DOWN. HMM. GOOD MORNING AND
WELCOME TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY,
INFORMATIONAL HEARING. TODAY. UM
THE TITLE OF IT IS WE SEE YOU
COLON LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SURVEILLANCE IN THE VICTIM AND
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
WE SEE YOU. LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH
NOTHING. MY CALLING. UM.
NORMALLY GET A BRIEFING. THAT'S
ABOUT THIS BIG TODAY. I GOT
ENCYCLOPEDIA. WORTH OF STUFF. SO
THAT SHOWS YOU NOT ONLY HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS FOR THIS
COMMITTEE TO LOOK INTO IT. UM
BUT HEALTH CAN TELL YOU HOW
ENERGIZED STAFF HAS BEEN TO
REALLY LEARN ABOUT THIS AND IT
KIND OF OPENED OUR EYES TO
THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW
ABOUT. YOUR LOCAL POLICE
DEPARTMENT MAY KNOW MORE ABOUT
YOU THAN YOU THINK. ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES ARE FREQUENTLY ABLE TO
ACCESS VERY POWERFUL
SURVEILLANCE AND INVESTIGATIVE
TOOLS, INCLUDING FACIAL
RECOGNITION. AUTOMATIC LICENSE
PLATE READERS GUNSHOT TECHNOLOGY
DETECTION, TECHNOLOGY AND CELL
PHONE LOCATION, TRACKING WITH
LITTLE OVERSIGHT. TODAY'S
HEARING EXAMINES THE USE OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT SURVEILLANCE AND
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNOLOGIES,
INCLUDING THEIR BENEFITS AND
THEIR IMPACT ON PRIVACY, FREE
SPEECH AND CIVIL LIBERTIES. THIS
IS AN INFORMATIONAL HEARING. THE
COMMITTEE WILL NOT BE VOTING ON
ANY LEGISLATION TODAY. SO YOU
DON'T TAKE IT DOWN. YOU DON'T
HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LEARNING.
THROUGH THROUGH THE TESTIMONY.
WE'RE HERE TODAY. I HOPE WE WILL
LEAVE THIS HEARING WITH A
GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE
OF SURVEILLANCE AND THE BIGGEST
AND INVESTIGATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA. I WOULD LIKE TO
WELCOME MY WITNESSES AND THANK
YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY. WE
HAVE FOUR PANELS TODAY
CONSISTENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,
LEGAL EXPERTS, TECHNOLOGY
VENDORS AND INDUSTRY LEADERS,
ADVOCATES AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS
WHO WILL DISCUSS A BROAD
SPECTRUM OF SURVEILLANCE AND
INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS. OUR FIRST
PANEL WILL PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE
WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AUTOMATIC
LICENSE PLATE READERS. A L P. R
S SO WE'VE BEEN USING THAT
ACRONYM A LOT LP. BARS LPR S OUR
HIGH SPEED CAMERA SYSTEMS THAT
PHOTOGRAPH LICENSE PLATES. TAG
THEM WITH THE TIME AND LOCATION
AND UPLOAD THAT INFORMATION INTO
A DATABASE. THIS PANEL INCLUDES
, UM ANGEL DÍAS, OR UNHEALED
DIAZ, VISITING ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GOLD SCHOOL
OF LAW. JOHN LEWIS, PRINCIPAL
AUTHOR, AUDITOR FOR THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE CITY OF BALLET. KHÓ
COUNCIL MEMBER PIPPEN DO IN HER
CAPACITY AS THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. CHAIR FOR THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES AND CHP
ASSISTANT CHIEF MIKE ALVAREZ.
OUR SECOND PANEL IS ON SHOT
SPOTTER. UM, SHOT DETECTION
SYSTEMS LIKE SHOT SPOTTER USED
ALGORITHMS ANALYZING DATA
RECEIVED FROM ACOUSTIC SENSORS
TO LOCATE GUNSHOTS AND ALERT LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THIS PANEL IS
COMPRISED OF SEVERAL
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING TOM
SHOWED HIM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
ANALYTICS AND FORENSIC SYSTEM
THAT SHOT SPOTTER. STEPHEN
OLIVE, THE ERA DEPUTY CHIEF OF
THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
, BRIAN HAW, FOR THE CHIEF AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SECURE
JUSTICE AND BARREL LIPTON,
INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCHER AT THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
DURING OUR THIRD PANEL WE WILL
HEAR ABOUT AN EMERGING LAW
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION
TECHNIQUE CALLED GEO FENCING,
WHICH SEEKS LOCATION DATA FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN A SPECIFIC
AREA FOR ORDEAL FENCE OVER A
PARTICULAR SPAN OF TIME. JOINING
OUR SECOND PANEL OF DURING THIS
PANEL. UM IS BRETT DEAL TRIAL
ATTORNEY FOR THE FEDERAL FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO. CATELYN
UM, RING GROWS GLOBAL POLICY
LEAVE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
GOVERNMENT ACCESS. GOOGLE
JENNIFER LYNCH SURVEILLANCE
LITIGATION DIRECTOR AT
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
AND JACOB SNOW TECHNOLOGY AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY AT THE
A. C L U FINALLY. UM OUR LAST
PANEL IS A PRESENTATION OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY,
WHICH IS AN INVESTIGATIVE TOOL
THAT HELPS LAW ENFORCEMENT
IDENTIFY AN INDIVIDUAL BY
ANALYZING AN IMAGE FROM A
DIGITAL OR VIDEO FRAME AGAINST
THE DATA OF IMAGES. THE FOURTH.
THE LAST PANEL INCLUDES SCHOLAR
HEARD THE DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS THAT CLEARVIEW AI
LIEUTENANT DEREK SABBATINI OF
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, AND JENNIFER JONES,
A STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE A. C L
U. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
FROM OUR SPEAKERS WILL HAVE A
FULL AGENDA TODAY. SO I ASKED
THAT WE THAT YOU USE YOUR TIME
JUDICIOUSLY SO THAT WE HAVE A
SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT WILL PROVIDE 30
MINUTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER
WE HAVE HEARD ALL UP THE PANELS.
WITH THAT. I INVITE BITES CHAIR,
MR LACKEY. AND ANY OF MY OTHER
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I SEE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SEYARTO HERE,
UM TO MAKE ANY OPENING REMARKS
IF THEY SHOWED, SO CHOOSE TO DO
SO. YEAH JUST REAL QUICKLY. I
WILL. I WILL SAY THAT NOT SURE
THAT THIS IS THE MOST BALANCED
PRESENTATION. YES TECHNOLOGY,
BUT NONETHELESS, WE NEED TO HEAR
ALL INFORMATION. AND MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT
ARE BASED IN FAIRNESS AND IN
COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL
VALUES. AND I THINK THAT THOSE
ARE CRITICAL MEASURING TOOLS,
AND I HOPE THAT THAT'S WHAT
WELL, KEEP IN MIND THAT PUBLIC
SAFETY IS NO JOKE, AND I THINK
IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE
RESPONSIBILITIES IF NOT THE
BIGGEST RESPONSIBILITY OF
GOVERNMENT. AND SO HOPEFULLY WE
FIND THE BALANCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS
THEY RELATE TO PEOPLE'S RIGHTS
AND THAT WE DON'T ENCROACH UPON
THOSE RIGHTS. BUT IN THE SAME
RIGHT THAT WE REALIZED THAT
PROTECTING OUR PUBLIC IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AND MR CURTIS THERE,
MR SARTO AND IT OKAY, MR COURT.
AH, JUST TO SAY I THINK THIS IS
REALLY IMPORTANT HEARING. UM I
DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S BALANCED
OR NOT, ALTHOUGH I DO SEE PEOPLE
FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS
OPPONENTS OF SOME OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY, BUT I ALSO SEE THE
PEOPLE DISCUSSING THE
TECHNOLOGY. UH, LOOKING AT? HOW
DO WE PROTECT PRIVACY WILL STILL
USING IT, AND I DO THINK THESE
TECHNOLOGIES HAVE THEIR PLACE.
AND IF THERE'S ADEQUATE PRIVACY
PROTECTION, I THINK IT, UH IT
CAN BE USED APPROPRIATELY. I'M
ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT DRONES
BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE
CAPABILITY. TO LOOK AT EVENTS
THAN THESE DO. UM AND I'VE TRIED
SEVERAL TIMES TO HAVE
LEGISLATION IN THAT AREA AND I
FIND MYSELF IN A POSITION WHEN
YOU DID THE OPPONENTS OR
PROPONENTS OF THE TECHNOLOGY
LIKE WHAT I'M DOING, WHICH MEANS
IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT. BUT
IT'S VERY HARD FOR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT TO PASS. I DID GET ONE
THING TO PASS. AND THEN THE
GOVERNOR VETOED IT. BROWN.
ANYWAY. UH MAYBE NEXT YEAR.
YOU'LL HAVE A HEARING ON THAT
SOMEBODY CAN FIGURE OUT
SOMETHING THAT WILL PASS AND GET
SIGNED. BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO AN
IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY. THANK YOU.
AND TO SEE ARTO. WELL THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO
CAME TO GIVE US INFORMATION AND
ENLIGHTEN US AND EDUCATE US ON
SOME OF THESE VARIOUS
SURVEILLANCE TECHNIQUES AND
INVENT INVESTIGATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES. YOU KNOW, I THINK
THERE'S NOTHING NOTHING MORE
FRUSTRATING. FOR VICTIMS AND
FAMILIES OF VICTIMS, THEN THEIR
CRIME NOT BEING SOLVED, AND IT
IS EXCITING WHEN WE HAVE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES THAT COME ON BOARD.
THAT CAN HELP SOLVE THOSE SOME
SOME CRIMES THAT HAPPENED YEARS
AND YEARS AGO. AND UM AND SO I
ALWAYS LAND ON THE SIDE OF I
WANT NEW TECHNOLOGY TO HELP. BUT
WE DO HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT. AH
BUT IF IT BECOMES, IF IT'S
SOMETHING THAT BECOMES BETWEEN
FINDING OUT WHO ACTUALLY DID
THIS CRIME OR THE CRIME AND
HOLDING HEM ACCOUNTABLE OR
LETTING VICTIMS, UM GO ON
WITHOUT KNOWING, UM ARE WITH
THAT, WITH KNOWING THAT THEIR
THEIR PERPETRATOR HAS WILL NEVER
EVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. UM YOU
KNOW, I'M ALWAYS GOING TO LAND
ON THE SIDE OF THOSE VICTIMS, UM
, AND THEIR FAMILIES BECAUSE
SOMETIMES THE VICTIMS AREN'T
THERE TO BE ABLE TO FEEL THAT,
BUT THEIR FAMILY HAS LEFT
FOREVER TO FEEL THAT SO, UH, YOU
KNOW, I HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T MADE
UP MY MIND ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS
SLANTED OR NOT. UM I KIND OF
BRIEF THROUGH THIS BECAUSE I
RECEIVED THIS NOT VERY LONG AGO
. AND UH, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T
HAVE FULL CHANCE TO GO THROUGH,
BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
THE PANELISTS AND WHAT YOU HAVE
TO SAY. AH BUT I AM EXCITED THAT
WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
SO THAT WE CAN GIVE VICTIMS
THEIR JUSTICE. THIS ISN'T JUST
ABOUT JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE WHO
WANT TO COMMIT CRIMES, BUT, UM,
THE VICTIMS OF THOSE AND THEIR
FAMILIES, SO THANK YOU WITH THAT
. TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR
SO WE CAN GET THIS, UH STARTED.
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU, AND,
UH, WE WENT THROUGH GREAT
LENGTHS TO, UM MAKE THIS AS
BALANCED AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S WHY
I NAMED KIND OF THE OVERVIEW OF
NOT ONLY MAKING SURE WE HAVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND ADVOCATES OR IN
THE INDUSTRY EXPERTS HERE BUT
EVEN HAVING PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT
BE ENAMORED WITH THEM, YOU D
TECHNOLOGIES SO WE CAN GET A
FULL UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT
REALLY STARTED THIS FOR THE
ASSEMBLY AND ESPECIALLY FOR NEW
MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE. UM WHEN I
FIRST GOT HERE, UM THERE WAS
SOME FACIAL RECOGNITION DONE ON
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. AND SEVERAL OF
US INCLUDING ME. CAME UP AS
FELONS. AND, UM. THEY DOUBLE
CHECKED HIM. I AM NOT A FELON.
NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN A FELON. UM
BUT BECAUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGY
AND THE ALGORITHMS THAT THEY
USED. IT CLASSIFIED ME AS THAT.
SO I'M ALSO CONCERNED NOT ONLY
ABOUT MAKING SURE WE FIND THE
PERPETRATORS AND THAT WE GIVE
VICTIMS JUSTICE. I'M ALSO
CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN WRONGLY INCARCERATED. UM IN
PRISON. BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY
FAILED THEM. OR OR THE SYSTEM
FAILED THEM AND WE END UP
INCARCERATING PEOPLE FOR A VERY,
VERY, VERY LONG TIME. UM IF I
ALWAYS WONDER IF I HAD NOT BEEN
AN ASSEMBLY MEMBER. OUT ON THE
STREET. UM, WHAT COULD HAVE
HAPPENED? IF SOMEONE. IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS STOPPED ME AND I
DECIDED THAT I WANTED TO PROVE
THAT I'M NOT A FELON AND ALL OF
A SUDDEN REACHED FOR MY WALLET.
I MAY NOT BE HERE RIGHT NOW. UM
WHERE A LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH
PERFECTLY BEING THE RIGHT TO DO
WHATEVER THEY NEED TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES. BUT BECAUSE OF
TECHNOLOGY OR OR FALSE WITNESSES
AND THINGS THAT NATURE UM, AND
JUST BEFORE I GOT HERE, SOMEONE
SAID, I LOOKED LIKE SOMEONE AND
KEPT SAYING, YOU LOOK JUST LIKE
THIS PERSON AND SAID THE WRONG
NAME SO THIS IS IT ALL ONLY MADE
ME MORE. MORE. MADE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THIS IS SO.
IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION. NOT TAKING ONE SIDE
OR THE OTHER BUT HAVE AN OPEN
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. UM AND
THEN FROM MR KIRK COMMENT UM. I
HAD A DEMONSTRATION OF DRONES AT
THE COLISEUM. I REPRESENT SOUTH
L A. WE'RE WAITING FOR THE
OLYMPICS. UM, I LOVE DRONES. UM
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THE FACIAL
RECOGNITION PART CAME UP THAT I
BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT DRONES.
BUT I ALSO WANTED TO LET THE LET
YOU KNOW THAT I THOUGHT DRONES
HEADER. HAD A VALUABLE UM, TOOL
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, ESPECIALLY
WITH LARGE CROWDS BEING ABLE TO
IDENTIFY PEOPLE WHO COULD DO
SOMETHING REALLY TERRIBLE. SO I
AM OPEN MINDED TO ALL OF IT. AND
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU
KNOW THAT THE BEST WAY WE CAN
GET TO THE BEST SYSTEM THEY HEAR
ABOUT ALL OF IT. AND MAYBE I
WILL JOIN MR QUIRK AND EVEN
ADDING UM. DRONES INTO THIS
DISCUSSION SO THAT WE CAN GET
ALL THE TOOLS THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT NEEDS SO THEY CAN DO
THEIR JOB BETTER AND MAKE
EVERYONE SAFE. SO WITH THAT I
WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP OUR FIRST
PANEL. ON AUTOMATIC. LICENSE
PLATE READERS. UM, MR DIAS, MR
LEWIS. PIPPING ALVAREZ, COULD
YOU PLEASE COME TO THE DANCE. WE
HAVE FOUR MIX. AND THREE PEOPLE
FOR MY MATH IS OFF. BUT WE HAVE
A LOT OF 30 MINUTES TO THIS.
