Adoption of Resolution Establishing a Privacy Policy, Data Management Policy, and Prohibiting the Use of Face Recognition Technology. (City Manager)
Second. Okay. I have a motion to take item six ahead of six p and it's been seconded. All in favor. Hi, Mr. De. You went away? Yeah, sure. Yeah. Okay, let's make that unanimous. Okay. So with that, we will take item six, the. Adoption of resolution establishing a privacy policy data management policy and prohibiting the use of face recognition technology. All right. And that is is that assistant city manager. Ready to go? You want to go down to the podium and. Yeah. Yeah, that's nice. And then click it down. Okay. All right. Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft vice mayor knocks white members of council. My name is Jerry Bowden, assistant city manager. And as with a lot of things that come out of the city manager's office, this is a collaborative effort with the city attorney's office, police department, I.T. department. And I just want to send a quick shout out to Prachi Patel, who is our intern in the office. She did a lot of background research on this effort. So I'll start there this evening. We are talking about about privacy, data management this evening. And it's going to be a really brief presentation. I'm going to try and highlight a lot of the things that are in the draft resolution covering the policies that are related to how this city manages our residents privacy and the data that's collected as part of our ongoing operations. The purposes of the materials are really to state the city's commitment to maintaining and building trust by commuting how communicating how the city goes about protecting the integrity of the personal data and ensuring that there's transparency in how we collect the data and how it's used. So to that end, we do have a resolution with three attachments this evening. They're identified as three topic areas. On this slide, there are exhibits A, B and C with the staff report, and I'll go through them in pretty quick, pretty short order here. This is the lengthiest that are the one I'll spend the most time on. These are the the framework or the overarching privacy principles that have that emerged as part of this effort. So there's a there's a need to protect the privacy of the of the data that we collect and the individuals who are represented in that data . As we go about our our service delivery in the community, we realize that privacy is key to the health, safety and welfare, as well as the security of those people who are living, working and visiting our community. So there are seven privacy principles that have been assembled for your consideration this evening, and I'll just touch on them with a sentence. There's much more to each of these in the attachment, but I just want to give you a sense or a flavor for each of these, so I'll try and do that as efficiently as possible. The first is design and use of sorry design and use of equitable privacy practices. This is acknowledging that the community safety and access doesn't have to come at the expense of privacy, and we really want to ensure that we're not discriminating when we collect that information. So that's the first. The second is that we're going to limit collection and retention of personal information. And this means that we're really only going to collect and store personal information as long as it's justified to serve the purpose for which we've collected it. The third is managing personal information with diligence, and we're really trying to take care of the information that we collected keeping our security and management systems current. The fourth is extending privacy protections to our relationships with third parties. We do have relationships with other agencies and entities, and so when we're sharing data, we want to do it in a way that's consistent with the principles that we're talking about here, but also making sure that we're disclosing that information unless we aren't allowed to do that by law with the people that we've collected the information from the fifth item is the fifth principle that we've assembled here is safeguarding individual privacy and public records disclosures, Public Records Act requires. And so to open government needs, we have to make sure that we're in compliance with the law when it comes to these areas. But we also want to do that while we're maintaining individual privacy interests. The sixth item is being transparent and open. We do want to make sure that the community knows why we're collecting the data, how we're using the information. And to that end, we want to ensure that we're including easy to understand language on our website and with our forms. And then the last principle that we'll touch on here is to be accountable to Alameda residents. If there's a need for surveillance technology, we want to make sure that we have that conversation publicly and we review and discuss those requests so I can move a little a little faster from here. One of the central reasons we're talking about these principles and the data management aspects of this report is because data has become just a key asset for the kind of work that everyone sharing when we're trying to provide good service and when it comes to our services, programs and projects, we want to make sure that we're being efficient and convenient, but also transparent. So we are we have assembled a data management policy as well with this resolution. It's intended to really talk about how we're storing, managing and using the data. I'm going to just jump down here. So we're talking a little bit about the. Policy, including several examples and types of information that the city collects and how it's collected. We do that through websites, application forms, paper or electronic phone messages. We like every other organization in this day and age. We're collecting a lot of data over the course of the day. So we really want to make sure that where we're talking to as we're as we're doing this work, we're telling people that the policy doesn't apply to data and information collected for public safety as well. We want to make sure that that's clear in this policy, those individualized and serious nature of the kind of work that happens when you're whether you're responding to an emergency or whether it's part of an investigation. There's really a variety of personal information that may be collected in those instances, and those are covered by separate policies. And we can talk about those this evening as well, but that's not part of what we're discussing this evening. And the final topic this evening is face recognition technology. This is an area that continues to grow. There's growing concern regarding the privacy and equity because individuals who are having their face scanned may not even know that that's happening. And so the policy attached as Exhibit C makes it clear that there is a prohibition that we're recommending this evening that no staff shall obtain, retain access or use facial recognition