillance technology ordinance. Just based on this virtue that there are now two documents that that may be similar but not exact in terms of the language and the requirements upon upon the agency. So I'm I'm I'm struggling with with that reality if these amendments were to pass today. Thank you. Councilman Gonzales, you've actually described why I don't support these amendments. And in all due respect, Councilman Brian is are raising some some some great issues. These issues were raised and the SBIR was a 141 page document, 141 page document that I didn't describe in my introductory remarks. It has a very significant racial equity tool kit component and engagement and public process component, fiscal impacts, opponent questions to the city about what happens if employees or the departments misuse the technology? What happens to underrepresented communities if they are unfairly targeted or there's a disparate impact that 141 page document. It's a lot for the layperson just to sit there and read unless they ran out of good novels to read or something. And we then said, Well, let's condense it analysis CSIR. And again, as the chair trying to shepherd this legislation through. I want. I asked, are there any inconsistencies? We're talking about if one supersedes the other. There were to date, there were no inconsistencies. Can language be improved? Of course, in 141 page document, that could always be improved. But it's important that with the traffic camera technology, as example, that's why I preface by saying we've been using this for 19 years, we do not record. I mean, that was I think one person test testified about how there is some recording. But if you look at the use of this technology, again, camera views are masked for event viewing documents in in buildings. The staff are trained and as part of their requirements not to zoom in on individuals or license plates, we share the information with another agency. And when it is recorded in certain let's say there's a traffic study as an example, it is permanently deleted within ten days. These are conditions in the air that we must comply with. If we violate those conditions, we're subject to a private right of action, which again is unprecedented. So I see these. Amendments to the CSIR as being unnecessary and again, late for for lack of a better description. Sure. Anyway. So I'm ready to actually take a vote on amendment number five unless Councilmember Bryan wanted to describe it a little more. He went through the nine. But Casper and Bryan, did you want to say any more about an amendment or just talk about amendment number five at this point? No, I'll just you know, I'll apologize to colleagues if if I should have been trying to amend the SA instead of the CSIR, my understanding was this was the appropriate process to do it, but it sounds like there are some concerns about the strategy I used and I didn't intend to circumvent the process. I was just trying to get my policy things in there. So yeah, and I appreciate the apology, but. You're making an argument, I'm sure, carrying the water for somebody. And those arguments were made months ago in central staff. You can talk about your process. You did. To get us to date ready to vote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we revisiting issues that were conceded earlier in the process? Well. I was just guest to counter such that to respond to. That many of them. Yes. Okay. Great cast member and I do people in queue. I do think that some of these things is bringing language from one place to another and we can argue whether that adds any value or not. But there are other things, such as the requirement of written approval for someone recording the CCTV or taking still images from it. And that may have been discussed and it may have been agreed to, but I think that's an important policy decision for us to make as a council. And I feel strongly that if someone is going to deviate from the norm or we're not recording it and do record it, there should be a written record of approval to do that and that should be saved. And so if I should have done that in the essay instead of the CSIR, we should get clarity for how people make that. But I don't think these are meant to come to the council just to be rubber stamped. I think there is an opportunity for us to have a final influence on some policy decisions, and that's a few of the pieces that I'm trying to do in this piece. Council member. Herbal? No, I didn't know which one. First cancer herbal. Yeah, I guess it is it for me. It's less about. And I appreciate for the council members who have worked really hard on this, Councilmember Gonzalez, as as it relates to the overarching legislation in Councilmember Harrell as it relates to this particular body of work. But I'm in so I'm less concerned about the process piece of this and what order we should do things. And I am a little confused about the intent and what we're accomplishing. I was under the impression last week when we talked about these amendments in principle that the goal was to address a concern that the CSI hours were opening up this technology in ways that the SARS weren't and. Logically, it seems to me that if that was the case, we wouldn't need to go back and amend the stories because we would be these these amendments would simply be restating in a condensed form what the sabers already say. So if the goal. Is to make sure that the seizures do not broaden the ability to use the CCTV as as that's what I was under. That was what my understanding was. The goal is to make sure that the ability to use those cameras is not broadened beyond what was contemplated in the sale as they are. I'm not sure I understand why, after passing this amendment, we would need to go back and amend the SLR. So I think there's a