AND, UM I'M NOT SURE WHO'S
MISSING. BUT THERE'S. THERE'S
EXTRA TIME WE'LL LEAVE THAT FOR
YOU TO GO AHEAD. WHOEVER WANTS
TO BEGIN FIRST. I'LL GO AHEAD SO. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS JOHN LEWIS. I AM THE
PRINCIPAL AUDITOR AT THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF OUR
2020. AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE
READER AUDIT. THE LEGISLATURE
ASKED US TO LOOK AT LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH A
2015 LAW THAT WAS DESIGNED TO
IMPROVE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
THAT USE AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE
READERS. AND I'M GONNA GO
BRIEFLY THROUGH SOME OF THE
FINDINGS OF OUR AUDIT. AND SOME
OF THE MORE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
. WE DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON
WHAT SOME OF THE AGENCIES WE
LOOKED AT HAVE DONE SINCE THE
AUDIT. AND, UM TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THAT THESE
AGENCIES FACE IN PROTECTING
PRIVACY, BOTH IN TERMS OF HOW
THE DATA IS. STORED AND IN TERMS
OF HOW THE DATA IS MANAGED. UM
ABOUT SO WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK
AT SACRAMENTO AND MARINE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS AND FRESNO
AND LOS ANGELES CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENTS, SO MOST OF MY
INFORMATION IS PERTINENT TO
THOSE FOUR AGENCIES, BUT WE ALSO
SURVEYED 400 LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCY STATEWIDE. AT THAT TIME
WHEN WE DID THE SURVEY ABOUT 60%
OPERATED OR ACCESS AUTOMATIC
LICENSE PLATE READERS AND
ANOTHER 9% OR ABOUT 36 AGENCIES
, SAID THAT THEY WERE PLANNING
TO IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO TO
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE
CHALLENGES THAT THE STATE
OPPOSES. UH, THIS IS A LOT OF
DATA. WHEN WE DID THE AUDIT, LOS
ANGELES ESTIMATED THAT THEY HAD
320 MILLION PHOTOGRAPHS. OF
WHICH ABOUT 400,000 OR 0.1% WERE
PHOTOGRAPHS THAT GENERATED AN
IMMEDIATE HIT IN THEIR SYSTEM
THAT IS GENERATED A WARNING OR
SOMETHING. WHERE THE PERSON CAME
UP AS A PERSON OF INTEREST IN A
CASE. AT THE TIME, LOS ANGELES
WAS RETAINING THAT INFORMATION
FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS. SO THERE'S
A LOT OF INFORMATION AND THAT
INFORMATION CAN BE SHARED. THREE
OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE
LOOKED AT SACRAMENTO MARIN IN
FRESNO ALL USE THE SAME VENDOR A
CLOUD SERVICES VENDORS SO THIS
INFORMATION GETS UPLOADED INTO
THE CLOUD, AND THEY MAKE IT VERY
EASY FOR THESE ORGANIZATIONS TO
SHARE THAT INFORMATION. UH
SACRAMENTO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE
NOTED, WAS SHARING WITH OVER
1000 DIFFERENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
. FRESNO WITH NEARLY 1000 AND
MARINE WITH ALMOST 600. UH THESE
SHARES ARE SO EASY THAT WE NOTED
AT TIMES THAT THESE AGENCIES
DIDN'T REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO
WHY THEY WERE SHARING THIS
INFORMATION WITH ALL OF THESE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. WE ONE
WAY SINGLED OUT WAS THE HONOLULU
POLICE DEPARTMENT. AND GIVEN THE
LIMITED AMOUNT OF AUTOMOBILE
TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE MAINLAND AND
HAWAII. WE QUESTIONED WHY THE
HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD
BE SOMEONE THAT THEY'D WANT TO
SHARE WITH. THERE WERE ALSO WE
NOTED, UM, SOME THAT WE'RE
SHARING INFORMATION WITH ICE
AGENCIES, WHICH AT THE TIME WAS
PROHIBITED. UH AS SOON AS WE
NOTED IT, THEY DID. TURN OFF
THOSE SHARES. BUT THAT SHARING
BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS KEPT
FOR SO LONG. UH, MAKING SURE
THAT YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE SHARING
WITH. AND WHY BECOMES IMPORTANT
AND WE DID RECOMMEND THAT THEY
UH, THAT THESE AGENCIES TAKE
MORE PRECAUTIONS IN THEIR
SHARING, AND MOST OF THEM HAVE
DONE SO, UH, REVIEWING THAT
THEIR SHARES IN ONE CASE ONE OF
THEM CREATED AN MOU PROCESS
WHERE EVERY AGENCY THEY SHARE
WITH THEY WILL HAVE AN
AGREEMENT. LOS ANGELES WAS
ALREADY DOING THIS. I SHOULD
POINT OUT THEY ONLY SHARED WITH
ABOUT 58 AGENCIES. REGIONALLY
THAT WE'RE ALL USING THE SAME
SYSTEM. NOW IN TERMS OF DATA
RETENTION. THE AGENCIES THAT WE
LOOKED AT WERE RETAINING DATA
FROM BETWEEN ONE AND FIVE YEARS
AT THE TIME, WE DID RECOMMEND
THAT THEY REVIEW THEIR POLICY
AND. SET IN STONE, MORE OR LESS
THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY
WANTED TO RETAIN THE
INFORMATION. UH ALL OF THEM SET
POLICIES BETWEEN ONE AND TWO
YEARS. THE AND ALL OF THEIR
POLICIES, SAID THAT IF A IF
CERTAIN INFORMATION IS PERTINENT
TO AN ACTIVE CASE, IT COULD BE
HELD LONGER. SO THEY ARE. THERE
IS SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR THEM TO
HOLD ONTO INFORMATION FOR A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. AMONG THE
AGENCIES THAT WE SURVEYED. MOST
WERE, UH, THAT HAD AUTOMATED
LICENSE PLATE READERS WERE
HOLDING ONTO THE INFORMATION
BETWEEN SIX YEARS, SIX MONTHS
AND TWO YEARS. UM WITH A FEW
LESS THAN A DAY AND A FEW FOR
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE
LEGISLATURES LOOKED AT 13 STATES
THAT AT THE TIME HAD
RESTRICTIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF
TIME THAT THIS INFORMATION COULD
BE HELD, AND THEY RANGED FROM
THREE MINUTES. IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
TO THREE YEARS IN FLORIDA. SO
MOST CALIFORNIA AGENCIES ARE
SOMEWHERE WITHIN THAT SWEET
SPOT. IN TERMS OF PROTECTED THE
INFORMATION. WE REVIEWED THE
POLICIES THAT EACH OF THE FOUR
AGENCIES WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE
IN PLACE. LOS ANGELES DIDN'T
HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE THEY DO
NOW. UH FRESNO MARINE IN
SACRAMENTO. EACH WERE MISSING
ELEMENTS OF THE POLICY THAT WERE
REQUIRED, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO HAS
ACCESS WHO HOW THEY WILL MONITOR
AND RESTRICTIONS ON SALES. NONE
OF THE AGENCIES. WE LOOKED AT
OUR SELLING THIS DATA. AND THEY
ALL UPDATED THEIR POLICIES TO
CONTAIN THIS INFORMATION. UH,
DATA SHOULD ALSO HAVE CERTAIN
PROTECTIONS. AMONG THEM ARE
THINGS LIKE HOW IT'S STORED. WHO
OWNS THE DATA WHO CAN ACCESS
DATA AND HOW DATA ARE PROTECTED?
SHE'S THE FOUR AGENCIES. WE
LOOKED AT WORK WITH CONTRACTORS
. TO SOME EXTENT L A ACTUALLY
STORES THEIR OWN DATA AND CLAIMS
OWNERSHIP THAT WAY THEY THEY'VE
GOT THEIR OWN SERVERS. THE OTHER
THREE USED THIS CLOUD SERVICE
THAT I MENTIONED, BUT THEY ALL
HAVE CONTRACTS WITH I T
PROVIDERS AND AT THE TIME THAT
WE REVIEWED THIS INFORMATION
MOST OF THOSE CONTRACTS WERE
MISSING INFORMATION. ABOUT
CERTAIN DATA PROTECTIONS. FOR
EXAMPLE, FRESNO DIDN'T HAVE
ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THEY WERE
GOING TO STORE THE DATA. SINCE
THAT TIME. OF ALL OF THE, UH
PRESIDENT VORONIN, SACRAMENTO
ENTERED INTO NEW CONTRACTS IN
2020. L A WAS NEVER ABLE TO
PROVIDE THEIR MOST RECENT
CONTRACT WITH THEIR VENDOR,
ALTHOUGH MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT THEY HAVE SINCE BACKED OUT
OF THAT CONTRACT. I HAVEN'T SEEN
ANY PROOF OF THAT. BUT THAT'S
WHAT THEY'VE TOLD ME. AND
FINALLY. YOU NEED TO PROTECT THE
USER ACCESS WE RAISED IN THE
REPORT SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF TIMES
WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS FOUND.
OFFICERS MISUSING THE DATA. IT'S
RARE AND WE LOOKED AT THE FOUR
AGENCIES THAT WE EXAMINED. WE
LOOKED AT THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS
REPORTS AND FOUND NONE THAT WERE
RELATED TO AL PR. UM BUT IT CAN
HAPPEN AND THE DATA IS VERY
AVAILABLE, SO WE. RECOMMENDED
THAT THESE AGENCIES, UH ADOPT
SOME SAFEGUARDS USER CONTROLS,
FOR EXAMPLE, DELETING USERS AS
SOON AS THEY LEAVE THE AGENCY.
WE FOUND IN A FEW CASES WHERE
MEMBERS WHO HAD LEFT HAD BEEN
KEPT ON THE ROLES FOR A WHILE,
AND THEIR ACCESS HADN'T BEEN
REVOKED. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE
NECESSARILY THAT THEY WERE
ACCESSING THE DATA, BUT IT THE
ACCESS HAD NOT BEEN REVOKED. UH
UM. WE ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT
BEFORE SOMEONE BE GIVEN ACCESS
THAT THERE BE A SUPERVISOR'S
APPROVAL SO THAT SOMEONE HAS
DECIDED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
NEEDING ACCESS THE OFFICER OR
PERSON IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. HAS
BOTH A NEED AND A RIGHT TO KNOW
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT AT THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WHEN WE
SPOKE TO THEM STRESSED OVER AND
OVER THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT PEOPLE HAVE A NEED AND A
RIGHT TO KNOW. AND ALL FOUR OF
THE ENTITIES THAT WE LOOKED AT
HAVE CLAIMS THAT THEY'VE
INSTITUTED MORE OF THESE
SAFEGUARDS. THEY ALL INDICATED
THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETED AN
AUDIT OF THEIR USERS TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE USERS ARE DOING,
UH, USING THE DATA APPROPRIATELY
AND, UM, IN ONE CASE, THEY
ACTUALLY SENT US A COPY OF THE
AUDIT. SO WE'VE SEEN THAT. UM
THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
FOUND, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS THAT, UH
, USERS WERE ABLE TO ACCESS THE
DATA WITHOUT SAYING WHETHER IT
WAS RELEVANT TO A CASE NUMBER OR
EVEN TO PUT ANY INFORMATION ON
IN THERE AT ALL BEFORE THEY
ACCESS THE DATA. AND THAT WAS
ONE SAFEGUARD THAT WE
RECOMMENDED THAT EACH OF THE
ENTITIES CONSIDER. SO WITH THAT
I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.
NEXT. GOOD MORNING, MIKE ALVAREZ
WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL CHAIR. VICE CHAIR MEMBERS
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HERE WITH YOU TODAY, TALKING
ABOUT THE HARBOR TROLLS AND
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, EXTEND
MY APPRECIATION TO STAFF FOR
REACHING OUT AND COORDINATING.
AS THE LEGISLATIVELY DESIGNATED
STATEWIDE MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT,
INVEST INVESTIGATION AND
APPREHENSION COORDINATOR UM THE
SIEGE WE HAS ESTABLISHED A
NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT ARE
GEARED TOWARDS REDUCING
PREVENTING AND APPREHENDING, UM
, SUSPECTS OF MOTOR VEHICLE
THEFT, AS WELL AS THEFT OF MOTOR
VEHICLE PARTS. ONE OF THOSE
PROGRAMS IS THE DEPARTMENT'S
AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE
RECOGNITION PROGRAM. UM, AS
MENTIONED AL PRS, ASSIST LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND IDENTIFYING
WANTED VEHICLES IS DETERMINED TO
BE ASSOCIATED WITH A SPECIFIC
CRIME AND SPECIFICALLY
IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ON WHAT DOJ CALLS HOT
LIST. AH FOR THE CHP. THESE
CRIMES INCLUDE MAJOR AND VIOLENT
CRIMES SUCH AS VEHICLE THEFT,
HOMICIDE, KIDNAPPING, BURGLARIES
, CHILD AND OTHER ABDUCTIONS OF
WHAT WE COMMONLY KNOW AS AMBER
SILVER AND BLUE ALERTS. MUCH
LIKE A NUMBER OF THE CHP'S
PROGRAMS THAT ARE LEGISLATIVELY
AUTHORIZED AREA LPR PROGRAM.
IT'S ALSO LEGISLATIVELY
AUTHORIZED IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
TRANSPARENCY. UH AS WELL AS
REINFORCE THE PARTNERSHIP THAT
WE HAVE WITH THE LEGISLATURE. WE
REPORT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. NOT
ONLY ARE LPR USAGE AND
PROCEDURES BUT AS WELL AS DATA
DISCLOSURE, AND WHO WE DISCLOSE
THAT DATA TO. THE CHP HAS
ESTABLISHED R A L P R POLICY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2413 OF
THE VEHICLE CODE TO ENSURE BOTH
LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND THE
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT WE'RE
HERE TO DISCUSS ARE IN PLACE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHP LPR SYSTEM
MAY ONLY BE OPERATED BY
UNIFORMED PERSONNEL THAT HAVE
UNDERGONE SYSTEM TRAINING. TO
ENSURE BOTH FAMILIARIZATION AND
LEGAL COMPLIANCE. ADDITIONALLY
IN ALIGNMENT WITH 24 13 OF THE
VEHICLE CODE, THE CHP RETAINS
LICENSE PLATE DATA FOR NO MORE
THAN 60 DAYS, AT WHICH TIME IT
IS PURGED UNLESS IT IS
ASSOCIATED WITH EVIDENCE OR ONE
OF THE FELONY INVESTIGATIONS
THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. ACCESS
TO THAT DATA, BOTH WITHIN THE
CHP AND TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT
PARTNERS IS HIGHLY RESTRICTED
AND ONLY RELEASED WITH AN
EMBASSY OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORY
NEED TO KNOW REQUEST. UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES DO WE SHARE ANY
LPR DATA WITH ANY ENTITY THAT IS
NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY?
WITHOUT A SPECIFIC OR OFFICIAL
REQUEST. TO ENSURE THIS THE CHP
RESTRICTS OUR POINT OF CONTACT
FOR ALL LPR DATABASE SEARCHES
AND DISCLOSURES. MORE
SPECIFICALLY ALL DISCLOSURE
REQUESTS REGARDLESS OF THE
REGARDLESS IF THEY COME FROM
WITHIN THE CHP OR ANOTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ARE REFERRED
TO OUR HEADQUARTERS HERE IN
SACRAMENTO. DURING NORMAL
BUSINESS HOURS ARE PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATOR FOR OUR LPR
PROGRAM. THE COORDINATOR IS
ASSIGNED TO OUR FIELD SUPPORT
SECTION, AND THEY'LL HANDLE ALL
DISCLOSURE REQUESTS THAT OCCUR
WITHIN NORMAL BUSINESS,
OPERATING HOURS. ANYTHING
OUTSIDE OF NORMAL OPERATING
HOURS OR BUSINESS HOURS. THOSE
REQUESTS REFERRED TO THE
DEPARTMENT'S EMERGENCY
NOTIFICATION. A TACTICAL ALERT
CENTER, WHICH HANDLES ALL OVER
AMBER SILVER AND, UM, BLUE ALERT
ACTIVATIONS. AND THEN FINALLY,
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN ORDER
TO PROMOTE THAT TRUST AND
LEGITIMACY, THE CHP REPORTS ON
AN ANNUAL BASIS, UM ALL LPR
USAGE AND PRACTICES, INCLUDING
RLP DISCLOSURES, AS WELL AS A
RECORD OF EACH INDIVIDUAL
AGENCY, TO WHICH THE DATA IS
DISCLOSED, AND THOSE LEAD
REPORTS ARE DISSEMINATED BY MY
STAFF TO THE SENATE ASSEMBLY
ALLEGED COUNCIL AND ARE ALSO
AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE. UM
THAT WILL TAKE A QUICK PAUSE
THERE AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.
THANK YOU. YES GOOD MORNING
CHAIR VICE CHAIR MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS PIPPEN. D COUNCIL
MEMBERS CITY OF LEO. UM ALSO A
BOARD MEMBER AND CHAIR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE FOR CAL
CITIES TODAY. I'M GOING TO SHARE
WITH YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT
VALEO, WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY
HOW WE'RE USING THE TECHNOLOGY
AND HOW IT CAME TO EXIST IN MY
COMMUNITY. UM SO VALERO HAS A
POPULATION OF 127,000 PEOPLE. WE
ARE THE MOSTDIVERSE CITY MID
SIZED CITY IN THE COUNTRY. WE
RECEIVE OVER 70,000 CALLS FOR
SERVICE EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND
ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN INCREASING.