technology or that information that might be obtained from that kind of technology. And there are a series of exceptions to this. Again, coming back to public safety and criminal investigations, also things like our our cell phones that have face recognition technology that help us just access our our technology easier. Those are those are exempt. So with that, staff is recommending that council adopt a resolution establishing a privacy policy, a data management policy, and prohibiting the use of face recognition technology. And that concludes staff's presentation this evening. And we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Do we have any clarifying questions before we hear from our Public Speakers Council? So let me. Councilmember Desai. Yes. So are you saying that the facial recognition policy would allow for police use of facial recognition, or is it precluded? No. So what we're saying is that face recognition technology would not be something that the city of Alameda would be would be using ourselves. But if face recognition technology was used as part of a criminal investigation by another agency and it was part of and it came into our investigative process that would that would be a loophole that could be explored. It wouldn't be something that we would seek out or in any way pursue. It's just something that because of because of the nature of investigations and the fact that it's not illegal, it might be something that would happen outside of Alameda. So let me ask the question. So suppose there is a video of someone doing some kind of crime at an ATM? We don't know the person, but we have the person's face. Are you saying that we can't then take that face and subject it to some kind of facial recognition system? The city of Alameda would not do that. Okay. Okay. I'll ask questions later. Thank you. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Okay. Let's go to our public speakers. How many are. There? We have six. Okay. So with six, you can have up to six at 3 minutes. Hello. The first one is. Also. For Salah al-Bakri and then Tim Kingston and then Brian Hoffer. Good day. Good evening. Thank you for having us here. My name is Talal Bacterium, the executive director of Support Life Foundation, an organization that is focused on social justice and economic justice. We're here in Oakland. I'm also a member of the Northern California Islamic Council, which is an umbrella organization to over 128 Muslim organizations in the bay . And I'm here to speak in support of a complete facial recognition ban. It's time I remember watching the movie for Tom Cruise and 2003. What was it? Never report. That was it. I think was Minority Report. Minority Minority Report. And I had an attorney with me at the time and I, I said, I don't think this is for our future. I really think this is close by. And he said, no, no. I said, I shouldn't worry about it. He said, No, you should, because privacy in California is a right, but only if you defend it. For me as an activist, this is something that's really terrifying. I am appearing in many different protests around the bay here. I speak up my mind as publicly. Last thing I want is for somebody to have my profile wherever I go. Not that we're already profiled as as members of my community. I have seen a very large reduction of people accepting posts at mosques as executive committee. In other words, this mosque will have, as part of their resolution of the charter that they have to elect their members. Nobody wants to serve on a board because of the extra surveillance that the Muslim community is feeling that they're living as a minority. For me, as somebody who really believes strongly in the values of democracy, I think it's very detrimental to democracy when we take away the factor of privacy at large. Who would run for office if he thinks that that thing that he did when he was a teenager is recorded on a server? God knows where and when that will and it will be used against him if he runs for a campaign. Imagine how many great candidates we would be losing if this technology is allowed to prevail. The hardware is everywhere. We have cameras everywhere. We have plate readers everywhere. All we need is to switch on the software. If that happens, imagine the repercussions we have on ourselves as a society. Thank you. Thank you. And our next. Speaker, Tim Kingston and Brian Hofer, then Matt Cagle. Hello. Hi. My name is Tim Kingston, and I'm a member of the San Francisco Public Defenders Racial Justice Committee. And I'm here to speak in favor of an ordinance, not a policy, to ban the use of facial recognition technology and regulate the use the acquisition of new surveillance equipment on the island. I strongly urge the Alameda City Council to cast a vote in favor of privacy, civil rights and the rule of law. Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco have all banned facial recognition technology without any ill effect. Emeryville is considering it. Meanwhile, a number of other cities, including Davis, Palo Alto, the BART System, Santa Clara County, have all put in place surveillance technology, acquisition ordinances without any problems or any lawsuits. Bans on facial recognition, facial recognition technology and push backs against overly aggressive surveillance technology are almost becoming mainstream. It's been raised in Congress. This should be an ordinance. It's timely and it's necessary, even if there are going to be a challenge to Almeida's ordinance as opposed to a policy, there is not the danger of any financial distrust on the part of the city. From what I understand, I'm going to speak specifically to facial recognition technology and its constitutional dangers. As a public defender investigator, I'm all too familiar with the problems that can ensue when a few overzealous officers cross the line with the new technology and then have to be reined in by the courts. Simply put, it's unconstitutional. It's a violation of the first the fourth and Fifth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment because it offers a very real possibility of chilling free speech. All but the most determined people will be think twice about going out on a public demonstration. If they know they're going to be surveilled, it will reduce public in public debate. And this is also particularly true of people of color due to the way that Africans, Latinos and other people of color tend to be targeted by law enforcement. It's highlights California's constitutional right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Roberts declared, A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, one seeks to preserve as private. Even an area accessible to the public may well be constitutionally protected. This is true of cell phones. It's absolutely true of your face. Finally, facial recognition violates the Fifth Amendment. Probably self-evidently, if facial recognition technology is used to ID someone against a database without a warrant, that's person's very face is the thing that gets them arrested. A US