couple different perspectives on this because it's new and we haven't been through the process. And so I think there's a lot of folks, including myself, trying to envision how this will be used and what happens. So I've heard people argue that because the language in the condensed SDR is condensed, and so it summarizes things. If someone were to just read that, it may not have the level of detail that says what you can and can't do. And so there's a fear that, no, you need to add more detail to this. So for instance, as Council President Harrell talked about that you can't use facial recognition software that is spoken of elsewhere in the ACR. But there's a sense, there's a fear that without that it feels like this is too broad or opening it back up to the concern you had. There are other places, like I mentioned, with getting written approval. That is actually a policy shift from what's in the document and we need to get reconciled and that's intentional. I just you know, I'm choosing the path that I thought was what we were going on. But we haven't we haven't laid out like a whole protocol for how we should amend CSA hours and hours of the council. And so we're kind of living through that as we go. Gaspar Pacheco. I was just going to call the question. Okay. We have a request to get on with the other 29 items on our agenda sooner or later. Councilmember Mesquita. Well, great. Do I get to speak? Yes. Amazing. Okay. I will go very short. I will go very briefly. Number one, I want to thank the council president for your work, to make sure that all these issues were raised in committee and central staff, really, for putting together sort of the matrix of the various issues that we are considering today and considered at the table. And a lot of work has gone into this. And also for folks at the ACLU, that crosswalk to me was very helpful. One of the things that I did with that on Thursday and Friday last week was to look through what items are sort of legally okay and what items are potentially challenging but not impossible to implement administratively. And I tried to identify where there was harmony between what was legally okay and implementable and support some of those efforts. And I think in this amendment specifically, there are items in there that we discussed that you're at the council presidents committee and I think are important for clarifying the intent here. So I agree that maybe there's some confusion about where it should be clarified and how we harmonize those documents. And my real effort here is to make sure that there's no confusion out there. One of the things that was raised at the table was a good example of how these closed circuit televisions, while tracking traffic issues may be used unintentionally by us, the city, to do things that we would never support. And they're one good example that I gave is escort. And Seattle Police Department had been working to provide safe areas for people to have a one day strike on Broadway a few weeks ago. That's an important effort that workers should have the right to do. I would hate for that information, even though it's never going to be recorded by the city, to be displayed on a monitor and have an employer record that and then use that to intimidate workers, for example, which is also not legal. But we want to make sure that we've protected our city in every way possible. And so there are some areas in there that I think we amended in your committee. I saw this. This amendment here was really elevating those pieces and creating greater harmony. I wanted to support it. And if this is not the right place to do that, perhaps we continue to work on it. But my intention was really to create that clarity while it might not be legally required. I thought it was a nice, helpful way to articulate the true intent of these technologies. So there was no ambiguity in the public. And I appreciate your ongoing entertainment of this conversation, Mr. President, but that's why I was going to be supportive. Thank you, Councilmember Mesquita. So thanks for the discussion on. We're just voting on amendment number five. Okay. Just to be clear, any more discussion, just amendment number five. So Councilmember O'Brien has made the motion to amendment. I think actually we. Haven't moved in such a move amendment. All move Amendment five is described on the salmon sheet, which has the date 923, 2019 and v2 after it. Again and councilman risk mitigated second. So I'm going to do a voice vote and just raise your hands so the clerk could get it. All those in favor of amendment number five. Say I and raise your hand, I. One to all those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. Yes. Okay. So that one failed. So we're going to move to amendment number four. I'm sorry. Number four, let's yeah, let's go backwards because we're going to go to is amendment number six six. So that's on salmon colored as well. Correct. Comes from Brown? That's correct. And his version, too. Not everyone printed on the same color page. So just want to be clearer. Clear their colleagues. I'll try to streamline this. This is a similar set of amendments, at least a similar theme as to the one we just turned down. Except it's for the other technology, the license plate reader technology. I'll walk through it really quickly, if that's okay. There's only six items to discuss. One is it clarifies the purpose and allowable uses of license plate reader data and the resultant travel time information. It restricts the use of all license plate reader data and not just data that includes license plate numbers. It prohibits the use of a license plate reader system to collect images of vehicles or occupants. It prohibits Ascot from providing data collected by the state of the art transportation license plate reader system to entities other than watchdog. It makes it explicit that Watchdog does not have access to the state license plate reader system, and it also restricts our state sharing of LPR data only to washed out for travel time purposes. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. And and I'll just respond, is the one of the proposal based legislation, the reason I'm not supporting this amendment is for pretty much the same reason I talked about earlier in the essay. And what we're trying to accomplish is very important, I think, to understand in the same way that our state is never in position, really possession of the images that first of all, the technology by its very nature doesn't capture all of the license plate, the capture of between 5 to 10%. As they move into view, the images are simply sent to watch Dot and the softer reads the plate number and as a timestamp that compares to time stands to match it on a plate in order for us to get the the reports that are generated and looking at travel time. So the department made it crystal clear the technology cannot be used for enforcement. We don't keep this data and we're trying to get traffic reports from it. And I believe that the proposed amendment by the maker is captured adequately in the ACR and again was thoroughly examined earlier in the process. Any other discussion on the amendment? Any questions? Okay. So I just want to. Councilmember Gonzalez, I. Just want to confirm the same sort of line of questioning I had in the first place. Is this effectively attempting to amend the C.R. or is this carbon copy? Nothing new here in terms of requirements, duties and obligations as reflected in the ESA. This issue is addressed in the OCR and the ARE and it is an issue where the department has outlined practice about the data that they capture. They have said that they capture raw data to include a timestamp, a station identifier, a camera channel, an alphanumeric plate string and a confidence factor. Most of those things, I don't know what they are, but what the amendment would do is say that Estcourt could capture those things and only those things. So if there was a another piece of data that the LPR wanted to capture, then it would have to be brought before you all in a new C.R.. However, that would be the case anyways because of the underlying surveillance ordinance. If there was any substantive change to any of the hours, they have to come before you again. Right. So capturing different kinds of information that go outside of what you just described that would be considered a material change that would require asked to come back to the city council to amend the ACR anyhow. That's correct. So that this is this this language is is helpful from a clarification and from a reader standpoint. But the reality of it is that the underlying ordinance protects against this anyway. No, no need to amend the C.R. if this passes. Well, it uses the language only. And as I've said before, if there were any other data captured besides whatever thoughts already listed, they would have to come ask you. So I would say that this is not legally necessary. That's very well. Understood that you're saying this is not legally necessary. My question, though, is, is would passage of this amendment require us to go back and amend the C.R.? Oh, thank you. I think the agency would still want to bring it into harmony. They would probably would take that only language and put it in the air. Does it require it? I would have to let the I would have to ask the attorneys at. Okay. So did you make the motion for Emily Casper and Brian for Amendment number six? I will move what's listed as proposed Amendment six with the date 1923, 2019, version two as discussed. Okay. So moved and second amendment number six has been moved in second. All those in favor say I and raise your hand. I. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. That's okay. So we're going to go to Amendment number seven on that. What was it, madam? I was asked what the countless in my book. 4 to 5. Okay. Number seven. Councilmember O'Brien, walk us through number seven, please. So this amendment and the next amendment are not a suite of amendments, but actually a single amendment, and they do relate to a policy amendment seven. Just for folks following, again, it's also on the salmon record, on the salmon colored paper. But at the top it has today's date, 923, 2019 and a V to buy it. So source version two. This this is about the license plate reader data and the requirement. Oh, sorry. No, that's the one. This is about the license plate reader. And that makes it explicit that that will not be used, made available in response to civil or criminal enforcement purposes, except as provided by a superseding judicial warrant to me. The language you saw earlier today was more broad. And the concern that was raised, which I share, is language that simply says I'm going to pull up my yellow version from this morning. I'm saying give it to someone so I don't have it in front of me. Would be had said except as prohibited by law without the technical reality that this data is being collected by people that for the most part aren't lawyers. And the concern is that if someone like ICE were to approach someone and say, hey, I'm a federal agent, I need you to hand this over, and federal law says you have to give it to me. How are they going to interpret and what do they do? And I'm worried that that language that is vague or broad would allow that to happen in cases that we don't want it to happen. I both want to acknowledge that the potentially hypothetical nature of these scenarios and it's hard to walk down all those hypothetical scenarios. And at the same time, there are enough examples in today's world where these types of transactions are happening