YEARLY UM WE HAVE 80 SWORN
OFFICERS CURRENTLY 10 OF WHICH
ARE ON DISABILITY, SIX OF WHICH
ARE IN FIELD TRAINING, AND WE
ALSO HAVE OVER 30 VACANCIES WITH
123 AUTHORIZED POSITIONS. WE
HAVE MANDATORY OVERTIME IN
EFFECT, AND WE ARE WORSE OFF
RIGHT NOW. UM, THEN WHERE WE
WERE DURING BANKRUPTCY. UM ANY
TECHNOLOGY THAT HELPS OUR
DEPARTMENT BE MORE EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT IN OUR COMMUNITY SAFER
IS DESPERATELY NEEDED. UM,
CURRENTLY YEAR TODAY, LPR
RESULTS 55 VEHICLE RECOVERIES
133 CASES WHERE ASSISTED OVER
4000 UNIQUE LEADS WERE RECEIVED
, AND THIS IS JUST SINCE JANUARY
, 74 ARRESTS THAT WERE RELATED
TO THINGS SUCH AS HOMICIDE
ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPONS,
KIDNAPPING, ELDER ABUSE AND
CARJACKING. UM. IT WAS UNIQUE.
HOW LPR FIRST CAME TO YOU, VALEO
IN 2013. WE STARTED
PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING, WHICH
WAS, UM CITYWIDE AND ALLOWS FOR
RESIDENTS TO SUBMIT IDEAS. UM
INDEPENDENTLY TO BE ON A BALLOT
THAT IS VOTED ON BY RESIDENTS
AND ONE OF THE TOP VOTE GETTERS
WAS A ITEM THAT FUNDED CAMERAS
AND LIGHTS. AND SO THAT'S HOW IT
FIRST CAME IN WITH YOU REALLY BE
PREVALENT IN OUR COMMUNITY. UM
SINCE THEN, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE
NEIGHBORHOODS REQUEST THE
ABILITY TO PURCHASE UM
ADDITIONAL, UH, UNITS TO DEPLOY
IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS OR
AROUND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. UM
SO MY COMMUNITY REALLY EMBRACES
THIS TECHNOLOGY. WE REALLY
DESIRE YOU KNOW, TO FEEL SAFE IN
OUR COMMUNITIES. WE DO WANT TO
HAVE THAT BALANCE. IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT TO MY COMMUNITY. BUT
AT THE SAME TIME BEING ABLE TO
GO WITH YOUR CHILDREN TO THE
PARKS, UM WE JUST HAD SOME HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS COME TALK HOW
THEY DON'T FEEL SAFE WALKING
FROM THEIR HOMES TO SCHOOL ON A
DAILY BASIS, AND THAT CAN'T BE
IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S JUST NOT
ACCEPTABLE, SO I APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH YOU
PERSONALLY, OUR STORY AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE IN
THIS EFFORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AND I BELIEVE MR DIAZ IS
ON. ON VIDEO. YOU ALL HEAR ME?
YES. WE'RE READY HERE FROM MR
DIAZ. GREAT GOOD MORNING,
EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ANGEL DIAZ
. I'M A VISITING ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR HAD THE VOLUME. WE
CAN'T HEAR YOU. IT MADE I DON'T
WANT YOU SCREAMING, BUT IT MAY
BE OUR PROBLEM, NOT YOURS. AH,
TRY GO AHEAD. SOUNDS LIKE MY.
SPEAKERS ON YOUR GOOD. OKAY
GREAT. SO I ACTUALLY WANT TO
STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT. IT CAN
BE REALLY TEMPTING TO JUST JUMP
INTO THE TECHNOLOGY AND START
THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE ISSUES
ARE. BUT IT'S I THINK IMPORTANT
TO THINK ABOUT THE CONTEXT IN
WHICH IS GOING TO BE DEPLOYED. I
THINK WE NEED TO BE HONEST AND
HAVE A SOBER ASSESSMENT ABOUT
POLICE DEPARTMENTS LONG HISTORY
OF TARGETING COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR OF TARGETING PROTEST
GROUPS OF TARGETING OTHER
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. I
THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER THE LONG HISTORY OF
POLICE DEPARTMENTS FALSELY
APPLIED INFORMATION INTO
DATABASES. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT
TO REMEMBER THE LONG HISTORY OF
POLICE DEPARTMENTS MISUSING
DATABASE INFORMATION TO TARGET
EXES OR JOURNALISTS CRITICIZED
THE DEPARTMENT OR BUSINESS
ASSOCIATES. ALL OF THIS IS A
CONTINUATION OF A MOMENT IN
TIME. SO AS MUCH AS IT CAN BE
TEMPTING TO THINK OF
SURVEILLANCE IS IN NEUTRAL
ALTERNATIVE TO DISCRIMINATORY
POLICING. IT IS A CONTINUATION
OF THE SAME PRACTICE. IN FACT,
WHAT IT DOES IS IT CREATES NEW
JUSTIFICATIONS PRACTICES, AND IT
CAN OFTEN TIMES OBSCURE THE
HARMS WHEN THEY HAPPEN, SO TO
STEP BACK. I THINK THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS
BECAUSE AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT
POTENTIAL FIXES, MAYBE IN A
DIFFERENT HEARING. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT THE
ROOT CAUSES AS OPPOSED TO JUST
TRYING TO STAMP ON INDIVIDUAL
FIXES TO A TECHNOLOGY. NOW I
THINK MAYBE I'LL JUST GIVE A
QUICK OVERVIEW BECAUSE I THINK
THE OTHER PANELS ARE A LITTLE
BIT MORE LIKE IN THE WEEDS ON
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS. THESE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE ESSENTIALLY A
COMBINATION OF CAMERAS AND
COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AND WHAT THEY
DO IS THEY CAPTURE INFORMATION
ABOUT CARS THAT PASSED BY. IT
DOESN'T MATTER IF THE POWER IS
CONNECTED TO A PRIMARY KICKS
INFORMATION ABOUT EVERY TIME AND
IT COLLECTS ALL SORTS OF
INFORMATION LIKE A LICENSE PLATE
, BUT IT ALSO CAPTURES THE MAKE
MODEL AND COLOR OF A CAR. IT CAN
ALSO CAPTURE PICTURES OF THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE INSIDE OF THE
CAR. AFTER THIS IS HAPPENING TO
THINGS HAPPEN. ONE IS ANALYZED
AGAINST VARIOUS DATABASES LIKE
LET'S SAY A HOT LIST AS WE
MENTIONED EARLIER BUT ALSO CAN
BE ANALYZED AGAINST BEGIN
DATABASE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IS
THAT IT CAN BE STORED FOR A VERY
LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND I THINK
WHAT HASN'T REALLY BEEN
ARTICULATED IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE
STORING INFORMATION FOR AS LONG
AS IT'S BEING STORED, IT CREATES
A PRETTY REVEALING PICTURE OF
LET'S SAY WHERE I WORK WHERE I
GO TO SCHOOL. WHO I BOTH
COMMUNITY WITH SEEKING
HEALTHCARE, WHERE MY DOCTOR'S
OFFICES ALL THIS INFORMATION IS
PRETTY EASY TO PIECE TOGETHER.
BASED ON LICENSE BUT LEADER DATA
NOW, THIS ISN'T JUST AVAILABLE
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT'S
AVAILABLE TO BASICALLY ANYONE
THAT PURCHASES A SUBSCRIPTION,
SO YES, THERE ARE CERTAIN LOT
BICYCLE READER SCANS THAT ARE
ONLY AVAILABLE TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. BUT
THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT
ARE COLLECTING THIS INFORMATION
AND THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN
ACCESS IT SO SOME OF THE SCANS
COME FROM DEPARTMENTS, BUT SOME
OF THE SCANS COME FROM TOE TRUCK
COMPANIES. OR THEY CAN COME FROM
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS THAT WAS
INCREASINGLY SETTING UP THEIR
OWN SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS AROUND
THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND TRYING
TO KEEP THAT THEY DON'T THINK
BELONG. IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS
CONTINUES TO REALLY LONG HISTORY
OF HR WAYS, HAVING RAISED THE
POLICIES THAT MAKE PEOPLE OF
COLOR FEEL UNWELCOME IN THEIR
OWN CITIES. I WANT TO FOCUS THE
TESTIMONY ON THREE MAIN POINTS
AND HOW COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS
ABOUT ANYTHING? BUT THE FIRST
ONE IS THAT DESPITE WHAT I JUST
SAID, THIS TECHNOLOGY IS
ACTUALLY PRETTY FAULTY, AND IT'S
FAULTY FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS
THAT THERE'S BAD SCANS, AND THE
SECOND IS THAT THE DATA THAT'S
UPLOADED IS DIRTY. SO WHEN I SAY
BAD SKINS, SOME EVALUATIONS,
INCLUDING INFLATE HOUNDED AS
MUCH AS 35% OF THE SCANS WERE
MISREADS. SO THE INFORMATION
THAT'S BEING SENT ISN'T
ACCURATE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS
THAT SOMETIMES A HOTLIST
INFORMATION IS OUT OF DATE OR
THE INFORMATION. AS I MENTIONED
UP TOP, IT WAS UPLOADED, SO IT
IS LEADING TO STOP THE PEOPLE
THAT SHOULDN'T BE STOPPED AT
ALL. SO TO GIVE YOU JUST ONE
EXAMPLE THE WOMAN IN COLORADO
ALONG WITH YOUR KIDS WERE PULLED
OVER, PUT FACE DOWN ON THE
GROUND AND HELD AT GUNPOINT
BECAUSE THEIR SUV WAS MISTAKENLY
LABELED AS A STOLEN MOTORCYCLE
FROM A DIFFERENT STATE. THESE
EXAMPLES SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY
BEEN CAUGHT BY POLICE, BUT IT
SHOWS HOW TECHNOLOGY AGAIN CAN
AGGRAVATE EXISTING BIASES
BECAUSE POLICE CAN BE VERY
TRUSTING ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY
SAYS AND SO IT HAS THE POTENTIAL
OF CALCULATING AN ORDINARY
POLICE STOP AND MAKING THEM
THINK THIS PERSON IS A DANGEROUS
CRIMINAL. THEY STILL A CAR.
THERE ARE PART OF A GANG AND WE
CAN HAVE THAT BE VERY DEADLY,
PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE
OF COLOR OR OTHER MARGINALIZED
GROUPS. THE SECOND POINT I WANT
TO MAKE IS THAT THE DATA SHARING
PUTS PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT IS THE
AUDITOR SPOKE A LOT ABOUT HOW
THERE IS SO MUCH UNINTENTIONAL
OR INTENTIONAL DATA SHARING THAT
GOES ON WITHIN AGENCIES. PCL USE
INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT MARINE,
FOR EXAMPLE, WAS SHARING LPR
DATA WITH HEIST DESPITE THERE
BEING RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE TO
TRY TO PROTECT UNDOCUMENTED
CALIFORNIANS IF WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO TRY TO PROVIDE
SANCTUARY FOR UNDOCUMENTED
CALIFORNIANS, WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT
FOR THE REALITY OF HOW EASILY
SHARED LPR. DNA IS THE SMALLEST
EVERY OTHER KIND OF DAY WE
DIDN'T TALK ABOUT TODAY. THERE'S
ALSO HAS RENEWED IMPORTANCE.
POSTDOCS WHERE WE HAVE NEW
PEOPLE WHO MAY BE TRAVELING TO
CALIFORNIA SEEKING DETERMINING
PREGNANCIES, AND IT WILL BE EASY
FOR BOTH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOR
PEOPLE THAT ARE SELF DEPUTIZE TO
ACCESS LICENSING LEADER
DATABASES TO TRACK PEOPLE WHO
ARE COMING INTO OUR STATE
SEEKING HEALTH CARE. THE LAST
THING I WANT TO SAY, IS THAT
THIS DATA AGAIN IS RIGHT FOR
ABUSE. THERE IS A LONG HISTORY
OF POLICE TARGETING USING
DATABASES TO STOP THERE, CRUSHES
INVESTIGATE THEIR EX GIRLFRIENDS
TARGET CRITICS. LPR DATA IS
VERY, VERY SENSITIVE. AND AS
MUCH AS IT CAN BE TEMPTING TO
THINK ABOUT TECHNOLOGIES AND
ISOLATION IT'S INFORMED. KEEP IN
MIND THAT THEY'RE ALL PART OF A
BROADER NETWORK. SO I MENTIONED
TOO, THAT THESE CAMERAS CAN ALSO
CAPTURE PICTURES OF PEOPLE IN
THE CARS. COMPANIES LIKE
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS THAT OFFER
THIS TECHNOLOGY ALSO OFFER
FACIAL RECOGNITION SO THE PHOTOS
EVER CAPTURED, CAN THEN BE RUN
THROUGH FACIAL RECOGNITION ON AN
OFFICER'S INDIVIDUAL PHONE. THE
AUDITOR SPOKE ABOUT HOW THEY'RE
STILL LITTLE CONTROLS. IT CAN BE
VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW
OFTEN PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY
MISUSING THIS TECHNOLOGY. I
MEAN, THINK ABOUT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES AND ISOLATION. WE
MISSED THE BROADER PICTURE ABOUT
HOW ALL OF THESE TOOLS ARE
SHRINKING PUBLIC SPACE THERE,
FACILITATING POPULATION CONTROL
AND THEY'RE POSING ONGOING HARMS
TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
TECH COMPANIES CAN MAKE IT SEEM
LIKE THEY'RE ALWAYS JUST ONE
DATA POINT AWAY FROM PREVENTING
A CRIME OR SOLVING A CRIME. THIS
IS A FALSE PREMISE THAT HAS NO
LOGICAL ENDPOINT OTHER THAN
TOTAL SURVEILLANCE. KEEPING
COMMUNITIES SAFE HAS TO MEAN
SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST KEEPING
COMMUNITIES WATCHED. AND I HOPE
THAT THE TESTIMONY TODAY
ILLUMINATES THE NEED TO HAVE
SIGNIFICANT URTAILMENT OF
SURVEILLANCE. SOME OF THAT MAY
BE INDIVIDUAL FIXES. BUT THE
BROADER QUESTION NEEDS TO BE THE
SIZE AND SCOPE OF POLICING IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. EXTENT
OF THE OPPORTUNITY. TESTIFYING,
UNPACKING ANSWER QUESTIONS. HMM.
THANK YOU, UM SO EACH PANEL IS
GENERALLY ABOUT A HALF HOUR. UM
WELL, LOOKS LIKE WE'RE AHEAD OF
SCHEDULE I WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW
IN BETWEEN EACH PANEL, UM, FOR
MEMBERS OF THIS BODY HERE IF YOU
GIVE US ABOUT 10 MINUTES TO ASK
QUESTIONS IF WE HAVE ANY
OTHERWISE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT
PANEL. SO IF ANY OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS LIKE TO ASK A
QUESTION WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST.
GO AHEAD, MR ZERO TOÀN. QUESTION
FOR CHP. UM. AND I ALREADY KNOW
THE ANSWER, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK
IT SO EVERYBODY ELSE CAN HEAR,
UH, WHEN YOU USE THIS
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, AND YOU
IDENTIFY IT HIT ON A PLATE.
THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE
INVESTIGATION. THAT DOES NOT
MEAN THAT PERSON THAT WHATEVER
WHOEVER IS IN THAT CAR IS THE
GUILTY PARTY. IT'S JUST A CLUE.
THAT THIS COULD PERHAPS BE A
VEHICLE. THAT WAS INVOLVED IN A
CRIME OR IN IT'S SOMETHING. AND
I THINK MOST LOGICAL POLICE
OFFICERS WHICH YOU KNOW. YES I
KNOW. THERE WERE SOME AS THE
GENTLEMAN HAD NOTED. THERE IS
SOME ABUSE OUT THERE, BUT BY AND
LARGE I THINK IT'S PROBABLY IN
THE 95TH PERCENTILE THAT MOST
DON'T UM BUT THAT'S JUST THE
CLUE. AND WITHOUT IT. THERE
WOULD BE DONE. IS THAT WHAT.