district court recently overruled police who forced someone to open their iPhone their iPhone 11 with their face. iPhone 11, lots of people have them. They're open by facial recognition technology. Thank you, Mr. Kingston. Our next speaker, Brian Hoffert. Then Matt Cagle, then go ahead. And Mohammad Mohamud. Good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. My name is Brian Hofer. I'm the executive. Director of Secure Justice. I'm here in support of the three proposals in. Item 16 and ask that you support each one in a following manner that you adopt the. Privacy principles as written. Tonight, resolution is fine with us that you direct the staff to return with an ordinance for the non law enforcement data management practices piece in that you direct the staff to return with an ACLU model ordinance following San Francisco's ground breaking lead, which is a separate exhibit in your agenda pack here that would govern surveillance equipment and contain the facial recognition ban. I want to discuss a little bit as chair of the City of Oakland's Privacy Commission, I have a pretty privileged front row seat. Earlier this year, our Commission adopted a set of principles crafted by the UC Berkeley Law Samuelson Clinic. I believe supervising attorney Megan Graham is back there. I want to recognize her. That's the basis for the language that's in your agenda. Packet We were really appreciative of their work. The mass slaughter during the Holocaust rarely relied on law enforcement. Data is generated by Census Bureau's here in America. When we put the Japanese in camps, it was census and tax record data. So these other two pieces are absolutely critical as we move into the era of smart cities, more data mining, it's going to be critical. We all know it's not a matter of if a data breach is going to occur, but when. So we're really excited you're going down this road. I do want to thank Councilmember Vella for helping us start this conversation about a year or so ago and then at the time, Councilmember Ashcraft, for meeting with us, along with Chief Law Larry and others to begin discussing. In this ACLU style ordinance, there's now seven in place in the Bay Area. Six have been adopted by unanimous vote. San Francisco has a 10 to 1. Across the country, there's 13 of these that are law and a whole bunch more in the works. So it's safe to say that this is the new norm. This is the way things should happen at the local level. As I pledged a year ago and just sat down with the chief and basically pledged to my first born son, we're here at your disposal. We've got. It. He accepts. He did. He said he wasn't his name. We have any policy template you're going to need at this point. Santa Clara County, you know, they're very wealthy, very rich. They have over 77 policies. We have excluded an awful lot of items since them since their ordinance was passed. So I anticipate you'll have maybe 5 to 6 policies. We've worked with similarly sized cities like Davis and Berkeley. They have 4 to 5 policies. The administrative concerns we can get you to a comfort level if you do direct staff to return, you know, February, whatever we're looking at. We'll start setting up meetings, will work with you guys, work with the staff to get you to that happy spot. If these ideas do mean something that they do need to be an ordinance. Thank you, Mr. Hood, for next speaker. Matt Cagle, then Gordon Mahmoud and then Mark Knapp, Muntari Mohammed. Good evening. My name is Matt Cagle and I'm an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. Thanks for having me here tonight. I've met with many of you before and the chief as well. And we're happy to see this policy finally come before the city council. We urge the city council to stand up for the civil rights and civil liberties of Alameda residents by moving forward with an ordinance that ensures the public and the city council and stakeholders within the city have a voice in decisions about surveillance and are at the table when these technologies are proposed so the community isn't caught off guard. So we aren't caught off guard by a vendor who seeks to make money off of residents information. These are controversies that Alameda has seen before and could avoid with this kind of ordinance. Importantly, this ordinance, as Mr. Hofer and others said, also draws a line in the sand when it comes to facial recognition technology and its use against the public. This is a technology that threatens not just our right to go down the street, that basic freedom we all enjoy without being tracked or the right to go to a political protest with without having your name logged in a database. It also implicates your right to not be treated as a suspect by having your face logged in a database of individuals who can be tracked at a later date. This measure, taken together the two parts, the ordinance or excuse me, the oversight measure and the facial recognition ban, really make sure that the democratic process applies to something that by definition operates in secret surveillance. And it makes sure that the community won't be caught off guard by profit seeking vendors and that rights won't be violated in this really important era. This ordinance is common sense. It's straight forward. As others have said, more than half a dozen Bay Area communities have adopted it. Over a dozen American communities have adopted it, and it's proven workable. The ACLU is happy to be a resource if there are questions about how to draft something like this, since this is based on a concept and a model that the ACLU has drafted previously. And finally, we do want to emphasize that it is important that this be adopted as an ordinance. The public stakeholders and the Council are they you deserve and we deserve and they deserve the assurance that this is enforceable law and that it will be complied with by everyone. And that's, I think, the intent of all the city actors. And so it makes sense to adopt it as an ordinance. Finally, I want to separately put in a plug for the privacy principles, which were drafted by some great students at the Berkeley Law School and that have been adopted as resolution, I believe, in Oakland and versions of this have been adopted in other cities in the Bay Area as well. We consulted with the students on that and they are really great set of principles. Please don't hesitate to contact me or the ACLU if you have questions going forward and we urge you to adopt the facial recognition ban and the oversight ordinance and to approve these principles. Q Mr. Speaker. We received an additional speaker slip, so now we have seven. Okay. So now that there is more than six, your time goes down to 2 minutes. Yes. Okay. Want our next speaker yet? Khalid Mahmood. And then. Good evening. It's a pleasure to see all of you and to thank you for your service. Thank you for serving our community. I know there's a lot of family members that are missing you right now, and you do this on our behalf. I come here as a father, as a son, as a father, a husband, and just your average