and that maybe in the case where there's an employee somewhere who feels strongly that they want to share information and this gives them the cover to do that, or someone that's just not an expert on it. And so, again, this is the the language that I think is narrowly tailored to say the only conditions under which this information can be shared and used for civil or criminal enforcement purposes. Fran Gonzalez, thank you. I see this amendment as more than just an amendment to the underlying SLR via the condensed, as I actually see this as a potential amendment to the underlying ordinance where this issue around warrants and what kind of warrants would merit or require an agency to share data or information gathered through technologies approved by the Surveillance Technology Ordinance and through the searches. We had had a very long conversation in the original drafting of the surveillance technology ordinance around sort of around this burden of proof or requirement of when that information or data should be shared originally. So I'm not going to support this amendment because I see it as frankly not. I see it as going back into the surveillance technology ordinance and actually underlying amending or attempting to amend the underlying warrant requirements around when agencies are intended to share information that may have been captured with law enforcement or for other purposes via this particular language. And that that is very that to me is a different policy conversation. If we want to amend the surveillance technology ordinance to modify that standard or to, you know, change our obligations somehow in terms of how we respond to judicial warrants, then we should have that conversation. Okay. So and I opposed it as well. Then I just want to go back to the technology again and I understand the the hypothetical concerns, but in the NCR, we make it very clear we we we don't use it for enforcement. It's never used for enforcement. We don't we're not in possession of the LPR images. We are not in possession of it. We transfer 5 to 10% of the reads with some competency level and we get information back. And the department has stated that as its exclusive use of the document so the of the technology so in there but consumer brands you won't see one closing word on. This I concur that we're clear that the city will not be using this enforcement. This language is specifically that we do not hand it over to someone else to use it for civil or criminal enforcement purposes. And that's the distinction. Very good distinction. And I don't know when we are obligating that it's not to be used by a third party that we have another kind of control over. We want I don't know if that would be a liability we would want to assume in our ordinance. And so it's been moved and. Yeah. Do you want to say something, sir? I'm sorry, I'm trying to. We're good. I'd love to hear what comes from Gonzales has to say about that. This is pretty. If we're if we're setting new policy that was debated in the underlying surveillance ordinance, I really want to defer to the prime sponsor of that bill to hear her concerns. Yeah, if I could just add to that. I mean, I think we again, another another policy discussion and decision point that we made in the underlying ordinance was was the question around whether or not we should require third parties or outside parties to comply with the restrictions and requirements and legal mandates of our surveillance technology ordinance. In the debate around that particular question, this Council decided to not to to to only make sure that those rules are applying to what we control and how we can use the data. Now, there are situations that are reasonable. Largely, we heard from from the Seattle Police Department and some other agencies where we receive legitimate judicial warrants for purposes of public safety reasons. And the question became, are those agencies responsible for handing over that information if we possess it, not what other agencies might be doing with that data or information, but what do we have in our possession and what are our legal obligations under under constitutional law and otherwise to respond to those judicial warrants? Again, I'm happy to have this conversation about changing that threshold or that potential policy. But I fundamentally see this as an attempt to resurrect that conversation, which fundamentally would have the effect, in my mind, of of of modifying the base base ordinance of a surveillance technology which had already decided under which circumstances the city of Seattle would be required to respond to a judicial judicial warrant if we were in possession of data or information that was gathered as a result of surveillance technology that we had been utilizing, and that was appropriately approved through a search process. So I'm just flagging my concern that this is going much further than just amending an SLR, but actually amending the underlying ordinance. That may be something we want to have a conversation about again, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that conversation in the context of of a search that is specific to one type of technology, because I think the implications are much broader. Okay. Was Kasper and Brown's amendment? It was not moves. So Kasper and Brian, will you move amendment number seven? I will move. I will move amendment number seven dated today 923 2019 version to. Second. Guess moves and second amendment number seven and moving second and all those in favor say I and raise your hand. All although the polls say no. One, raise your hand. No. Don't fails to. So let's go to number eight. So this one also relates to the license plate reader technology and the relationship between start and Wash, not the State Department of Transportation