WHAT YOU GUYS USE IS A NEW
INITIAL CLUE. IS THERE
ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION THAT
GOES ON? YES I GET MY COFFERS OF
THE CHP APPRECIATE THE QUESTION
. THAT IS CORRECT. SO IF ANY
HELP IF WE DO GET AN AL PR HIT
PART OF THAT TRAINING THAT WE
PUT OUR OFFICERS THROUGH IS TO
CONFIRM THAT INFORMATION THROUGH
COLETTE'S RECOGNIZING THAT IF
THERE IS A GLITCH IN IN THE HOT
LIST, UM, AND INFORMATION THAT
THERE'S STILL MORE TO BE DONE
PRIOR TO MAKING ANY TAKING ANY
TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION, SO,
YES, WE DO TAKE THOSE EXTRA
STEPS PRIOR TO TAKING ANY
ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND FOR LACK
OF BETTER TERM JUST BECAUSE WE
GET AN LPR. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT
THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
ARREST. THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR QUIRK.
SO, UH, A NUMBER OF THE THINGS
THAT ARE SPEAKER ON ZOOM OR
WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY IT IS.
REMOTE SPEAKER SAID. I THINK CAN
BE FIXED. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE
TECHNOLOGY RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT
ACCURATE. THAT BETTER NOT BE
YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE IN FIVE
YEARS OR 10, IT WILL BE SO. UM I
DON'T TAKE THAT AS A KILLER
BLOW. UM AND CLEARLY A HOT LIST
HAS TO BE WELL DONE, AND IT'S
GOT TO BE UP TO DATE BECAUSE
PEOPLE DO GET THEIR STOLEN CARS
BACK. AH, SO THAT AGAIN NEEDS TO
BE FIXED. BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME
IS BESIDES STOPPING THE CAR
THAT'S BEEN STOLEN. THE NEXT
THING YOU'RE DOING PROBABLY IS
THERE WAS A CRIME IN A
PARTICULAR AREA AND YOU SEE WHO
DROVE INTO THE AREA. OKAY WHAT I
DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY YOU'RE
KEEPING IT FOR THESE LONG
PERIODS. UM. YOU KNOW WHAT? WHY
DO YOU KEEP IT FOR LONGER THAN
60 DAYS. FOR THAT MATTER. WHY DO
YOU KEEP IT LONGER THAN A WEEK?
BECAUSE ONCE YOU'VE DONE THAT AS
AGAIN OUR SPEAKER ON, ZOOM SAID,
YOU CAN FIND EVERYTHING ABOUT
SOMEONE'S LIFE. AND NO DATA IS
SECURE. AND WHETHER IT'S A
POLICE OFFICER OR A CRIME
SYNDICATE THAT'S TRYING TO
BLACKMAIL PEOPLE. THEY'LL FIND
SOMEBODY WHO'S HAVING AN AFFAIR.
WHATEVER. OR SOMEONE THEY JUST
DON'T LIKE. AND THEY WERE VERY
GOOD HACKER. SO WHY DO YOU KEEP
IT FOR LONGER THAN, SAY, A WEEK
OR SO, UM AND I WOULD APPRECIATE
AN ANSWER, PARTICULARLY FROM MS
PIPPEN, D I WOULD NOT ACTUALLY
BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT CAUSE I
DON'T KNOW HOW LONG WELL, THEN
THE HIGHWAY PATROL YES, SIR.
THANK YOU, UH, SO FIRST THAT
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK KIND OF
GUIDES THAT 60 DAY MARKET FOR
US. UM BUT HOW DO OPERATION CAN
YOU USE IT OPERATIONALLY BEYOND
THE WEEK? IS IT USEFUL?
ABSOLUTELY SO LET'S SAY A CRIME
GETS BROUGHT TO LIGHT BEYOND
THAT ONE WEEK PERIOD, WHETHER IT
BE FOR A CRIME THAT THE HIGHER
PATROLS INVESTIGATING THAT HAS
JURISDICTION OVER OR LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT. I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE
TO SAY THAT THAT CRIME HAS GETS
BROUGHT TO LIGHT IMMEDIATELY
AFTER IT OCCURS, BUT OBVIOUSLY
AS AS THAT SPECIFIC INCIDENT
DEVELOPS, UM, INFORMATION MAY OR
MAY COME TO LIGHT THAT THAT
MAYBE THERE'S A VEHICLE THAT WAS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRIME THAT
ARE AND I'M IN MY HEAD. I'M
THINKING AMBER ALERT, RIGHT? SO,
UM YOU KNOW? RESTRICTED TO ONLY
A WEEK WOULD WOULD GREATLY
HINDER LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
ABILITY. UM SHOULD SOMETHING GET
BROUGHT TO LIGHT BEYOND THAT?
SEVEN DAY THAT 17. OKAY? DO YOU
ARE THERE TIMES WHEN YOU SAY GEE
WHIZ. I WISH WE COULD KEEP IT
MORE THAN 60. WHAT WOULD THE
USES BE THEN? WITH THE BE ABLE
TO USE IT, SO I THINK THE BEST
RESPONSE I CAN GIVE THEIR IS
THAT YOU KNOW, WILL FOLLOW WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE. WANTS US TO DO
BY WAY OF RETENTION. UM WE SHOW
THAT THAT 60 DAY MARKER IS
APPROPRIATE ANDBEYOND THAT 60
DAYS WILL PURGE IT OKAY
ASSOCIATED WITH SO ELLA'S
KEEPING IT FOR FIVE YEARS. AND
THEY GET WELL, 300 MILLION HITS,
AND SO 3000.1% OR 300,000. ARE
USEFUL. THAT'S A HUGE NUMBER,
BUT I'M CURIOUS. YOU KNOW, IT'S
DEFINITELY GOING TO FALL OFF
OVER TIME. AND IF WE'RE LOOKING
FOR AN OPTIMAL TIME TO KEEP IT
TO PROTECT PRIVACY. SAID A WEEK
TWO WEEKS. THAT'S THE SORT OF
THING I THINK WE NEED AN ANSWER
TO BEFORE WE COULD SAY, GEE, WE
WON'T HURT LAW ENFORCEMENT BY
MAKING IT 30 DAYS OR. SIX MONTHS
. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER
ISN'T I WON'T BE HERE NEXT YEAR
, BUT I HOPE THAT OUR CHAIR AND
OUR MEMBERS THINK ABOUT THIS.
THANK YOU. MR LACKEY JUST REAL
QUICKLY. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
PARTICIPANTS, ALL THE
PARTICIPANTS FOR THEIR
INFORMATION AND THEIR INPUT. UM
AGAIN. BALANCE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AND I DON'T I RESPECT
ALL ASPECTS OF THIS, AND WE JUST
GOT TO REMEMBER THAT HUMAN
APPLICATION IS ALWAYS A
VULNERABILITY. IT'S ALWAYS GOING
TO BE THAT WAY. UM NO MATTER HOW
GOOD THE TECHNOLOGY IS, IT'S
WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT TECHNOLOGY
THAT REALLY MATTERS. AND SO I
DON'T KNOW HOW WE OVERCOME THAT
. BUT WE SHOULDN'T DISMISS A
TECHNOLOGY JUST BECAUSE OF SOME
ABUSIVE INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION. I THINK THAT THAT'S
MISTAKEN. ALSO SO UM TO ANSWER
MR KIRK, SQUELCH IN. I WILL TELL
YOU. I'VE BEEN PART OF
INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE. UM WHERE
INFORMATION. DOES NOT SURFACE
FOR SOMETIMES OVER A YEAR. AND,
UH, IT'S STILL GREAT. IT'S A
GREAT TOOL TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS.
LPR LPR IS WHEN WE CALLED IT A
LBR, WHATEVER. UM THE TECHNOLOGY
CAN BE EXTREMELY POWERFUL. UM,
TO KNOW. WHETHER A PERSON WAS AT
A CERTAIN LOCATION AT A GIVEN
TIME, BASED ON INFORMATION THAT
SURFACED VERY, VERY DELAYED. AND
SOMETIMES INVESTIGATIONS JUST
TAKE A LONG TIME FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS THERE'S NUMBER
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS THAT MAKE
THAT A REALITY. AND SO I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
FORGOTTEN, AND IT DOES SOUND.
EXTREME TO BE ABLETO HOLD
INFORMATION FOR YEARS AND YEARS
AND YEARS. UNLESS A VERY SERIOUS
CRIME. TOOK PLACE AND THERE ARE
SOME VERY HEARTBREAKING OUT
OUTCOMES AS A RESULT OF THAT
CRIME, AND BECAUSE OF LPR
TECHNOLOGY, YOU'RE ABLE TO BRING
LIGHT TO, UH WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THAT CRIMINAL CONDUCT. SO I
THINK THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE JUST KEEP A BALANCED
PERSPECTIVE. AND I'M ENCOURAGED
BY THE FACT THAT I THINK THAT
THAT'S THE ATTEMPT ON ALL SIDES
HERE, AND I HOPE THAT CONTINUES.
OKAY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, HOLD
OFF. ON MY QUESTION, BUT THIS IS
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY. UM. I'M
NOT TRYING TO GET THE ASSISTANT
CHIEF IN TROUBLE. UM, BUT YOU
SAID SOMETHING REALLY
INTERESTING. AND. I PROBABLY
WANT TO CAUTION THE OTHER
PANELISTS, BUT YOU'RE TALKING
WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVE.
LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS THAT YOU
HAVE TO FOLLOW. YOU'RE TALKING
TO PEOPLE WHO, IN THEIR VIEW.
LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS. CHANGE
YOUR LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS. UM
AND SO WHAT? I THINK MR LACKEY
IS SAYING AND WHEN MR QUIRK IS
SAYING WE NEED BEFORE WE EVEN DO
THIS. THIS IS WHY WE'RE HAVING
TO HEARING WE WANT TO FIND OUT
WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL WAY OF DOING
THIS? ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT LIKE THE HOLDING, AND I
THINK THAT'S IN EVERY ASPECT OF
THIS AS THE MR DIAS IS SAYING WE
NEED TO LOOK AT ALL THOSE
IMPERFECTIONS, ESPECIALLY THE
HUMAN ELEMENT AND TRY TO MAKE
SURE WE PUT ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS.
BUT THAT'S USING THE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE OR WORKING WITH THE
DIFFERENT AGENCIES FROM THE
LEGAL CITIES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
IS AND I'M JUST USING THIS AS
JUST A SMALL EXAMPLE. WHAT IS
THE OPTIMAL AMOUNT OF TIME TO
HOLD ONTO INFORMATION? WHAT
MAKES SENSE? UM IS IT THE CRIME
ITSELF, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO,
AND SO THIS THIS CONVERSATION
WILL CONTINUE BECAUSE I THINK
THAT IS, UM THAT IS PROBABLY
RIGHT FOR HAVING A REAL
CONVERSATION. WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. ABOUT WHAT BUT WHAT
WORKS BEST. BUT ALSO TALKED TO
THE PRIVACY VOTE. THAT REALLY,
REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT. CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND THINGS OF THAT
NATURE. AND LAY IT ALL OUT. BUT
BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE YOU
KNOW THIS IS A YOU KNOW, I WAS I
WAS ENCOURAGED TO HEAR YOU ONLY
KEEP IT FOR 60 DAYS AS OPPOSED
TO FIVE YEARS. I THOUGHT BIG
GAP. I DON'T KNOW. SO WHO YOU
KNOW, WHICH IS WHICH WORKS BEST
, UM, AS DO WE NEED TO SEND THE
AUDITOR OUT TO FIND OUT WHICH
SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN WORKING REALLY
WELL AND HAD THE LEAST AMOUNT OF
MISUSE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF
MISTAKES AND I DON'T SAY WE DO
TRIAL AND ERROR, BUT IT'S ALMOST
LIKE TRIAL AND ERROR SO THAT IF
WE DO ANY KIND OF LEGISLATION.
IT'S BASED ON EMPIRICAL
INFORMATION. NOT ON WHAT WE
FEEL. AND SO GO AHEAD. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY, SO I CAN'T
SPEAK ON HOW LONG WE ACTUALLY
HOLD THE DATA ASSUMING 60 DAYS.
UM BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAD A
FATAL HIT AND RUN ON A MOTHER
AND HER CHILD AND, UM, WE WERE
ABLE TO GRASP THE PICTURE OF THE
VEHICLE. SO WE HAVE THAT
INFORMATION. WE STILL HAVE NOT
SOLVED IT AND SPENT TWO YEARS SO
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS 60 DAYS
MAKES US PURGE THAT OR IF IT'S
STILL ABLE TO BE HELD. I ALSO
KNOW THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH A
LOT OF ORGANIZED CATALYTIC
CONVERTER RETAIL THEFT RINGS. UM
BOTH SEPARATE RINGS AND WE ARE
WORKING HARD TO SOLVE THOSE
CRIMES AS WELL. UM SO I KNOW
THAT HAVING THE ABILITY TO HOLD
THE DATA FOR THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS WOULD BE HELPFUL. YEAH
AND I THINK ANY LEGISLATION THAT
PASSED WOULD ALLOW THAT. I
SINCERELY DOUBT THAT IF IT'S
BEING USED AS EVIDENCE AND AN
UNSOLVED CRIME, YOU WON'T HAVE
TO DESTROY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND
THANK YOU WILL GOING TO THE NEXT
PANEL. SHOT SPOTTER. MR CHIPPING
ALL OF THIS AREA. HARPER AND
LIPTON. AND I THINK IT'S THE
LIPTON IS ON THE IT'S ON THE
CALL.
OH, WE HAVE. MAYBE MAYBE MOST OF
LIFTING IS HERE, BUT. SO WHOEVER
WOULD LIKE TO START FIRST. UM
AGAIN. CHAIR MR VICE CHAIR.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR
HAVING ME HERE TODAY. MY NAME IS
TOM CHITTUM. I'M THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF SHOTS, SPOTTERS,
ANALYTICS AND FORENSIC SERVICES
SHOT SPOTTER BELIEVES THAT THE
DECISION TO DEPLOY POLICE
TECHNOLOGY SHOULD HAVE
DEMOCRATIC APPROVAL BASED ON
PUBLIC INFORMATION. ABOUT ITS
POTENTIAL BENEFITS, AND IT'S
HARMS AND THAT PROCESS SHOULD
INCLUDE THE COMMUNITIES MOST
LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY IT.
THAT'S WHY OUR CEO AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES REGULARLY APPEAR AT
PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY CITY
LEADERS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS. IT
IS WHY WE ENGAGE WITH THE MEDIA
EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CRITICAL OF
US, AND IT IS WHY I AM HAPPY TO
BE APPEARING BEFORE YOU TODAY. I
HAVE DEDICATED MY PROFESSIONAL
LIFE TO HELPING FIGHT GUN CRIME.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I RETIRED
FROM THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
, OR 80. F LAST SERVING AS ITS
ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER AFTER SERVING
MY COUNTRY FOR NEARLY 27 YEARS,
I CAME TO WORK FOR SHOT SPOTTER
BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN ITS
INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL TO SAVE
LIVES, IMPROVE POLICING. AND
MAKE COMMUNITIES SAFER. IN A
MOMENT, I'LL EXPLAIN WHY SHOT
SPOTTERS TECHNOLOGY POSES AN
EXTREMELY LOW RISK TO PRIVACY.
BEFORE THAT. I'LL DESCRIBE HOW
OUR TECHNOLOGY WORKS AND HOW IT
BENEFITS THE COMMUNITIES WHERE
IT'S BEING USED. BUT FIRST I'D
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE CHALLENGES
POLICE FACE AND ADDRESSING GUN
VIOLENCE WITHOUT SHOT SPOTTER.
WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH THAT 80%
OF GUNFIRE. INCIDENTS DO NOT
RESULT IN A CALL TO 911. THAT'S
BECAUSE MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE
GROWN NUMB TO THE SOUND OF
GUNFIRE. THEY HAVE RESIGNED
THEMSELVES TO LIVING WITH IT. OR
THEY FEAR RETALIATION IF THEY
COOPERATE WITH POLICE. OR THEY
THINK THAT SOMEONE ELSE WILL
CALL, BUT NO ONE ELSE DOES. THAT
MEANS POLICE DO NOT EVEN KNOW
ABOUT FOUR OUT OF EVERY FIVE
SHOOTING INCIDENTS THAT OCCURS.