community member. My hands are in a lot of things, but I come here for that little girl right there. She has a future to feel enfranchised in this country. September 11th, I was one of those victims of 800 tips. I quit my job. I went to another job. And it didn't kind of strange. And every every American was. I was told, if you see something, say something. So I quit my job and I got another job. And the next thing I know, I have the FBI at my door and my mother in law said what you just did. And I said, I did nothing, Mama. And I'm from Ethiopia and I'm an immigrant. I have a large family. And I always tell them, September 11th is a day I had to make a decision. Do I believe in the principles of freedom, fair play values, that to feel that your neighbor is your neighbor and your brother or not? And I had to make a decision. That decision said, no, I will not stand for this. I went straight to that FBI office and I told them who I was and what I am. And when I sat there with them in that white room like a scene out of a television class, I mean, you know, so I was like, wow, you have everything. Elementary school, junior high, high school, college, where I live, what I eat. I think we have to draw the line. And I think you guys need to think about we need to think about 50 years from now or 30 years from now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we hear. Mark Monitor Mohammed and then Samina Usman. Samina here. Good evening. Thank you so much for the opportunity. I'm here to call for an ordinance to prohibit the use of facial recognition technology because it's unreliable, it's biased, and it's threat to the basic rights and safety. While proponents of this technology might come and tell you that this technology is really good, it helps to discover like genetic disorders or improve the consumer are consumers in the banking and retail industry, or they can say that it helped to improve the security check in the airport. However, it's still pose a serious threat to human rights and fundamental freedom. This type of technology has proven to be performing very poorly in the people with people with darker skins notes and also on women it has. So it's broking, it's unfair and it's it's very biased. So with this type of technology will lose the freedom of expression, freedom of social assembly and association. So we're not calling to regulate this type of technology. We want to ban this type of technology. Thank you so much. Thank you. And did you say Samina Yasmeen? Yes. Is she here? Oh, she's coming. Okay. I would say I know her and I don't see her in the room. Well, I'm. We're waiting for Mrs. Mind. She's in this parking lot. Okay. Um, does counsel want to say anything? Or we could just sit here. I think you. I. Have a question. A question, Councilmember Desai. QUESTION Would does the facial recognition policy cover the use of video data captured by body cams? No. We actually have separate public safety related policy related to body cam footage. And our current body cam contract does not use facial recognition. And our chief is here. At Community for Larry. Madeleine. We'll let Mrs. Mann catch your breath. Speak slowly. Chief of police. So our body worn cameras do not accent is our vendor. And as a company policy they do not even offer facial recognition technology. So we don't we don't have that. Now, there's some confusion. Sometimes people talk about facial shaping versus matching. So the cameras that we have, if you think about your cell phones, if you take a picture and it frames up someone's face, it has that technology because now when we do redactions, the cameras say, oh, there's a face that we need to maybe blur or redact, but there's no there's no matching, there's no identification, none of that. It's not even offered as part of the technology. One more question. Yes, Counsel, can somebody say for me. Okay, when we're talking about facial recognition technology, are we mainly or mostly talking about algorithm based technology that in addition to capturing in real time an abundance of data with regard to facial recognition, but also through an algorithm, are able to match in real time or later on. So it's really not only facial recognition technology, but an alt with an algorithm component. Yeah. The policy's not specific to that level of detail, but the definition of facial recognition technology means an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying or verifying an individual based on an individual's face. And so whether that's software based or what, and whether it's live or in real time or post or at a future date, it it's it's not specific to that. The idea is just that you can recognize faces and identify them through the technology that's available. Thank you. And I believe that our next speaker is now prepared. If that's the case. Please come up. Greetings. Hello. Apologies for running a little late. Gotta put the get the kids fed. And so I really appreciate your patience and waiting for me. So, again, my name is Timmy and it was one of the government relations coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. As you may or may not know, the Muslim community is, uh. Has definitely faced and faced the brunt of surveillance. Um, you know. Communities are, have always been concerned about if they go. To mosques, you know, are they're being, you know, spied on. Is there, you know, any agent provocateurs? We do have. Proof of these things now. Where the city might come into. What we're concerned is now we have like the New York Police Department, we have evidence that they had been spying on the Muslim community. Obviously, we don't see anything like that in the city of Alameda. We're so happy that the city of Alameda. Has made concerted efforts to embrace the diversity and. Inclusiveness and making sure that everybody feels safe in this community. And so that being said, to extend that also to ensure that if any surveillance technology is acquired by police. Departments or by the city, we want to make sure that the community feels safe knowing that this. Surveillance technology is not going to be misused against them, that there is a use policy in place, that we have. Transparency in the acquisition of such surveillance technology, that we have also accountability, if, you know, it comes out that it has been misused. So I'm. Really appreciative of the city of Alameda considering. This type of an ordinance, because we want to make sure that all of our community is safe and that that there is that because we want to. You know, again, make sure that that communities feel safe with their law enforcement and know that they're not going to be using such technology, misusing it against the community members. So, again, I thank you very much for considering this. And if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is that our last? Yeah. Okay. So we'll close public comment at this time. Thanks, everyone, for speaking. Okay, come in. We'll start with Councilmember Vella. So as Mr. Hofer mentioned a couple of years