and the city department transportation. This council president Harrell, you described, I think in layman's terms, a bit of how the technology works. What we capture is handed off to another department. My understanding is currently there is not a written requirement for I'm sorry, a written agreement between our stop and wash night. But the underlying language would require that we're sorry. This amendment would require that within six months, there needs to be a written requirement, a written agreement as to how that data is shared and specifically adds language that the watchdog would need to be held to the same requirement and restrictions set forth in our policies. So I'm going to pull up from the language for a second and just try to articulate why I think this is particularly important. We are collecting some data. I believe that the reasons for collecting the data are legitimate reasons to study travel times, and I think they serve the public well. They do have the potential to be misused. You know, we aren't collecting personally identifiable information license plates in certain times of day. And where people. Are. Our policies are that that data is deleted almost immediately once we've served the purpose of measuring travel times. But when we hand that data off to another party, that's not bound by those same conditions. There's a fear that someone may use that data for other sources for other purposes, or they may hand it over to another agency that requested for other purposes. And I think this is at the heart of the entire surveillance ordinance and the things that I think is appropriate for us as a council to struggle with. There's a number of ways I think this could play out. If this amendment passes there in the next six month, why start in? Our state could come to an agreement of data sharing that basically holds washed out to the same standards we're holding them to. At which point, I would feel very comfortable that the data sharing would continue and we would continue to read the information. It may be that why start or start come back to us and say we were unable to reach agreement washed out, was not willing to be held to the same standards as our state at that point. This amendment would require that they no longer share the data, which means we would no longer have that travel time information . Because as far as I know, with the technology, the only way we can get the travel time information is by sharing the data with Washed. That, I think is a legitimate policy question that this council can struggle with. If, if asked, felt strongly that they wanted that information, they could come back to this council before that and say, hey, we we can only get X, Y and Z in the agreement. And we would like you to amend the the the ACR, the CCAR to give us some more flexibility. Or we can decide, no, it's not worth the risk of collecting that data without the assurances. And we'd rather live without the travel time data because the idea that this might be used against our will for data, for things, you know, such as immigration or ICE, doing it to track down people in cities, Seattle. So I'll stop there. I think that this is the type of thing that is appropriate for us to be doing and laying out the guidelines by which we not just collect information, but the conditions under which we would share it with other parties. And and I don't want to prejudge what a future council may decide as what's the appropriate balance there. But at the moment, I think it's appropriate to say that that watchdog should be held to the same standards and ask them to go work on that data sharing agreement. Thank you, Councilman O'Brien. I'll make a comment sort of consistent with my other comments. The reason I don't support this amendment. First, I know that the law department has raised some issues that I won't divulge the issues, but I think they flagged this one. I'll just put it that way. Is that correct, Greg? That's correct. It was flagged. I'll just leave it at that, number one. But number two, I think as a as a city, if we choose not to use LPR. We can start using it. This is we are a recipient of the information we're getting. We've used it since 2007. We are getting good data for traffic management, which is the purpose of the LPR. And I think that the chances of us getting washed out within six months to agree to this kind of surveillance ordinance are slim to none. And I think that would be fooling ourselves if we think within six months we can achieve that. Now there are another there is another route, I think, to get there that could be perhaps in the future, council could set a resolution and negotiate with the wash DOD and have our department work with them to put in the right safeguards. But I think to require it now in this process is. Is burdensome and impractical. I think we should should try to get there another way, though. I would like to have washed out and guarded as much as we are, but I don't think we'll be able to achieve that within six months. And if we don't, either we have to pull the technology or we are in violation of our ordinance. Councilmember Gonzales. Thank you. I just want to go back in my time machine again to when we first had a debate around the surveillance technology ordinance. This was also another policy point that was debated, discussed and ultimately rejected by the city council. When we approved the surveillance technology ordinance, there was a there was a strong interest by the advocates at the time to require, as an overarching principle within the surveillance technology ordinance, that whomever we do business with sign a contract, an agreement agreeing to comply with our ordinance. And we had a very long debate and discussion around whether, as a matter of policy that was practical