THAT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO
CATCH A SHOOTER BEFORE ANOTHER
CRIME HAS COMMITTED. WHEN POLICE
DO NOT RESPOND TO THE SHOOTINGS
THEY DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE
COMMUNITY ASSUMES IT'S BECAUSE
THEY DON'T CARE. AND THAT THE
POLICE HAVE GIVEN UP ON THEM AND
THEY START TO LIVE, LOSE HOPE
AND LOSE TRUST. IN THE 20% OR
LESS OF INCIDENTS WHERE SOMEONE
ACTUALLY DOES CALL 911. THERE IS
USUALLY DELAY OF SEVERAL MINUTES
. PRECIOUS TIME IS LOST FOR
GUNSHOT VICTIMS WHO NEED MEDICAL
AID. AND THERE'S AMPLE TIME FOR
SHOOTERS TO ESCAPE. YOUR AVERAGE
911 CALLER IS NOT TRAINED TO
DISTINGUISH THE SOUNDS OF
GUNFIRE FROM SIMILAR SOUNDS LIKE
FIREWORKS LEADING TO FALSE
ALARMS. THEY CAN PROVIDE ONLY
GENERAL DETAILS OF WHAT THEY
THINK THEY HEARD. THEY DO NOT
HAVE AN AUDIO RECORDING THAT
THEY CAN LISTEN TO AGAIN OR
SHARE WITH POLICE. THEY USUALLY
DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE
GUNFIRE CAME FROM SOMEWHERE. AND
SO POLICE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO
SWARM COMMUNITIES WITH LARGE
NUMBERS OF OFFICERS BLANDLY
SEARCHING FOR VICTIMS OR
SHOOTERS OR EVIDENCE AND THAT
HEAVY INDISCRIMINATE PATROL
LEADS TO PERCEPTIONS OF OVER
POLICING. SHOT SPOTTER OFFERS A
BETTER WAY. WE DEPLOY ACOUSTIC
SENSORS IN PLACES IDENTIFIED BY
POLICE THROUGH OBJECTIVE CRIME,
DATA AND HISTORICAL INFORMATION
AS SUFFERING FROM HIGH RATES OF
GUN FIRE AND HOMICIDES. ONCE
DEPLOYED. OUR SENSORS DETECT
LOUD, IMPULSIVE SOUNDS LIKE
GUNSHOTS AND LOCATE THEM USING A
WELL KNOWN AND WIDELY ACCEPTED
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS CALLED
MULTILATERAL ATION. MULTILATERAL
ASIAN WAS USED BY THE ALLIES IN
WORLD WAR ONE TO LOCATE ENEMY
ARTILLERY. IT IS USED IN
NAVIGATION SYSTEMS. IT IS USED
BY WILDLIFE RESEARCHERS TO
LOCATE HOWLING WOULD ALWAYS TO
STUDY THEM. IT IS NOT SECRETIVE
, UNTESTED SCIENCE. IT IS SIMPLY
MATH. WHEN OUR SYSTEM DETECTS
ALLOWED IMPULSIVE SOUND AND
ALGORITHM FILTERS OUT SOUNDS
THAT ARE NOT GUNFIRE, THEN A
TRAINED HUMAN REVIEWER ANALYZES
THE SOUND. STUDIES VISUAL WAVE
FORMS AND EXAMINES OTHER DATA TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
SOUND IS, IN FACT, GUNFIRE AND
ONLY THEN DO WE NOTIFY POLICE.
THAT ENTIRE PROCESS TAKES LESS
THAN 60 SECONDS. WHEN WE NOTIFY
POLICE HAVE A SHOOTING. WE SHARE
THE LOCATION WITHIN 25 M AND WE
SEND THEM AUDIO CLIPS SO THEY
CAN LISTEN TO THE GUNFIRE
THEMSELVES. WE'RE OFTEN ABLE TO
PROVIDE IMPORTANT TACTICAL
INTELLIGENCE LIKE WHETHER THE
SHOOTING INCIDENT INVOLVED A
HIGH NUMBER OF ROUNDS WHETHER IT
INVOLVED A MACHINE GUN AND
WHETHER REMOVING SHOOTER WAS
INVOLVED, SUCH AS IN A DRIVE BY
ALL THIS INFORMATION ALLOWS
POLICE TO RESPOND QUICKLY AND
PRECISELY TO RENDER AID TO
GUNSHOT VICTIMS TO ARREST
SHOOTERS TO SEIZE CRIME GUNS AND
TO COLLECT IMPORTANT BALLISTIC
EVIDENCE FOR INVESTIGATIONS, AND
THEY CAN DO THIS WITH FEWER
RESOURCES THAN RESPONDING
BLANDLY TO THE OCCASIONAL 911
CALL. THESE BENEFITS ARE NOT
THEORETICAL. THEY ARE ALREADY
BEING REALIZED IN CITIES HERE IN
CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS THE
COUNTRY. IN OAKLAND BETWEEN 2020
AND 2021 SHOT SPOTTER LED POLICE
TO 100 AND 77 GUNSHOT VICTIMS%
WHERE NO ONE HAD CALLED 911.
SAVING THE LIVES OF MANY OF
THEM. SIMILARLY IN THE LAST TWO
YEARS. PITTSBURGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT ROUTE REPORTS THAT 13
GUNSHOT VICTIMS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED BY SHOT SPOTTER WHERE
NO ONE CALLED 911. THIS HAPPENS
ALL THE TIME. AND USED AS A PART
OF A COMPREHENSIVE CRIME. GUN
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY. SHOT
SPOTTER DATA CAN HELP POLICE
LEADERS. BEST DEPLOY THEIR
LIMITED PERSONNEL. AND IT CAN
ALSO HELP IDENTIFY THOSE
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MOST IN
NEED OF SUPPORT. OUTREACH AND
INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE
AND STEER COMMUNITY GROUPS AND
APPROPRIATELY RESOURCES TO THEM.
SHOT SPOTTER HAS ALWAYS BEEN
CONSCIENTIOUS OF OUR POTENTIAL
IMPACT ON PRIVACY. AND THAT IS
WHY WE VOLUNTARILY SOUGHT AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OUR
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BY NEW
YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW'S
POLICING PROJECT. WE GAVE THEM
UNFETTERED ACCESS TO ALL OF OUR
SYSTEMS AND ALL OF OUR
INFORMATION AND COMPLETE
EDITORIAL CONTROL OF THE
RESULTING REPORT, WHICH IS
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND INCLUDED
IN YOUR MATERIALS. THEY
DESCRIBED SHOT SPOTTERS APPROACH
AS AN IMPORTANT MODEL FOR
IMPROVING THE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY OF POLICING
TECHNOLOGIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
IN RESPONSE TO THEIR AUDIT. WE
ADOPTED ALL OF THEIR DETAILED
RECOMMENDATIONS TO FURTHER
MINIMIZE ANY RISK. THEIR
ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. THE PRIVACY
RISK OUR TECHNOLOGY POSES IS
EXTREMELY LOW. HERE IS WHY SHOT
SPOTTER CAN TELL YOU WHAT AND
WHERE AND WHEN WE CANNOT TELL
YOU WHO WE IDENTIFY AND LOCATE
THE SOUNDS OF GUNFIRE. WE DO NOT
IDENTIFY PEOPLE. THE SOUNDS WE
DETECT, OCCUR OUTSIDE AND COULD
BE HEARD BY ANYONE STANDING IN
PUBLIC. OUR SENSORS ARE PLACED
HIGH ABOVE THE STREET, 20 OR 30,
FT OR MORE ON LIGHT POLES AND
BUILDINGS. THIS HELPS WITH OUR
EFFICIENCY AND DETECTING THE
SOUNDS OF GUNFIRE, BUT IT ALSO
REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WE
WILL DETECT CONVERSATIONS ON THE
STREET. OUR SENSORS ARE NOT
POSITIONED, TUNED OR SPECIALIZED
TO PICK UP HUMAN VOICES. WE USE
ORDINARY CELL PHONE QUALITY
MICROPHONES. OUR SYSTEM CANNOT
LIVE STREAM AUDIO. IT DOES NOT
HAVE VIDEO. OUR SENSORS DETECT
LOUD, IMPULSIVE NOISES,
INSTANTANEOUS AND SHARP AND ONLY
CREATE AN INCIDENT FOR HUMAN
REVIEW. WHEN THREE OR MORE
SENSORS HERE, THAT SAME SOUND
THAT MEANS HUMAN VOICES WILL
NEVER TRIGGER AN ALERT BECAUSE
THEY DO NOT PRODUCE AN
INSTANTANEOUS SHARP SOUND LOUD
ENOUGH TO BE HEARD BY THREE OR
MORE SENSORS. WHEN OUR SYSTEM
DETECTS AN INCIDENT, IT SENDS A
SHORT AUDIO SNIPPET TO OUR
INCIDENT REVIEW CENTER. THAT
SNIPPET HAS THE LOUD, IMPULSIVE
SOUND PLUS ONE SECOND BEFORE AND
ONE SECOND AFTER TO DETERMINE
THE LEVEL OF AMBIENT NOISE.
WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT
OCCASIONALLY THAT SNIPPET CAN
INCLUDE THE SOUND OF HUMAN
VOICES, IT IS EXTREMELY RARE,
AND EVEN THEN IT IS TYPICALLY
ONLY SCREAMING LOUD ENOUGH OR
CONCURRENT WITH GUNFIRE. EXCEPT
FOR DETECTED INCIDENTS. ALL
RECORDED AUDIO IS AUTOMATICALLY
AND PERMANENTLY PURGED FROM OUR
SYSTEM AFTER 30 HOURS. SO WHILE
AN INDIVIDUAL SENSOR MAY DETECT
A HUMAN VOICE THAT SOUNDED
STORED LOCALLY ON THE DEVICE AND
IS PURGED AFTER 30 HOURS WITH NO
SHOT, SPOTTER EMPLOYEE, NO
POLICE DEPARTMENT OR ANY OTHER
THIRD PARTY EVER HEARING IT. NO
THIRD PARTY, INCLUDING OUR
CUSTOMERS HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO
OUR SENSORS OR OUR AUDIO. WE
HAVE A STRICT POLICY AGAINST
RELEASING ANY AUDIO OTHER THAN
THE SNIPPETS OF GUNFIRE, AND WE
WILL DENY SUCH REQUESTS AND
VIGOROUSLY VIGOROUSLY RESIST
THEM. IN NOVEMBER. 2019 THE
OAKLAND PRIVACY ADVISORY
COMMISSION, REVIEWED SHOT
SPOTTER UNDER ONE OF THE MOST
STRINGENT LOCAL SURVEILLANCE
ORDINANCES IN THE COUNTRY. THE
COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
THE CONTINUED USE OF SHOT
SPOTTER. CAN THE COMMISSION
RENEWED ITS APPROVAL EARLIER
THIS YEAR? AND IN 2020. OUR
SYSTEM ALSO PASSED REVIEW BY THE
SAN FRANCISCO PRIVACY ADVISORY
AND SURVEILLANCE BOARD. I HOPE
YOU CONCLUDE AS N Y U OAKLAND
AND SAN FRANCISCO HAVE THAT SHOT
SPOTTERS RISK TO PRIVACY IS
EXTREMELY LOW AND GREATLY
OUTWEIGHED BY THE TREMENDOUS
BENEFITS WE OFFER FOR SAVING
LIVES AND HELPING POLICE. FIGHT
GUN CRIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANKS. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK
HERE TODAY ABOUT SACRAMENTO'S
USE OF THE SHOT SPOTTER SYSTEM.
I WAS ACTUALLY A LIEUTENANT ON
PATROL SIGNED AS A WATCH
COMMANDER IN 2015 WHEN WE
LAUNCHED OUR FIRST SHOT SPOTTER
AND THE DEL PASO HEIGHTS AREA
SACRAMENTO. I MEAN, I WAS VERY
SKEPTICAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY, BUT
THAT DOUBT QUICKLY SUBSIDED. AS
I PERSONALLY SAW THE ACCURACY
AND SUCCESS OF THE SYSTEM. I'M
DEPUTY CHIEF STEVE OLIVEIRA WITH
THE SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT
HAVE BEEN WITH THE DEPARTMENT
FOR ALMOST 28 YEARS NOW%
CURRENTLY OVERSEE OUR OFFICE OF
OPERATION, WHICH CONSISTS OF OUR
PATROL DIVISION SEVERAL OF OUR
SPECIALTY UNITS, INCLUDING OUR
SHOT SPOTTER TEAMS, IN ADDITION
TO OUR 911 COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER. SHOT SPOTTER WAS
IMPLEMENTED IN THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO. THREE PHASES OVER
THREE YEARS IN JULY OF 2015, A
THREE SQUARE MILE ZONE NORTH
SACRAMENTO BECAME THE PILOT AREA
FOR OUR FIRST SHOT SPOTTER. DUE
TO THE SUCCESS IN OUR CONFIDENCE
IN THE SYSTEM, WE MADE A
PERMANENT SINCE THEN, WE HAVE
ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL SHOTS SHOT
SPOTTER SYSTEMS, ONE IN OUR
SOUTH AREA IN 2017 AND ANOTHER
ONE IN OUR EAST AREA IN 2018. WE
SEE SHOT SPOTTERS A VALUABLE
TOOL TO ENHANCE THE DEPARTMENT'S
ABILITY TO RESPOND TO AND
INVESTIGATE VIOLENT CRIMES
INVOLVING ILLEGAL GUNFIRE. WE
ALSO KNOW TO COMPLETELY MAXIMIZE
THE BENEFIT. WE NEED TO BE ABLE
TO RESPOND QUICKLY TO GUNFIRE
ALERTS. WE HAVE ALLOCATED THREE
SHOT SPOTTER TEAMS, ONE IN EACH
OF OUR SHOT SPOTTER ZONES.
OFFICERS ASSIGNED A SHOT SPOTTER
TEAMS WORK STRATEGIC HOURS,
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, BASED ON
CRIME ANALYSIS RESEARCH,
INCLUDING SHOT SPOTTER
ACTIVATION HISTORY. THESE
OFFICERS ARE TYPICALLY THE
PRIMARY RESPONDERS FOR SHOOTING
STEMMING FROM SHOT SPOTTER
ACTIVATIONS AS WELL AS BEING THE
INITIAL INVESTIGATING OFFICERS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
SHOT, SPAR ALERTS PROVIDE
OFFICERS A LEAD ON WHERE HE'S
SHOOTING MAY BE OCCURRING. BUT
THE OFFICERS STILL NEED TO HAVE
MORE CRITERIA TO JUSTIFY ANY
DETENTIONS OR ARRESTS. OFFICERS
ROUTINELY DEVELOPED SIGNIFICANT
LEADS IN THE PRELIMINARY STAGES
OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT LEAD TO
ARREST AND SEIZURE FIREARMS AT
THE SCENE. IN ADDITION, THEY
CONDUCT FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATIONS
ON SHOTS. PARLORS INCLUDES
SERVING SEARCH WARRANTS AND
CONDUCTING PRO PROBATION
SEARCHES, WHICH OFTEN LEAD TO
IDENTIFICATION OF SHOOTERS AND
THE RECOVERY OF ILLEGALLY USED
OR POSSESSED FIREARMS. JUST THIS
PAST NEW YEAR'S EVE, THE SOUTH
GANG ENFORCEMENT TEAM CONDUCTED
A FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION
RELATED TO A SHOT SPOTTER
ACTIVATION AT A RESIDENCE IN
SOUTH SACRAMENTO. IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THE PRESIDENT
WAS A CONVICTED FELON. A SEARCH
WARRANT WAS SERVED AT A LOCATION
IN A AR 15 STYLE RIFLE PLUS
THREE MORE HANDGUNS WERE SEIZED.