ago, when I was first on council, first elected on to council, I brought a referral specifically asking that we adopt an ordinance relative to our data collection and management. So I'm glad that this is back before us. Where I'm at is I am beyond just having a policy. I would like it to be a hard and fast ordinance, and that was part of why I did the referral. I'm just going to throw it out there. I think it's a little bit ironic that we're having a conversation about privacy after there were city staff, and this is obviously in the interim. First, I brought this referral and since then I've been secretly recorded by city by city staff and that recording has been released. And I find it ironic that we're talking about the value of privacy, but nevertheless, we're here. I do believe in the right to privacy. I believe in the Constitution. I think that we have to look at the propensity for the abuse of various types of technology, specifically targeting people, especially with the development of smart cities and the development of additional types of technology. You can now digitally record people on your cellular telephones. That's what our former city manager did. You can record people using video on your cellular telephone. All of these sorts of things are available and how we how we communicate with the public. We have people that email us, text us. We're kind of all starting to become data hoarders. And so I think that having a data management policy is is very important, not policy, but an ordinance. And I think that that needs to be in place as an ordinance. It'll help us kind of go through I don't want to just hold on to data to have it where it can be used against people. And I, you know, coming from a Japanese-American family, I kind of would I completely understand how information has been used. Information collected by the government that seemed innocuous enough at the time was then literally used to round people up. And I don't want to contribute to the. In terms of the privacy policy principles, I have no problem adopting that in terms of the facial recognition. I would like that as an ordinance. I really think that it's important. Again, for the same reasons that I feel about the data management. I think that we need to have legally enforceable safeguards. I think that, you know, while there might be things in place now that we're not using them nefariously or that vendors aren't using things nefariously, I think we've we've found that sometimes things can evolve, vendor's policies can evolve. I don't want to be caught in a situation where a vendor decides to change their policy and somehow we don't have something in place that would trigger an automatic process. And I think that that's what an ordinance does. And I think that I don't ever want citizens to feel like they can't participate, that they would somehow not be able to engage with or speak with the city, assemble somewhere publicly, because we don't have the protections in place. I think the time is now and I think that as technology evolves, it just allows us to have a very public conversation that makes our decision making very transparent, but also thoughtful so that we're we're actually taking steps that we intend to take rather than somehow getting sucked into some sort of corporate ploy that's being put out there on us. Thank you, Councilmember Vella, for a point of clarification, because I don't want the public confused and I'm a little confused myself. We just heard a reference to a secret recording made on a cell phone by a former city manager. I'm not aware of anything in the policies that we're that are before us now, that cover cell phone recording. If it's there, I would ask the city attorney or the assistant city manager to help me find out where it is. And beyond that, and this goes back to a grand jury report that we will be in part discussing in our next agenda item. There was a finding by the district attorney that that wasn't an illegal recording under the circumstances. So it wasn't the finding. The finding was that there wasn't enough evidence for her to convict. So I think that the grand jury, you know, we can I'm going to ask this. Raise it because we're talking about privacy. And I my point is, is that technology can be used in a number of different ways. I just want to make sure that we're discussing things that are actually appropriately before the council and this particular agenda item. But can the city attorney help me out here? Does this policy in any way refer to telephone recordings made on a cell phone and with specificity to the examples that was given? So I'll look to my colleague for some assistance, certainly on facial recognition, there's an exemption on cell phone use. On data retention, the that the data retention policy does contain some information about phone calls, though not specifically referring to cell phone recordings as that. Did I get it right, Mr. Brody? Yeah. The only thing I would say that Exhibit B relates to data collection, and it does talk about the collection of different kinds of data from the public to assist in conducting city operations. So I it is not it's not related to any kind of taping of meetings per say, but it is the data collection that we any data collection that staff would undertake would be covered by that portion of the policy. And it is clear that we want to be transparent in the collection of the information that we're we're bringing in to the Organization for City Business. But it doesn't refer to a particular penal code section that allows for surreptitious recording under certain circumstances. There's no mention of. Thank you. Kinds of audio recordings. Okay. Further comments, Councilman Brody. So have a couple questions, too. So I appreciate everyone coming out and speaking on this issue, and I appreciate Councilmember Vela for putting this referral on our agenda a while back. You know, it was refreshing to hear people refer to the Constitution. I think it's always good to be reminded of what's supposed to be our bedrock principle. So just some hypotheticals, because I'm trying to figure out how this might work in real life. I, I think we are encouraging folks to, like, provide their ring video coverage, if I'm not mistaken. Right? So, I mean, that that's voluntary, but they're giving it to the city. I mean, what happens to something like that or, you know. That is that. Is a question for the police. For anyone that should have an answer. I mean, that would be under the data. But I think the law enforcement is exempt and correct. That's I would I would follow city manager Levitt's lead on that. The police department for investigative purposes are not subject to all of these policies. But that doesn't mean that there aren't policies that are, aren't there? There are policies in place on the public safety side to address surveillance video related to the investigation of a crime. But I think I heard someone say earlier, our police wouldn't be allowed to use facial recognition software. So they are those videos