or appropriate for us to impose our city law in some cases up meaning to the federal government or to the state, and whether we have legal standing to be able to actually make that enforceable setting and that that conversation was separate and apart from whether from whether or not it was even practical to be able to have that kind of contractual relationship with agencies that we deal with. So again, during that debate, we determined that that was not a direction we wanted to head with the understanding that the servers would take care of any potential concerns related to the type of information we were capturing that might be available to third party agencies that would cause a significant privacy concerns and that the servers were the place where we needed to make sure that those restrictions were in place in order to comply fully with our own ordinance. So it's similar to, I think, the way that we look at information, we gather at the city in general as it relates to ICE enforcement, you know, we can only be compelled to hand over what we actually collect. So we need to be very careful about what we are collecting, knowing that federal agencies and state agencies will even under even under this rubric will be, you know, still have FOIA and other public records, request tools to be able to get that information from us. But again, I see this I see this amendment as as opening the door again to that policy question that we had in the underlying surveillance technology ordinance, debate around whether or not we were going to impose upon third parties an obligation to comply with the surveillance technology ordinance before we agreed to do business with them as memorialized in a separate and in an agreement that was separate and apart from the sur, separate and apart from the condenser, and certainly separate and apart from the underlying technology ordinance. So I think that it really creates a very complicated system. I think it's also going to result in a situation where we will never engage in regional efforts with any agency at all, whether it's a legitimate or even if it's a legitimate reason to engage in business with a regional agency. So, again, I'm I'm just we may want to have that conversation from a broader policy perspective, but I don't think it's appropriate to have that that make that policy decision in the context of of an amendment. I guarantee that this amendment will turn up again when we consider other other types of technologies related to other departments. And if if that's going to be the case, then let's reopen the surveillance technology ordinance to have that conversation. Thank you. Councilman Gonzalez, did you want to make the motion? Did you want to? I wanted to just go someplace. Can Councilman Gonzales, my my intent when we passed the original surveillance ordinance was indeed, if we weren't going to have a blanket requirement, because it wasn't clear how that would be enforceable, that the third parties would be bound by this. But for me at least, it didn't preclude saying on a case by case basis, as we gather technology, if it's necessary to share with third parties that we are, it's not it would be appropriate for us to consider what requirements we put on that data when it goes out our door and we essentially lose all control of it. And this is one that I think, you know, what this amendment sets up is the possibility, which I think is real frankly that washed out and asked can reach agreement that watchdogs like. Yeah we delete the data as soon as we process it our vendors do the same thing. It comes back to you. We're happy to sign on to those conditions. It's fine and we get to keep moving forward. And if they're unable to do that, it'd be good to understand. Why they're unable to do it. Is it because. No, we like to keep that in case we want to give it to somebody or is it technically not feasible? And here's the reason we need to do it. And at that point, they could come back to the council, decide on the policy decision, do we even want to be collecting license plate information for the purpose of the traffic? Is a trade off not worth it anymore if we don't have control of what that data is being used for? So I feel strongly that this is an appropriate place to add a third party requirement. This doesn't say I mean, this says that without this agreement after six months, they would have to stop collecting the data. But obviously the parties could come back to the council between now and then and say, we think it's really important that we keep collecting it and here's what we're able to agree to. And we think you should make the case to the to the public. We can make the case publicly that we're collecting it without this. I fear what what I have to tell constituents is we collect this data. We have strict controls on what we can do with the data, but we are giving it to another agency, which we don't have any control over what they do with it. We hope that they will honor our concerns, but we don't have the control over it. And that causes me some concerns. Okay. So you want to make the motion concerned, Brian? May I ask the question? Council member Herbold. Does the Lane current language not still require a that third party agreement? It just simply doesn't say that the third party agreement are the same restrictions and requirements in the seizure. So there's still that sorry. The underlined part is not the amendment. That was my amendment to the new amendment. But we should ask Central South. I believe this whole language was is new. Yes, I think that you're right. Councilmember Harold Herbold. Sorry, the the language that that is in the case now in the seizure state and was state must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing the LPR data. And it's made clear in other areas of the seizure that that data is to be used only for traffic purposes. I think that is already underway. I believe that is the case. If START came back and said that they think that the data might be used for something else, they would be obligated under the surveillance ordinance to come back to the council. The the difficult part about this amendment is how would the city of Seattle enforce any kind of agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation? So we would still have the ability to sort of have that analysis of those trade offs if there was either no agreement or the agreement was inconsistent with the sur. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I'll. Can I can I just. Please clarify. I believe what the underlying if this if my amendment fails, the language that will be in the seizure will simply say, I start in Washington must have a written agreement pertaining to sharing NPR data. That's correct, but not the conditions under which they are. I think that there's more. There's more. Conversations. Sir? Yes, sir. Aye, sir. As well. You know. And I think that the purpose is for traffic collection. For collection of traffic data and calculating travel times. Yeah. I think it's important to note that we don't know why. Shots. Our retaining requirements are under state law. We know what ours are and what we're willing to live with. And so this amendment again imposes the same requirements that we have in our CSR, but we don't know what all those policies are. And I think we heard this, this discussion was a lively debate at the working group level and this is where we had come out on it, which is inconsistent with this amendment. Okay. It's been moved. Has it been seconded? It has not been moved. So because remember. And can you. Move? I will move to ask the clerk. There's a version two and a version three that I think are identical. So I'm just going to stick with. Okay. I don't believe anyone has version three in front of him. Oh, you do? Three. I'm not sure that there's I did a quick look over to maybe moved here based on the last three amendments, but we should probably at least get it accurate. We should have more data. You can see that. I see that I compared the language to try to figure out what changed between version two and version three, because they both say as of 1:15 p.m. at 923. I think they're identical, sir. Okay. So I'm going to go with version two just because that's the only one everyone has. And if it turns out we missed something, then we'll deal with that later. But it may not turn out. So I'm going to go ahead and move Amendment eight on the Salman sheet that's listed at the top as 923 2019 version two. Their second let's imagine amendment number eight has been moved in second and all those in favor say I in raise your hand. I. Always the polls say no and raise your hand no. It is what fails. It failed. Three, six. Do we have a number nine? No, I'm not moving nine or ten. So I'm done counting. President Herrell. Okay. Thank you so much. Time and that exercise. Well, I appreciate your indulgence. Councilmember Pacheco. You may lead us through the oil heat legislation, so get your Robert's Rules of Order hat on pretty soon here. So what? This thing leaves us with the legislation that passed out of the committee, and I'll describe that as amendment number 11. And that's just the way it's written up. So there are not a eight, nine, ten or 11. So let me just let me clarify what motion I'm making. I am making a motion number 11 that basically incorporates the amendments that unanimously passed at committee table that incorporate the 2 hours and the two CSI hours coming out of that out of the committee. Okay. I hope that's clear. So I'm going to move to pass amendment number 11. Is there a second? Okay. Okay. Okay. Somebody from the Comedy Central States that. Okay. Any discussion on this amendment? And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it passes because of all the hard work that everyone's done. All those in favor of the amendment say i. I. I. Opposed. Okay. The amendment passes. So now we have a surveillance ordinance as amended that's ready for vote. Yeah. Let me find my number here. Just one sec. Hmm. It is number. 119519 council member. Sorry, sir. I'm not sure. Okay. I'll say a few things after. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of Council Bill 119519 as amended. Whereas I must get to O'Brien. Pacheco I so want to make sure. Gonzalez Bill President Harrell I nine in favor nine opposed. The bill passed and chair of Senate. Let me just say a few thanks to councilmember Brian for and Shankar thanks for pushing the envelope on all of these issues. I know that some things were not gotten that people did want, but I think it's still one of the the best surveillance ordinances this country has seen. I hope we're setting the bar for other citizens in states to follow. Councilman Gonzales, I want to thank you for your full engagement and your leadership on the surveillance ordinance Saad Bashir, Ginger and Brewster, Jason Cambridge and Adam Emery, Greg and Lisa, thank you very much. Greg Doss, Lisa Kay, Kate Garman, awesome as usual and the Community Surveillance Working Group, thanks you for all of your engagement. So with this, it was a long time coming, but thank you for all your work in Councilman Brian. Thank you again. I also want to just personally thank Greg and Lisa and I'm not sure which names of folks that start in the light apartment who are responding to your requests on my behalf over the weekend to get through that. And that was a really Herculean effort. And despite my disappointment in the outcome today, I'm extremely grateful for the time you all put in to this this weekend and the past few weeks to keep you up to speed.