TWO SUBJECTS WERE ARRESTED,
INCLUDING THE RESIDENT FOR
FIREARMS POSSESSION AND
NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
CHARGES. THE SACRAMENT. POLICE
DEPARTMENT ALSO TREATS SHOT
SPOTTER ACTIVATIONS AS HIGH
PRIORITY CALLS. MEANING THAT
THEY ARE EXTREMELY URGENT AND
NECESSITATE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE
FROM OUR SHOT SPOTTER OFFICERS,
BUT ALSO ANY OFFICERS IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE LOCATION. WE
BELIEVE SHOT SPOTTERS AVAILABLE
TOOL TO INCREASE COMMUNITY
SAFETY AND IT'S JUST ONE ASPECT
OF OUR DEPARTMENTS VIOLENT CRIME
REDUCTION STRATEGY. ALERTS ARE
OFTEN THE ONLY NOTIFICATION OF
GUNFIRE RECEIVE OUR
COMMUNICATION CENTER. BETWEEN
JANUARY 1ST 2019 AND MAY 31ST OF
THIS YEAR 81% OF SHOT SPOTTER
ACTIVATIONS HAD NO ASSOCIATED
911 CALL FROM A COMMUNITY
MEMBER. IN THESE INSTANCES,
POTENTIALLY OVER 2500 GUNFIRE
INCIDENTS WOULD HAVE LIKELY HAD
NO POLICE RESPONSE DUE TO LACK
OF REPORTING. EXAMPLE IN JUNE OF
LAST YEAR, APPROXIMATELY FOUR AM
SHOT SPOTTER SYSTEM ACTIVATION
DIRECTOR OFFICERS TO AN INCIDENT
OF GUN FIRE IN A RESIDENTIAL
AREA NORTH SACRAMENTO. ARRIVAL
OFFICERS LOCATED THE VICTIM'S
SUFFERING FROM MULTIPLE GUNSHOT
WOUNDS IN THE VEHICLE, AND
OFFICERS WERE ABLE TO REQUEST
MEDICAL AID IMMEDIATELY. WE DID
NOT RECEIVE ANY CALLS PRIOR TO
FINDING THE VICTIM.
UNFORTUNATELY, VICTIM WAS LATER
PRONOUNCED DECEASED, BUT DUE TO
THE RAPID RESPONSE OF OFFICERS
VALUABLE EVANS WAS LOCATED
SEIZED BEFORE THE SCENE COULD
HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN TAMPERED
WITH. TRADITIONAL REPORTING, IF
MADE HAS SIGNIFICANT DELAYS FROM
THE TIME THE INITIAL 911 CALL
AND THE TIME OFFICERS ARE
ACTUALLY DISPATCHED OFFICERS
RESPOND TO SHOTS BY ALERTS IN
THE MEDIA. IT TIMEFRAME OF
SHOOTINGS OCCURRING SOMETIMES
WHILE THE SHOOTING IS STILL
ACTIVELY TAKING PLACE. THIS
SPEEDY RESPONSE ALLOWS OFFICERS
TO ADMINISTER A TO INJURED
PARTIES. STOP ADDITIONAL
VIOLENCE FROM TAKING PLACE,
RECOVER FIREARMS AND HOLD
PERPETRATORS OF GUN VIOLENCE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES.
OUR OFFICERS HAVE THE SHOT SPOT
IN MOBILE APPLICATION ON THEIR
PATROL VEHICLE COMPUTERS, AND
MANY HAVE THE APPLICATION ON
THEIR SMARTPHONE AND SMART
WATCHES. THIS ALLOWS THEM TO BE
MADE AWARE OF GUNFIRE ALERTS
BEFORE THEY'RE EVEN DISPATCHED.
UPON RECEIVING THESE ALERTS. AS
A MATTER OF ROUTINE, OFFICERS
VOICED A PERTINENT INFORMATION
AND SELF DISPATCH THEMSELVES TO
SHOOTING SAVING PRICES. TIME
WHEN SECONDS MATTER. SHOT
SPOTTER INCREASES LEGITIMACY IN
THE COMMUNITIES MOST IMPACTED BY
GUN VIOLENCE. WHILE SPECIFICS
REGARDING SYSTEM BOUNDARIES. THE
PLACEMENT AND OTHER CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION IS NOT MADE PUBLIC.
INFORMATION IS I MEAN, COMMUNITY
MEMBERS ARE VERY AWARE OF THE
SYSTEM AND ITS GENERAL PURPOSE.
WE ROUTINELY SHARE INFORMATION
ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING THESE ARE
SHOT SPOTTER WITH THE MEDIA AND
OUR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.
OFFICERS OFTEN EXPLAIN THE
DETAINEES AND OTHER COMMUNITY
MEMBERS. THEY CONTACT THE REASON
FOR THEM BEING THERE. SOMETIMES
IT'S GOING AS FAR AS SHOWING THE
ACTUAL APPLICATION IN THE SHOT
SPOT ALERT ON THEIR PHONE. SHOT
SPOTTER INCREASES OFFICER SAFETY
IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIVING SHOTS
ABOUT ALERTS OFFICER ROSS
OFFICERS ARE GIVEN ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION, INCLUDING WHETHER
THERE WAS AUTOMATIC GUNFIRE,
MULTIPLE SHOOTERS MOVING
VEHICLES INVOLVED. HIGH CAPACITY
MAGAZINES AND OTHER CRUCIAL
INFORMATION. OFFICERS CAN ALSO
LISTEN TO THE RECORDED GUNFIRE
ON THEIR COMPUTERS AND ON THEIR
PHONES. THIS ENSURES OFFICERS
ABLE TO SECURE NECESSARY
RESOURCES TO HANDLE THESE
INCIDENTS BEFORE RESPONDING
WHILE STILL MAINTAINING VERY
SHORT RESPONSE TIMES. TRAVÉS
PARK CAN ALSO ASSIST AND
DETERMINE THE ORDER OF EVENTS
AND OTHER FACTS. RELATED
SHOOTINGS. SHOT SPOTTERS
ADVANCED REPORTING CAPABILITIES
HAVE ASSISTED THE OUR DEPARTMENT
AND DETERMINING THE ORDER OF
EVENTS OF GUNFIRE RELATED TO
SHOOTINGS, MURDERS AND OTHER AN
OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AND
THE ASENCE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE.
THE FACTS PROVIDED BY SHOT
SPOTTER HAVE SOMETIMES BEEN THE
SOLE EVIDENCE OF A TIMELINE OF
SAID SHOOTINGS. THIS INFORMATION
IS PROVIDED VIA SHOT SPOTTER,
DETAILED FORENSIC REPORTS,
WHICHEVER PROBABLY BE INTRODUCED
IN EVIDENCE IN COURTS AT THE
STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. THIS
TECHNOLOGY WAS USED LAST YEAR
WHEN ONE OF OUR OFFICERS WAS
SHOT CONTACTING THE SUSPECT ON
THE STREET. SHOTS SHOTS.
SPOTTERS DETAILED REPORTS ASSIST
INVESTIGATORS WERE ESTABLISHING
TIMELINES, POSITIONS INVOLVED
PARTIES, SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND
GUNFIRE AND PHYSICAL LOCATIONS.
DETECTIVES ALSO WERE ABLE TO
LOCATE A SECOND SCENE AND
CONNECT THE SUSPECT TO AN
EARLIER SHOOTING. THIS
INFORMATION LEFT FOR AN OFFICIAL
INVESTIGATION, WHICH LED TO
EVIDENCE BEING RECOVERED. IN THE
LAST 3.5 YEARS SHOT. SPOT ALERTS
HAVE LED TO THE RECOVERY OF OVER
1800 EXPENDED CASINGS. 212 GUNS
BEING SEIZED 184 ARRESTS AND
JUST UNDER 319 LEADS MORE THAN
HALF OF OUR NATION LEADS HAVE
BEEN CONNECTED TO SHOT SPOTTER
INCIDENTS AND IVAN'S THE
NATIONAL INTEGRATED BALLISTIC
INFORMATION NETWORK THAT ALLOWS
FOR THE CAPTURE IN COMPARISON,
BALLISTIC EVIDENCE STATE AND
SOLVING PREVENTING SOLVING AND
PREVENTING VOD CRIMES INVOLVING
FIREARMS. I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK ABOUT OUR USE OF SHOT
SPOTTER AND WE BELIEVE SHOT
SPOTTER IS AN EFFECTIVE
AVAILABLE TOOL FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO ASSIST WITH
ADDRESSING GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. YES THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
HONORABLE MEMBERS. UM I
DEFINITELY WANNA THANK YOU FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY. AND MR
IRONSIDE FOR REACHING OUT. MY
NAME IS BRIAN H|OR I AM THE
CHAIR OF OAKLAND'S PRIVACY
ADVISORY COMMISSION, WHERE THE
FIRST PRIVACY CIVILIAN MUNICIPAL
BODY IN THE COUNTRY WITH
OVERSIGHT FOR REGULATING
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. WE
CREATE RULE SETS. WE MEASURE
EFFICACY VIA ANNUAL REPORT, TWO
OF WHICH ARE IN YOUR AGENDA
PACKET. AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
SECURE JUSTICE. I WORK ON THESE
TYPES OF ISSUES ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY AS WE ADVOCATE AND
CONSULT WITH OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES. WE RECENTLY
WORKED WITH THE CITY OF SAN
DIEGO AND THE COMMUNITY GROUPS
THERE AS THEY NOW HAVE THE
SECOND PRIVACY ADVISORY
COMMISSION AND SURVEILLANCE THAT
IN FRAMEWORK THE GUARD RAILS
THAT WE TYPICALLY CREATOR INSIST
ON FOR A PRODUCT LIKE SHOT
SPUTTER AND NOT MUCH DIFFERENT
FROM THE OTHER TECH. YOU'RE
REVIEWING TODAY. LIKE LICENSE
PLATE READERS, WE FAVOR A
CONCEPT CALLED PURPOSE
SPECIFICATION FOR ALL TECH. WHAT
IS THE GOAL THAT THE USE OF THE
TOOL SHOULD ACHIEVE? WHAT IS THE
MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DATA NEEDED TO
ACHIEVE THAT GOAL? WHAT IS THE
SHORTEST RETENTION PERIOD FOR
DATA THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO
ACHIEVE THAT GOAL AND JUST I
PROMISED TO STAY ON TOPIC, BUT
I'LL TELL YOU MY FIRST HAND
RESEARCH ALP ER 90% OF QUERIES
ARE DONE IN 72 HOURS OR LESS,
WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE DATA.
UNDER WHAT RULES? YOU'VE HEARD
ABOUT THE NEED TO KNOW AND RIGHT
TO KNOW STANDARD. WE ALSO APPLY
THAT TO THIRD PARTY ACCESS. WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU COULD
THINK OF IMMIGRATION SCENARIO
WHERE DIFFERENT OUTSIDE
JURISDICTIONS MIGHT NOT SHARE
OUR VALUES. BUT OF COURSE, THIS
CONVERSATION PRESUPPOSES THAT WE
SHOULD BE USING THIS TECHNIQUE.
THE FIRST PLACE WHICH I BELIEVE
IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE
HORSE. ANY EXPENDITURE OF
TAXPAYER FUNDS SHOULD BE
ASSESSED AS TO HOW POTENTIALLY
BENEFICIAL OR HARMFUL IT MIGHT
BE THERE 24 JURISDICTIONS LIKE
OAKLAND THAT HAVE A SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK AND
CALIFORNIA. AND WE REQUIRING AN
UPFRONT IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR
EVERY TECHNOLOGY AT THE SAME
TIME YOU BRING FORWARD A
PROPOSED USE POLICY IDEALLY, ANY
RED OR YELLOW FLAGS THAT YOU'VE
IDENTIFIED IN YOUR IMPACT
ASSESSMENT GET MITIGATED BY THE
GUARDRAILS THAT YOU PUT INTO
PLACE. AH, WE DON'T JUST STOP
THERE. SO MANY JURISDICTIONS
JUST APPROVE POLICIES AND THEN
FORGET ABOUT IT. THEY DON'T
AUDIT THEY DON'T MEASURE FOR
ONGOING EFFICACY. ARE WE
ACTUALLY GETTING OUR MONEY'S
WORTH? ARE WE ACHIEVING THOSE
GOALS THAT YOU USE TO JUSTIFY
YOUR PROPOSAL IN THE FIRST
PLACE? WE HAVE A STANDARD TO
MEET BENEFITS, WHICH IS
INTENTIONALLY NOT DEFINED
BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE THAT THE
BENEFITS HAVE TO OUTWEIGH THE
COST. THE COST IS TO BOTH CIVIL
LIBERTIES INTO THE TAXPAYER.
SOME CHECK IS FAIRLY BENIGN OR
LESS THREATENING FROM A PRIVACY
THREAT ASSESSMENT. I CONSIDER
SHOT SPOTTER TO BE ONE OF THOSE,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE MORE RECENT
MOVES. DUE TO POLICING PROJECT
THOUGHT IT THAT YOU JUST HEARD
ABOUT. UM THERE ARE LEGITIMATE
QUESTIONS AS TO THE EFFICACY OF
THIS TECHNOLOGY AND ALSO A
GROWING CONCERN REGARDING THE
ALERT, CREATING A DANGEROUS
MINDSET IN THE RESPONDING
OFFICERS MIND I KNOW THAT I
WOULD BE ON HIGH ALERT IF I
RECEIVED, UM UH, APPEARING ON MY
SYSTEM THAT THERE IS AN ACTIVE
SHOOTER. MIGHT LEAD TO UNLAWFUL
USE OF FORCE, OR PERHAPS A
WRONGFUL ARREST. OAKLAND IS ONE
OF SHOTS. SPIDERS OLDEST CLIENTS
. MAYBE IT'S FIRST MR CLARK
LIVED IN OAKLAND AND HIS TEAM
SAW AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM WHICH
YOU'VE YOU'VE HEARD WELL
DOCUMENTED HERE MANAGED GUNSHOTS
ARE NEVER REPORTED. CREATING A
TECHNOLOGY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM
IS A SEEMINGLY GREAT IDEA.
EVERYONE WOULD SUPPORT UM, I'M
NOT SURE IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW
THE ANNUAL REPORTS NOW, I GUESS
YOU DON'T NEED TO THERE IN YOUR
AGENDA PACKET, BUT WE'VE HAD TWO
THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED UNDER
OUR MODEL. BOTH PROVIDE SIMILAR
METRICS FOR US TO CONSIDER, SUCH
AS THE NUMBER OF POLICE REPORTS
THAT ACTUALLY GET FILED DUE TO
AN ALERT. IT'S NOT A VERY ROBUST
AND OF 15. THE SINGLE DIGIT
ARRESTS IN OAKLAND AREN'T REALLY
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF ALERTS
AND YET THE PRIVACY COMMISSION
DID APPROVE THE REPORTS TWICE
FOR THE SAME REASON THERE IS
LEGITIMATE DATA AS TO THE
MEDICAL CARIBBEAN RENDERED TO A
VICTIM WHERE NO GUNSHOT REPORT
FROM THE PUBLIC OCCURRED IN
OTHER WORDS, BUT FOR THE ALERT
MEDICAL CARE WOULD HAVE BEEN
RENDERED SLOWER OR PERHAPS NOT
AT ALL. I DID VOTE IN 2020 TO
PROVE THAT I HAD TO REPEAT
MYSELF THIS YEAR DUE TO A
LAWSUIT INVOLVING OPD, BUT THE
MINUTES REFLECT THAT THE MEDICAL
CARE WAS THE SAME REASON. I
THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH DATA TODAY
AND WHAT I WOULD HOPE AS
POLICYMAKERS AND RESOURCE
ALLOCATORS IS, YOU KNOW THAT WE
DON'T MISLEAD PEOPLE OR PROVIDE
FALSE HOPE. THIS TECHNOLOGY
DOESN'T REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OF A
DETERRENT EFFECT FROM EITHER THE
ARRESTS OR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
EITHER DETAINED WITNESSES. UM
THE ALERTS THEMSELVES ARE ALMOST
INVISIBLE, SO THERE'S NO VISUAL
DETERRENT EFFECT. UM, MEDICAL
CARE IS A BIG DEAL. 79 PEOPLE. I
BELIEVE IT WAS IN LAST YEAR'S
ANNUAL REPORT RECEIVED MEDICAL
CARE. EVEN IF ONLY A FRACTION
THOSE PEOPLE ARE GONNA DIE ALL
79 NEEDED MEDICAL CARE OF SOME
SORT, AND SOME OF IT WAS LIFE
SAVING. UM THE ALERTS, BRINGING
THE OFFICERS TO THE COMMUNITY.
HALF THE COMMUNITY IN OAKLAND
DOESN'T CALL THE POLICE BECAUSE
THEY'VE HAD A BAD INCIDENT OR
THEY THINK THE POLICE IS GOING
TO MAKE IT WORSE. THE OTHER HALF
DOESN'T CALL BECAUSE THE POLICE
NEVER SHOWED UP PRIOR TO OUR
2019 POLICY, RESPONDING TO GUN
ALERTS IN OAKLAND WAS NOT A
PRIORITY ONE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHY IT IS NOW A PRIORITY ONE.
AND SO THERE IS, YOU KNOW AN
ADDITIONAL BENEFIT LIKE THAT,
JUST LIKE RECOVERING EVIDENCE
CASINGS, BULLET CASINGS OR GUNS
BEING DISCARDED AT THE SCENE.