exempt from facial recognition or the fact that they came from a private individual who shared it with the city? I mean, I don't know what the interplay there is. So I can come back to. Actually, if I might, assistant city manager can. I would like some clarification. I do believe there's a difference between a camera that's taking a photograph or a video and facial recognition software. Do you want to address that or to the ring? Well, the question was the use of that video for facial recognition. I mean, I'm not as concerned about the data. But that I hear you say. Microphone. Chief, that. I'm sorry. Get a taller microphone. You know, two weeks ago, we had it up on a block. I remember. That. Yeah. Sorry. Um, I'm just going to kind of hunch forward. There we go. So I just. I just wanted to make sure that I understood. Are you under the impression that we're somehow requiring or have some agreements with people about sharing? Because we don't. Know the question? That's what I was asking for the clarification. I think there has been a small amount of encouragement, but my real question is what happens to that? I mean, because I think I heard an answer to Councilmember de Sox question. We would not use any data that we have like ATM videos, I think was the example and send it out for facial recognition. Would we send out, you know, video that we receive through these ring services? Yeah. So if if we got a home video, a ring nest, whatever, private company, we would just be using it for the investigation of the crime. So a porch thief or something like that. I hit and run collision, you know, some crime that was committed in public or maybe inside of a residence that was captured on a camera to help. But we don't there's no facial recognition component to those videos. Right. And so we're just it's a video of hypothetically, you doing something, you know. I wouldn't, but. Okay, not you. Someone could if something happened, some other. Random some other some other random person stealing a package off of a porch. And then we still have to go figure out who that person is. We don't. We don't there's no technology that's telling us. That's John Q Citizen. I get that. But would we be sending this out to a vendor that offers that service? Because I thought I got the answer of no earlier. Not the way that the policy is set up is that the city would not initiate that. But to follow through on Councilmember Desai's example, if these are bandits robbing banks across the state and the FBI is involved and they use facial recognition technology, then that that could help our investigation. We would leverage that as a resource, but it wouldn't be something that the city of Alameda would be paying for or seeking the assistance of directly. Okay. The way the policy is written currently and another hypothetical, I know there was a discussion about speed cameras and I know for the red light cameras, they take a picture of the driver and that's compared. I mean, would we be using any of that type of data to do that type of work, or is that allowed or prohibited or just we don't have them, but if we were. So my my understanding of how those cameras are used in the cities that do deploy them, it's it's basically it's the tiebreaker between, you know, the system saying you ran a red light. And then I said, well, I wasn't driving my car. And then they show me a photograph and they say, that's you. And so you get the ticket versus if the mayor was driving my car, then I'd have an argument. I don't mean to keep criminalizing everybody or just if I make eye contact with you, you're a suspect. I'm just kidding. But in that hypothetical, we wouldn't send that picture out and have somebody identify who the real driver was. Right. No. I mean, again, because we don't have it. I don't I'm not sure how the other cities do it, but I believe all it is is to establish whether or not you. The person being issued the citation was, in fact, the driver not trying to figure out who it actually was. Okay. Then another hypothetical that I don't think this is a police one, but say, for instance, we have a public transit agency that wants to recognize people when they get on a bus or maybe a ferry or whatever. I mean, would that would they be allowed to do that in Alameda under this policy or. I know it's kind of a stretch, but we didn't think we'd have this at the airport either. 20 years ago, our policy would not limit outside agencies from implementing these kinds of technologies on their. On their vehicles or within things that they operate. Okay. And then the last question. Can you tell us practically. Maybe this is for our senior staff the difference between a policy versus an ordinance as far as how it can be changed or discarded or that type of thing. So Councilmember de um Councilmember Judy, I will answer that question with respect to the difference between a policy and an ordinance. An ordinance have the effect of law. What could occur under the Council has a number of choices. When you adopt an ordinance, you could, for example, provide for enforcement mechanisms, whether civil or criminal. You could also provide for and in fact, by adopting a law and it's generally provided that there may be opportunities for private enforcement of an ordinance. So in other words, when there is a violation of an ordinance, there is opportunity for private parties to bring litigation, whereas if it is a policy, then you're still adopting a resolution. So staff would not be able to alter it without bringing it back to the council. But it does not have some of the enforcement mechanisms, both on the law enforcement side and on the litigation side that exists in an ordinance. And there are, you know, benefits and concerns with both that I'm happy to go into further, if you'd like. You don't think so? Thank you all for answering the questions. I would be inclined to agree with my colleague, Mr. Miller, and push for an ordinance. I'm happy passing this policy today, but I do think the folks who spoke today and many others like them deserve the protection of law and not just policy. Thank you. Councilmember, decide how to go down the line if you're ready. Oh, sure. Well, I appreciate the answers to my questions. I believe what we're fundamentally talking about, whether we're talking about automated or semi-automated facial recognition technology or, as I put it, an algorithm based face on tech, a facial recognition technology. What we're not talking about are things like body cams or even ATM videos that capture events or activities, and that can be interpreted in a non automated fashion, i.e. in a fashion involving typical police reviewing of the of the of the information that was captured through the body cam or through the through ATMs, if in the event that there's some kind of crime that occurs around an ATM. So so I appreciate hearing that, that this policy doesn't preclude our police from using technology in a reasonable manner to to help secure public safety. I think the questions that many here and outside of