THERE ARE THESE OTHER BENEFITS
THAT POLICY MAKERS NEED TO LOOK
AT BEFORE EXPANDING WHAT IS NOT
INSIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY ON
THIS TECHNOLOGY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I'LL GO TO THE
SCREEN. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
MRS LIPTON. THANK YOU. AND
THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS
MERYL LIPTON. I'M, AN
INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCHER WITH
THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION. AND I HAVE THE
PRIVILEGE OF SHARING WITH YOU
SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND
CONSIDERATIONS THAT FF AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD LIKE FOR
YOU TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU
NAVIGATE THIS VERY IMPORTANT JOB
OF ENSURING THAT TECHNOLOGICAL
SOLUTIONS TO SECURITY CONCERNS.
A REASONABLE RESPONSIBLY
EMPLOYED AND ALSO DEMOCRATICALLY
JUSTIFIABLE. THESE CONCERNS ARE
APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF GUNSHOT
DETECTION SYSTEMS SHOT SPOTTER
IN PARTICULAR, AND ALSO
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. MORE
BROADLY. AH THEY GUNSHOT
DETECTION SYSTEMS HAVE RAISED A
NUMBER OF IMPORTANT CONCERNS.
THESE CONCERNS CENTER AROUND
THEIR ACCURACY THE NEGATIVE
IMPACT THAT GUNSHOT ALERTS CAN
CREATE AND COMMUNITIES AND THEIR
INTEGRATION INTO ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS,
PROSECUTIONS AND OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. REGARDING
ACCURACY SHOT SPOTTER IN
PARTICULAR HAS EXISTED FOR MORE
THAN 20 YEARS. THROUGHOUT ITS
EXISTENCE, THERE HAVE BEEN
CONCERNS ABOUT ITS ACCURACY AND
ITS ACCURACY HAS REMAINED
UNPROVEN. IN MANY ENVIRONMENTS.
WE KNOW THAT AUDIO TRAIN
TRIANGULATION IS A MATH TASK. IT
IS A COMPLICATED MATH TASK, AND
THAT AND FACTORS LIKE WEATHER
AND MUNICIPAL LAYOUT. HAVE A
GREAT EFFECT ON GUNSHOT
DETECTION SYSTEMS ABILITY TO
DIFFERENTIATE SOUNDS. IT'S
IMPORTANT IN A I SYSTEMS FOR
THERE TO BE A HUMAN REVIEW
PROCESS. BUT PLEASE CONSIDER
THAT THE PRESSURES ASSOCIATED
WITH PROVIDING POLICE ACTIONABLE
INFORMATION AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE IN UNDER 60 SECONDS
LEADS TO THE QUESTION WHO WOULD
WANT TO BE THE PERSON TO JUDGE
YOUR SOUND? THAT MIGHT BE A
GUNSHOT AS SOMETHING THAT IS
LESS THREATENING. AS FAR AS WE
CAN TELL, SHOT SPOTTERS REPORTED
. 97% ACCURACY RATE TENDS TO BE
A MARKETING MOTIVATED DATA POINT
. THAT NUMBER IS REPORTED THAT
REPORTED NUMBER IS DERIVED FROM
CUSTOMER REPORTED ERRORS SO THAT
IS SHOT SPOTTER INITIATED.
GUNSHOT REPORTS HAVE GENERALLY
BEEN CONSIDERED ACCURATE UNTIL
PROVEN OTHERWISE. AND I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO REMEMBER THAT
OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD NOT
HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DOING
FIELD TESTS ON EQUIPMENT THAT
THEY'VE PURCHASED. THEY SHOULD
NOT BE PROVIDING TRAINING DATA
TO CORRECT THE TOOLS THAT ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE AIDING THEM AND
COMPLICATED JOBS AND THOSE
ERRORS LEAD TO SERIOUS PROBLEMS
IN OUR COMMUNITIES, ACADEMIC
RESEARCHERS AND THE CHICAGO
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CONDUCT
INDEPENDENT REVIEWS OF GUNSHOT
DETECTION USED INACCURACY. AND
THEY HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE STRONG
LIKELIHOOD THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF INCIDENTS INSTIGATED
BY A SHOT, SPOTTER ALERT ARE NOT
ULTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH A
CRIME AND THAT THERE MAY BE MANY
MORE FALSE NEGATIVES THAN
PREVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED. FALSE
POSITIVES AND THE POLICE
RESPONSE THEY GENERATE
CONTRIBUTE TO ALARMING AND
HEIGHTENED POLICE RESPONSES IN
AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY
SURVEILLANCE AND INJUSTICES,
PARTICULARLY THOSE COMMUNITIES
THAT ARE LOWER INCOME AND
GENERALLY CONSISTS OF PEOPLE OF
COLOR. IN 2021 SHOTS, BUTTER
REPORTED. NEARLY 292,000 GUNFIRE
ALERTS SENT FROM THEIR SYSTEMS
AND EVEN USING THE NUMBERS
PROVIDED BY SHOTS. WATER RELATED
TO A 97% ACCURACY RATE. THAT
MEANS THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 9000
INSTANCES IN WHICH LAW
ENFORCEMENT WAS SENT INTO A
SITUATION INTO COMMUNITIES WHERE
THEY BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS A
HIGH RISK GUN RELATED EVENT WITH
ALL OF THE RUCKUS AND ADRENALINE
THAT IS INVOLVED WITH THE POLICE
RESPONSE TO A POTENTIAL GUN
INCIDENT. AND ALL OF THE TRAUMA
AND PROBLEMS THAT DERIVE FROM
HAVING HALF A DOZEN A DOZEN
POLICE DESCEND ON AN AREA
WITHOUT ACTUAL CAUSE OR REASON.
UM WE AGREE. PUBLIC SAFETY IS
NOT A JOKE. WHEN YOU HAVE AN
AGGRESSIVE POLICE RESPONSE TO
NOTHING. YOU CREATE CONDITIONS
FOR SOMETHING TERRIBLE TO
HAPPEN. AND WE SAW THAT HAPPEN
IN THE POLICE SHOOTING OF 13
YEAR OLD ADAM, TORNADO AND
CHICAGO. WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE
THAT IN OTHER SITUATIONS. DATA
COLLECTED BY GUNSHOT DETECTION
SYSTEMS AND OTHER SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEMS ARE INCREASINGLY USED IN
COORDINATION WITH OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES AND SORT OF DATA
DRIVEN OR PREDICTIVE POLICING
SOLUTIONS. I'D ALSO NOTE THAT
ALTHOUGH SHOT SPOTTER ITSELF IS
NOT NECESSARILY ATTACHED TO
VIDEO, THERE HAVE BEEN TALKS IN
DIFFERENT POLICE DEPARTMENTS
ABOUT MAKING THAT MARRIAGE
HAPPENED. AND SO HAVING THESE
DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES
COMPARTMENTALIZED DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE
USED IN CONCERT. AND BY USING
THEM IN CONCERT COMPOUNDS,
EXISTING COMMON BIASES THAT
EXIST IN POLICING AND IN HUMANS
AND MAKE THEM A PART OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT APPARATUS AND OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS IS
OF CONCERN WHEN CONSIDERING IN
PARTICULAR THAT SHOT SPOTTER HAS
BEEN ACTIVELY ACQUIRING AND
DEVELOPING PRODUCTS THAT TAKE
THEM BEYOND GUNSHOT DETECTION
AND INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRYING
TO FORECAST CRIMES AND THEN FOR
FUTURE CONVERSATIONS. IN
ADDITION TO DRONES, I ASKED THAT
THIS BODY CONSIDER THE EFFECTS
OF PREDICTIVE POLICING, AND I'M
SURE THAT PFF WOULD BE HAPPY TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON BOTH OF
THOSE PRODUCTS. TO MITIGATE SOME
OF THE EFFECTS OF GUNSHOT
DETECTION SYSTEMS AND PERVASIVE
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS IN GENERAL
, ARE FIRST SUGGESTION IS THAT
THERE USED TO BE HALTED
ALTOGETHER. ACCURACY HAS NOT
BEEN PROPERLY VERIFIED. THERE
HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE PROOF THAT
IT IS OVERALL IMPROVING POLICE
RESPONSE OR PERFORMANCE. AND
THERE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN A
NUMBER OF STUDIES THAT SUGGEST
THAT IT IS NOT HAVING, UM, AN
IMPACT ON POLICE RESPONSE TIMES
AND IS DECREASING THE NUMBER OF
INSTANCES IN WHICH MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY ARE WILLING TO
CONTACT THE POLICE ABOUT
POTENTIAL GUNSHOT EVENTS. THESE
TECHNOLOGIES CONTRIBUTE TO OVER
POLICING OF OUR COMMUNITIES, AND
THE SURVEILLANCE PROVIDES FODDER
THAT WILL FEED INTO FUTURE
SYSTEMS. GIVEN THAT YOU MIGHT
NOT TAKE THAT SUGGESTION. THERE
ARE THREE AREAS THAT WE
RECOMMEND THAT THIS BODY AND
OTHER GOVERNMENTS SHOULD FOCUS
THEIR ENERGY ON WHEN THEY ARE
TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME
SAFEGUARDS TO USE. POLICIES.
AUDITS. AND PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY.
POLICE DEPARTMENT MUST PROVIDE
DETAILED AND CLEAR POLICIES AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AROUND
PROPER USE OF REPORTS GENERATED
BY SHOT SPOTTER. THIS HAS TO
INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT MAKES
EXPLICIT THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED HIGH IN
CRIME. FOR THE PURPOSES OF AI
SYSTEMS, AND TERRY STOPS SIMPLY
BECAUSE IT IS SEEMINGLY
GENERATING A HIGH NUMBER OF
SHOTS, BUTTER ALERTS. THEY'RE
ALSO NEED TO BE REGULAR AUDITS
OF ACCESS TO THE SYSTEMS AND
CLEAR METRICS ESTABLISHED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING ITS
EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPROVING
POLICE RESPONSES. THESE AUDITS
NEED TO INCLUDE IMPORTANT DATA
AROUND HOW POLICING IS AFFECTED
BY GUNSHOT DETECTION ALERTS,
INCLUDING APPROPRIATE DATA
COLLECTION ON RELEVANT CALLS FOR
SERVICE AND THE RESULTS OF THESE
CALLS. IN CHICAGO, THE OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL NOTED THAT
THERE MIGHT BE A STARTLING LACK
OF DATA IN ORDER TO MAKE SOME OF
THESE EVALUATIONS AND WE CANNOT
BE PREVENTED FROM MAKING
INTELLIGENT EVALUATIONS OF THESE
PRODUCTS THROUGH A LACK OF
INFORMATION ABOUT OUTCOMES. SO
THE THIRD THING THAT I WOULD
EMPHASIZE THAT YOU KEEP IN MIND
IS TO PROMOTE AND ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY THERE NEEDS TO BE
PUBLIC ACCESS AND TRANSPARENCY
AROUND THE WAY THAT GUNSHOT
DETECTION SYSTEMS ARE FUNDED,
ADOPTED, DEPLOYED UTILIZED. AND
THIS HAS TO INCLUDE AN APPLE
APPLE DATA OF SHOT SPOTTER
ALERTS. IN A RECENT CASE IN
CHICAGO, THE COOK COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE ASKED FOR
MATERIALS THAT WOULD HELP TO
ILLUMINATE HOW SHOT SPOTTER
EVALUATES GUNSHOT ALERTS. AND
RATHER THAN RELEASE THESE
DOCUMENTS, SHOT SPOTTER ASKED
THE JUDGE TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
OF COURT. WE CANNOT GUARANTEE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET ACCESS
THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS IN ORDER
TO MAKE INTELLIGENT DECISIONS IF
THERE ARE NOT CLEAR GUARDS
PROVIDING THAT ACCESS. THIS BODY
AND YOUR COLLEAGUES NEED TO
ENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT AND
NECESSARY DATA ARE AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC AND TO THEM IS ACTING
IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO MAKE
INFORMED AND SAFE DECISIONS
ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITIES. AND
THESE ARE VERY COMPLICATED
QUESTIONS. AND I THINK EVERYBODY
HERE IS DOING THE BEST THEY CAN
WITH WHAT THEY KNOW. SO I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND HAVING
THIS CONVERSATION AND I WELCOME
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT
HAVE. OKAY THANK YOU. WE HAVE SO
WE CAN STAY ON TIME. UM YOU
ALLOW HALF HOUR FOR EACH
SEGMENT, SO WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE
MINUTES FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR COMMENTS,
MR QUIRK. UM TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE, MR CHITTUM? UM.
FIRST OF ALL, POLICE DON'T WASTE
THEIR TIME AND WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT TO OUR SPEAKER FROM THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION.
IF THIS WERE A WASTE OF TIME,
THEY WOULDN'T BE USING IT. WE
HAVE TESTIMONY FROM A CITIZEN
FROM OAKLAND ABOUT SAVING LIVES
, SO IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT WE
SHOULDN'T BE GETTING RID OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY. NOW BUT WHAT ARE YOU
DOING? TO IMPROVE THE
TECHNOLOGY. SO YOU DON'T GET
FALSE POSITIVES. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION, SIR. A NUMBER OF
THINGS SO IN 1997 AND N I J
FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECT TESTED
OUR EFFICIENCY OR ACCURACY. I
DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT HOW
EFFICIENT IT IS RIGHT NOW. I
WANT TO KNOW WHAT ARE YOU DOING
TO IMPROVE? USING THE VERY LARGE
DATA SET. WE HAVE TWO ALGORITHMS
. YEAH OUR TRAINING, RELYING ON
FEEDBACK FROM OUR CUSTOMERS SO
WE CAN REFINE OUR PROCESSES FOR
IDENTIFYING AND DISTINGUISHING
GUNFIRE FROM OTHER SOUNDS AND A
NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. WE HAVE
A RIGOROUS INTERNAL QUALITY
CONTROL PROCESS FOR MAKING SURE
THAT OUR ASSESSMENTS OF GUNFIRE
OR AS ACCURATE AS THEY CAN BE.
OKAY AND I'M SURE THE TECHNOLOGY
IN THE NEXT 5 TO 10 YEARS WILL
IMPROVE. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT?
ALRIGHT. SO I THINK THE
USEFULNESS OF THIS IS I DON'T
THINK IN QUESTION. UM I WOULD
SAY ON THE PRIOR PANEL WHERE WE
TALKED ABOUT LICENSE PLATE
NUMBERS. WE SHOULD PROBABLY GET
THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
OFFICE. TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
SO WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA ON THE
LICENSE PLATE READERS WHAT WE
MIGHT WANT TO DO TO PROTECT
PRIVACY. PERHAPS YOU AND I COULD
MAKE A REQUEST BEFORE THE END OF
THE YEAR APPRECIATE. THE OTHER
QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP
BY THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION. I DO THINK ARE WORTH
LOOKING AT UM SURE THAT'S THAT'S
THE END OF MY COMMENTS, THINKING
WE'RE NOW JOINED BY SOME OF THE
MEMBER ISAAC BRYANT. I DON'T
KNOW IF HE HAD A COMMENT OR
QUESTION. HE WANTED QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. LOTS OF THOUGHTS. UM
MIGHT NEED TO HAVE A LONGER
CONVERSATION OFFLINE. I GUESS MY
FIRST QUESTION. FOR ANYBODY.
HERE IS A DETERRENT. THE PRIMARY
GOAL OF SHOT SPOTTER IN TERMS TO
ITS IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY.