Alameda have raised about facial recognition technology are are absolutely important for every city to deal with, not just because of the events that you see happening in, you know, far away Hong Kong and China, where rioters are being videotaped to see who they are, recognition technology being used. It could happen here in the United States. But I, I do think that we have a policy in place that is reasonable in its reach in terms of safeguarding the variety of constitutional rights of of Americans and immigrant residents. And so I'm satisfied with the policy. I mean, I was coming into tonight, I was not sure if I was going to support this or not. But I think that the questioning that have been raised have been very helpful. So with that, I'm willing to support this policy. I think the suggestions that I would make, though, is I think facial recognition technology is very intertwined with questions regarding First Amendment rights, not only our ability to speak, uh, whatever we want to say, but also the part of the First Amendment that has to do with a freedom of assembly. Um, so somehow I believe that the sentence. On on exhibit C, facial recognition. Facial recognition technology means an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying or verifying an individual based on an individual's face. I think that sentence is a good start, but there ought to be, in my opinion, some kind of reference to the storing of the information and also the way in which the information is sometimes used to curtail many of our constitutional rights, especially those in the first First Amendment, particularly freedom of assembly. So but I'm fine as it is now, but but I kind of think that this whole conversation is really about the use of technology in rapidly capturing data and and kind of connecting that data with through the algorithms or the automated process, connecting that data with other databases that in real time can possibly make mistakes with regard to individuals at certain locations, but not in not in real time, begin to track individuals and their and their whereabouts. So I think that in my opinion that that those two elements, the tracking, the gathering of data and and the use of that data to curtail some amendment first constitutional amendment rights ought to be somehow referenced in that. But but I'm fine with it as it is. But at some point in time, we ought to. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That's right. Sure. Thank you very much. I also want to thank the speakers, many of whom I've spoken to multiple times over the last many months, some of them even internationally. Thank you for your care and taking the time to to help educate me, but also help support Alameda in moving this forward. You know, for me, I think we have the right policies. I'm 100% supportive of moving this not as a policy, but as an ordinance and asking for it to come back very quickly. You know, we've spent a lot of time talking about the facial recognition ban. I'm 100% supportive of that. I also want to I'm hopeful that as we move this forward, we have well, while not a proposed policy right now, we do have for our consideration the acquisition of surveillance technology, which I think Councilmember De Sugg was starting to get too, which is a the way in which we can both inform the community about what we are considering to purchase and use and how it will be used and at the same time provide a method of ensuring that our public safety departments have the ability to to access appropriate technology, that that brings that public safety. And so I would hope that that would also be a part of any motion that goes forward, is bringing back a surveillance ordinance. You know, I think on the face, facial recognition, the constitutional issues, I just think, yeah, yeah, that's very important. Also important is the fact that it doesn't work. African-Americans are 5 to 10 times more likely to be misidentified. Whether or not we get into what that means when when some people interact with public safety in some areas and the outcomes of those interactions, you know, people have a right to not be harassed just because somebody, you know, a bunch of white coders forgot that there were other non-male white people in this world that they needed to make sure their software worked for. And, you know, we shouldn't even be having it. Luckily, it doesn't sound like it's going to be too much of a stretch here to ban facial recognition. But but but the technology is not even close to being ready for discussion. And so I would expect or hope very much to have that surveillance ordinance as it comes back, if we approve one, to include the facial recognition ban. I also just want to acknowledge the city attorney, Shen, and the city manager who I know are still, you know, may have some questions or concerns about the ordinance. And so, you know, and moving forward, I hope we can also provide some direction that would allow them to at least identify areas of concern that they might have from the city's perspective that they could bring back alternatives to if there are sections of the ordinance that they might propose this policy or whatever else. I'm not saying that I would like to break it apart, but at least so that we can have that conversation and moving forward to me. These principles, these policies, all three of these policies or two policies, the privacy policy and the surveillance policy with the facial recognition ban, basically start creating the trust. Pew Pew just did a study of people's trust of government and people's trust of government as it relates to using information and storing their information, whatever else, and government's faith that somewhere around 17% feel good about it. We have lost the trust of folks because they don't know what we're doing with their information, etc.. And I think that these policies are the first step towards rebuilding that trust. And and why not? So anyway, I'm ready to make a motion, but I know you haven't spoken. I'd like to hear from Councilman Ravello as you finish. You started your comments. Okay. So I will just add that first, I want to thank our assistant city manager, Jerry Bowden, for bringing this very thorough report to us. Thank you. He hasn't even been on board very long, but he took the ball and ran with it on this one. I concur with the vice mayor that if and when this policy, assuming it's approved tonight, I think it's going to be if it comes back to the council to consider as an ordinance. I do want to hear from the police department. I appreciate that, Mr. Hofer. And for as long as I've known him, he's always been amenable to meeting with a public safety. As his missus, mine, we've. We've all met together. And the ACLU attorney and you all make this a better informed discussion. And of course, we always balance competing interests. And I will just throw in I'm an Arab-American. And so these issues are near and dear to my heart, too, because I you know, I know people from from the countries that my grandparents came from have have gone through a lot in the aftermath of 911. And and we don't want that for anyone. I mean, when we say in Alameda, there's a banner behind you that says everyone belongs here, we don't have an asterisk that says, you know, some people belong here more than others. We mean everyone belongs here. But we also consider a lot of different aspects of what it means to be a safe community. And I know we will have early next year, I think, a discussion on the license plate readers that the police department would like to to have. And they are not the roving ones that the New York City Police Department misused by surveilling gatherings outside mosques in that city. But but anyway, that's a discussion to to to be had. And certainly this council has gotten lots of emails from residents who are concerned with rising crime rates and would like better abilities to to capture some of the folks who have committed some fairly serious crimes and then left the island. But, you know, so we we need to consider all these different interests. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. So with that, I'm happy to entertain a motion. We're being asked to consider adopting a resolution and if we want to add some direction to staff. And I think the vice mayor also mentioned that this is probably if we do direction to staff, it's something that we want to hear back from the city attorney and the city manager on. So you started to make a motion, I think Vice Mayor. I believe Councilmember Bella might have a motion she wants to make. Please. What's up? So what I'm hearing that several of us or at least are in agreement with would be to do it. Well, I'll make my motion that we can discuss it. I would like to pass everything listed tonight as policies, because I do want to have something in place in the interim. But I would also move. So I move approval of the policies as written, but I would also move to direct staff to come back to us with facial recognition ban ordinance and with data manage management and privacy oversight ordinance. And so that's my motion. Okay, a second. Okay. We've had a motion in a second so we can have discussion. So I would also like to add that there there are examples of both of those ordinances out there. So I would like staff to look at some of the cities and I think my referral a few years ago included what the City of Davis passed. San Francisco has a couple examples. So I would like to kind of start there rather than kind of draft something completely novel. And then I think we've heard from a couple of my colleagues who would like to hear back about any city concerns, that sort of thing, and how that would weigh. Okay. And I'm sorry. Tell me again, it was a direct set to come back to us with, um, facial recognition band ordinance and data management policy, data management. And I think data oversight or data management. Privacy oversight or something like that. Okay. Um, a discussion. Councilman Brody, thank you. Just real briefly, I think there was an offer that the ACLU has model ordinances that I think might be helpful. And there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on this. Mm hmm. Staff can consider all this, I'm sure. Did you ever hear that? Yeah, I do. Vice mayor? That's right. So I wanted I wanted to ask a quick question, and then. And I have a couple comments. Would you with the motion maker and seconder, include adopting the principles tonight, which wasn't a part of the motion, and also. Policies which I will amend to include the principles. Okay. And then also a direct direction to adopt a surveillance ordinance modeled on the San Francisco model to something I'm interested is that. Um. I think I would yeah, I would like to give staff direction to consider those, but I'm not directing them to that. That's the one that uses your model. I mean, I, I think that there may be some differences between Alameda and San Francisco. And so I guess my question is, to the person who made the motion, would you be willing to add the surveillance, you know, using it based on I'm not saying like verbatim, just find a find and replace Alameda in San Francisco. But you used to use as a as it's the one that is out there. Yes. And it is based on the ACLU, if. It is my character. A member of design. Of of what you're saying. If I said what my interpretation of what you're saying is, strongly consider using San Francisco as a model. Then then I'm fine with that. Doesn't mean that we have to, but we have to strongly consider it. Yes. Okay. Okay. That sounds good to me. Second in your motion. Oh, great. Thank you. All right. Are we ready to vote? Can I just want to make one more quick? I believe that. I believe everything that is in here actually has come from the privacy groups as well. So, yeah, there was a comment about about not starting from scratch, but I would actually say that that to my to my understanding, to the comments we've heard, we have the right policies written as here. We just need to convert them directly to ordinance. So I think we're I just wanted to reflect that that the direction isn't necessarily to go back and read. That was that's not what I heard. Okay. With that all in favor, I oppose, abstain and the motion passes unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Okay, now we go back to item six B. Recommendation. To actually, you know, what we're going to take. We've been at it since AD five. We're going to take a six minute break and we will be back here at 927 minutes if you miss time. Thank you. Key. We are going to get started. I've got a quorum. We're going. Okay. We have one more item. Well, we've got a couple items, actually, but we're going to six be now. Did you get. Which is. Half of the spirit. Recommendation. We the recommendation to consider adoption of a City Council Code of Conduct in Councilmember Handbook and Code of Conduct providing guidelines for Council members to follow and conducting city business and fulfilling their responsibilities as city elected officials. Okay. And that is me. Who's your doing? Okay. Mayor Marisa Ashcraft and City Council. Both myself and even Jen are going to do a joint presentation. It'll be relatively brief. We're just going to hit the highlights of the handbook, code of conduct, and then open it up for discussion. Okay. Taking the recommendation. I have a0i have a four. Mm. Yeah. You've got the power. Right. The recommendation is to provide feedback on the City Council Member Handbook, Code of conduct and social media policy. We do not intend for action necessarily to happen tonight. If you decide to do action, that's great. But if not, we're actually looking for your feedback and we're seeing the strong possibility that this would continue with your feedback and direction on how you want this policy to be be used. Moving forward, the background, just to remind everyone the background on this policy proposal is on June 11th, 2019, the Alameda County grand jury recommended that the city more formally establish a council member Code of Conduct Handbook.