THIS IDEA THAT WILL CATCH MORE
SHOOTERS AND THEREFORE LESS
PEOPLE WILL BE LIKELY TO BECOME
SHOOTERS. IS THAT THE THINKING I
CAN ANSWER THAT DEPUTY STEVE
OLIVEIRA SO EXPERT DETERRENT
THAT'S VERY HARD TO PROVE THAT
IT ACTUALLY WORKS AS A DETERRENT
AND WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT DOESN'T
REALLY PREVENT CRIME OR BUYING
CRIME, GUN CRIME THAT'S VERY
HARD TO MEASURE. BUT YOU TAKE
OUR DEPARTMENT LAST YEAR WERE
POPULATION OF 500,000. PEOPLE
WERE ABOUT 700 OFFICERS. WE
RECOVERED OVER 1600 FIREARMS
THAT SEES NOT JUST FOUND
PROPERTY, BUT THOSE ARE SEIZED
OFF. ILLEGALLY USED ILLEGALLY
POSSESSED FIREARMS. SO HOW DO
YOU MEASURE HOW MANY CRIMES ARE
PREVENTED BY TAKING THOSE GUNS,
SO IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY. FOR
US, IT'S MORE ABOUT STOPPING THE
CRIME THAT'S IN PROGRESS AND
APPREHENDING SUSPECTS AND TAKING
FIREARMS OFF THE STREETS. MY
NEXT QUESTION IS YOU SAID YOU
HAVE TWO UNITS RIGHT? THAT
RESPONDED SHOT SPOTTER. YES WE
IT'S THREE, ACTUALLY. SO WE HAVE
SHOT SPOTTER OFFICERS IN EACH OF
OUR SHOT SPOTTER ZONES. IT'S
THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE
CITY. UM IT IS FOUR OFFICERS PER
TEAM, AND BASICALLY, THERE'S TWO
OF THEM THAT PAIR UP AND THEY
COVER EACH SIDE OF THE WEEK, AND
THEY WORK STRATEGIC HOURS,
USUALLY BETWEEN AH, YOU KNOW THE
EVENING HOURS LIKE FIVE A.M. TO
THREE A.M. WHERE WE HAVE THE
MOST SHOOTINGS, AND THAT'S HOW
WE DEPLOY THEM. DIFFERENT
TRAINING FOR KIND OF EXISTING
UNITS. IS THIS NEW OFFICERS
SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TO THESE
NEW UNITS? UM WAS THERE
SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO
WHATEVER PUBLIC RESOURCES WERE
USED FOR THE TECHNOLOGY YOU WERE
YOU NEEDED TO STAFF UP TO USE
THE TECHNOLOGY FOR US FOR US.
HAVING THESE UNITS OR INITIATING
THESE UNITS WAS TO HAVE OFFICERS
AVAILABLE THAT WEREN'T HANDLING
THE ROUTINE PATROL CALLS. THERE
WERE, UM AVAILABLE TO RESPOND
QUICKLY TO ANY TYPE OF SHOT
SPOTTER CALLS BUT ALSO ANY
SHOOTING CALLS WE RECEIVE AT
ALL, WHETHER IT'S CONFIRMED
SHOOTINGS OR SHOTS HEARD OUTSIDE
OUR SHOT SPOTTER ZONE, BUT
THEY'RE ABLE TO RESPOND. THAT'S
WHY WE CREATED THE TEAM. THEY'RE
PART OF OUR STREET GANG
ENFORCEMENT TEAM, AND THEY'RE
JUST A DIVISION OF THAT. UM AND
SO THAT'S THEIR PRIMARY ROLE
WHEN THEY'RE OUT ON THE STREETS
WERE ADDITIONAL OFFICERS, RIGHT
? CORRECT OKAY, UM, PATROL
OFFICERS RESPOND TO THOSE CALLS
TO THEY HAVE ALL THE SAME
ACCESS. SO THERE WE HAVE
APPROXIMATELY DISPATCHING GPS
BASEDSO IF YOU'RE CLOSE TO ONE
OF SHOTS, PAR ALERT, YOU'RE
GOING TO GET DISPATCHED OR
YOU'RE GOING TO DISPATCH
YOURSELF. I APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS. I'M GRAPPLING WITH
THIS FOR MANY REASONS, I GUESS
THE PRIVACY CONCERNS GET TO ME.
UM, THERE'S BEEN AT LEAST TWO
CASES, ONE HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
WHERE TRYING TO GET EVIDENCE
FROM SHOT SPOTTER OF VOICES THAT
HAVE BEEN HEARD ADMITTED INTO
THE INTO THE PROSECUTION THAT'S
BEEN TRIED BY PROSECUTORS. IT'S
BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ONE INSTANCE
. UM, I KNOW IT IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD. IN WEST ADAMS.
FIREWORKS JUST GO OFF ON
TUESDAYS. IT'S JUST HOW WE GET
DOWN. I'M NOT SURE WHY. SOMETIME
ON THURSDAYS, THE CHAIR KNOWS
ALL OF A SUDDEN FIREWORKS JUST
JUST GOING OFF. IT'S NOT EVEN
FOURTH OF JULY. IT'S A WHOLE
OTHER THING. BUT I'M CURIOUS
BECAUSE ONE OF THE COMMENTS YOU
MADE YOU MADE WAS ABOUT, UM,
SHOTS GOING OFF HOW MANY PEOPLE
THE SEQUENCE OF SHOTS AND YOU
ALSO MENTIONED MOVING VEHICLES.
WELL, THAT'S NOT A SHOT. THAT'S
A MOVING VEHICLE. HOW'S THAT
PICKED UP BY A SHOT SPOTTER AND
UNTOLD BY ANYTHING? JUST THE
SOUNDS GOING OR YOU HEAR THE CAR
? I'M NOT SURE, BUT I KNOW THAT
ALSO IN LEIMERT PARK. YOU KNOW,
RECENTLY WE HAD A MAN WHO WAS
SHOT PRESUMING TO BE ARMED, AND
HE WASN'T RIGHT IN BURLINGTON
COAT FACTORY AROUND CHRISTMAS.
WE SHOT A 14 YEAR OLD CHILD IN
LOS ANGELES BECAUSE WE THOUGHT
THE PERSON IN BURLINGTON WAS WAS
ALSO ARMED. AND SO THESE IDEAS
OF GOING INTO SITUATIONS ARE
THINKING SOMEBODY'S ARMED. I'M
HAVE A DEEP CONCERN THAT SHOT
SPOTTER INCREASES THAT KIND OF
HESITATION FOR OFFICERS AND
ACTUALLY PUT THEM IN MORE
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS WHERE THEY
HAVE, YOU KNOW, CONFRONTATIONS
IN VERY TOUGH COMMUNITIES AND
TOUGH SITUATIONS THAT COULD
RESULT IN YOU KNOW TREMENDOUS
BACKLASH FOR THEM, THE
DEPARTMENT AND OTHERWISE WHEN
THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE NEED
FOR THAT, BUT BECAUSE SHOT
SPOTTER SAID A SHOT HAD GONE OFF
AND I'D BEEN DEPLOYED. YOU KNOW,
I'M ON HIGH ALERT. UM AND SO
YEAH, SO THAT I CAN TELL YOU
THAT OUR RESPONSES SHOT SPOTTER.
IT'S PROBABLY A SAFER RESPONSE
BECAUSE WE THERE'S MORE
INFORMATION BELIEVING THAT
THERE'S FIREARMS INVOLVED. SO
IT'S A MORE COORDINATED RESPONSE
. WE COME IN WITH EXTRA OFFICERS
, SO WE DON'T HAVE YOU KNOW ONE
OFFICER, TWO OFFICERS ARRIVING
ON SCENE AND THEN HAVING TO
ENGAGE SUSPECTS INTO YOU KNOW
SOME TYPE OF CONFRONTATION WHEN
WE CAN WAIT FOR ADDITIONAL
OFFICRS, YOU KNOW, MAKE A
PERIMETER AND DO SORT OF THING.
SO IT ACTUALLY MAKES IT A SAFER
RESPONSE FOR US WHEN WE HAVE
THAT INFORMATION VERSUS JUST
BEING OUT ON PATROL IN HIGH
CRIME AREAS, OFFICERS ARE ALWAYS
ON ALERT. LIKE I MENTIONED WE
WERE COVERED OVER 1600 GUNS LAST
YEAR, SO OUR OFFICERS IN THOSE
AREAS ARE VERY HIGH ALERT
ANYWAYS, BUT THIS CREATES A I
THINK A SAFER RESPONSE. ACTUALLY
FOR THE COMMUNITY AND OUR
OFFICERS BEAUTIFUL AND I LOVE
THE PRIVACY KIND OF OVERSIGHT.
BOARD IDEA, UM AND WOULD BE
CURIOUS TO LEARN AT A LATER
DATE. KIND OF WHAT KIND OF
POWERS COME WITH THAT IN TERMS
OF THAT OVERSIGHT, LAST COMMENT.
I'LL JUST MAKE IT IS WE I COME
FROM ACADEMIA, SO I'M READING
REPORTS VERY, VERY CLOSELY. UM
AND PREDICTIVE POLICING WAS
ACTUALLY SOMETHING VERY HEAVY AT
THE UNIVERSITY THAT I WORKED AT
U C L A AND WHERE I STUDIED AND
THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS AND THE
PUBLIC BY AND LARGE SPIN ON
THESE KINDS OF TECHNOLOGIES AND
THEN THE HIRING UP OF ADDITIONAL
UNITS TO DO THAT, I OFTEN WONDER
IF THOSE RESOURCES MIGHT BETTER
BE DEPLOYED, ALLEVIATING SOME OF
THE ROOT CONDITIONS IN THESE
COMMUNITIES THAT LEAD TO THIS
KIND OF VIOLENCE, AND SO THAT'S
THE TRADE OFF FOR ME AND THESE
KINDS OF SITUATIONS, BUT THANK
YOU ALL. I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO
BOTH. OKAY, UM I DON'T WANT TO.
WE'LL DO ONE MORE. LET'S DO ONE
MORE APPRECIATED. CUT EVERYBODY
OFF SO MHM. THIS ISSUE OF
DETERRENCE. UM I THINK AND WOULD
YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT A
DETERRENT IS INCREASED WHEN YOU
GET CAUGHT. BEING CAUGHT DOING
SOMETHING AS DETERRENT. CORRECT
I DON'T THINK THE SHOT SPOTTER.
WE THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE
THE SHOT SPOTTER ZONE IS SO I
CAN'T SAY THAT THE SHOT SPOTTER
IS AN ACTUAL DETERRENT, BUT
ABSOLUTELY GETTING CAUGHT BEING
ARRESTED WITH BYRON'S WOULD BE
DETERRENT FOR FUTURE CRIMES IN
AND THE ISSUE OF THAT WAS
BROUGHT UP THAT SOMEBODY IS
RESPONDING TO A SHOT SHOTS. THE
SHOT SPOTTER REPORT AS OPPOSED
TO SOMEBODY LIKE ME CALLING IN
AND SAYING, HEY, UM, THERE WAS A
GUNSHOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I
KNOW IT CAME FROM SOMEWHERE DOWN
THE BLOCK, BUT I DON'T WANT
WHERE ISN'T THAT THE SAME? ISN'T
THAT THE SAME THING? THEY DON'T
KNOW WHERE IT IS EXACTLY, BUT
THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND
INVESTIGATE AND BECAUSE I TOLD
HIM IT SOUNDED LIKE A GUNSHOT.
THEY'RE GOING TO COME WITH AN
INCREASED PRESENCE SO THAT THEY
CAN INVESTIGATE IT SAFELY, BOTH
FOR THE OFFICER AND FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. CORRECT AND WE
WOULD RESPOND THE SAME WAY TO A
CALL LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY IF
THERE'S MULTIPLE CALLERS. AND,
UH, BUT SHOTS BAR ALLOWS US TO
FOCUS MORE ON AN AREA AND ALLOW
IT'S ALMOST LIKE RECEIVING AN
ADDITIONAL TIP OF LIKE WHERE TO
LOOK SPECIFICALLY FOR POTENTIAL
AND IN COMMUNITIES. GENERALLY I
THINK IT'S ILLEGAL TO FIRE A GUN
GUN. IN A COMMUNITY SACRAMENTO
IN MY END THE COMMUNITY I
PARTICULARLY LIVE IN. IT'S ALSO
ILLEGAL TO FIRE FIREWORKS.
WHETHER IT'S TUESDAY OR BEFORE
THE FOR THE JOB OR WHENEVER. AND
AS A CITIZEN, I ACTUALLY KIND OF
VALUE OUR OFFICERS COMING OUT
AND STOPPING EITHER ONE BECAUSE
ONE CAN START FIRES AND THE
OTHER CAN KILL PEOPLE. AND I
THINK ONE OF THE DETERRENTS THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS
GETTING ILLEGAL WEAPONS OFF THE
STREET. AND TAKING THE USE OF
THOSE WEAPONS AWAY FROM PEOPLE
WHO ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE
THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT ARE
NOT ALLOWED BY LAW ANYMORE TO
CARRY THESE, UM I WOULD THINK IF
THEY GO UNDETECTED THAT JUST
DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO YOU KNOW, I
KIND OF WITH WITH THE ARGUMENT
THAT SOMEHOW THEY'RE GOING TO GO
OUT AND BE LESS SAFE BECAUSE
THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON FOR
ME. I READ A LOT OF ARTICLES
ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS RESPONDING
WITH NO CLUE THAT THERE'S A
FIREARM POTENTIALLY INVOLVED AND
THE RESULT IS THEY'RE DEAD. AND,
UM. AND PART OF THAT DETERRENT
IS BECAUSE OF THE SIGLE VEHICLE
THERE. THE PERSON THAT
PERPETRATES THAT CRIME. THINKS
THAT HEY, IF I JUST GET RID OF
THIS, THIS ONE OFFICER THAN THE
OTHERS THEN I HAVE A BETTER
CHANCE OF GETTING AWAY. AND UH,
WHEN YOU RESPOND WITH MULTIPLE
UM SO YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES AND YOU KNOW, AW BY
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY CAN
DO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'VE
BEEN DESCRIBING AND YES, WE NEED
TO CONTINUE TO EVALUATE AS
THEY'RE BEING UTILIZED. ONE LAST
QUESTION. I FORGOT WHEN YOU
DETERMINE LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO
DO A STUDY OF AN AREA. DO YOU GO
TO AN AREA WHERE THERE'S NO
SHOOTINGS EVER REPORTED? ARE YOU
STUDYING AREA THAT IS HAS
SHOOTINGS REPORTED. ARE YOU
SAYING, FOR LIKE, CONSEQUENCE?
YES WHEN YOU DO, WE DID IT ALL
BASED OFF CRIME ANALYSIS DATA,
AND WE ACTUALLY HAD VERIFIED
REPORTED SHOOTINGS. WHETHER IT
BE, UH, YOU KNOW, VICTIMS THAT
WERE SHOT OR DRIVE BYES, THAT
SORT OF THING WHERE WE HAVE
CONFIRMED SHOOTINGS. THAT'S
WHERE WE DECIDED TO PLACE OUR
SHOTS. WATER SYSTEM BECAUSE IF
YOU DIDN'T DO THAT, BE KIND OF
USELESS AS A STUDY. TO BE ABLE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S USEFUL
OR NOT. ALL RIGHT, THERE'S A
BUNCH OF STUDIES IN THIS IN IN
OUR HANDOUT. AND, UH, SOME OF
THESE STUDIES ARE TALKING ABOUT
REDUCTIONS IN CRIMES RELATED TO
GUNS. AND I KNOW SOME OF THOSE
ARE NOT RELATED TO, YOU KNOW,
BEING CAUGHT AND MAYBE JUST
RELATED TO WHAT'S GOING ON THE
COMMUNITY. UM, BUT THESE
STATISTICS KIND OF FLY IN THE
FACE OF THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING.
SO UM, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU
GIVING US UH, SOME EDUCATION ON
THIS AND CERTAINLY THINGS TO
THINK ABOUT. THANK YOU AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, AND I
WILL BRING ON THE NEXT THE NEXT
PANEL ON GEO PRINTING AND GEO
FENCES AND GEO FENCE WARRANTS.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I LIKE TO
ADD IT TO SOME OF US. THEY'RE ON
THIS COMMITTEE. UNFORTUNATELY.
UM I'VE HEARD FIREWORKS AND
GUNFIRE SO MUCH THAT WE CAN
DISTINGUISH THE TWO WITHOUT ANY
TECHNOLOGY.
THAT'S RIGHT. THREE OF OUR
PANELISTS ARE ONLINE. IF HE
MAYBE WE CAN GO THROUGH THE
THREE OUTNUMBERED THIS TIME,
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE
THREE THAT ARE ONLINE AND THEN
GO TO YOU. THE ONLY THING I
WOULD ASK IS WE ACTUALLY
PREARRANGED THAT I WOULD GO
FIRST? THAT'S NOT THEN GO AHEAD
. GO. I DIDN'T KNOW. SO GO
AHEAD, YOU'LL GO FIRST. UH WELL,
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE
CHAIR AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL FOR
ORGANIZING THIS EVENT IN YOUR
NAME IS BRETT. DEAL OKAY, FIRST
SPEAKER LISTED OKAY? ATTORNEY AT
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF SAN DIEGO.
AND I SHOULD ALSO PROBABLY
MENTIONED THAT PREVIOUS TO THAT
POSITION I'VE BEEN INVOLVED
WITH. GEO FENCES IN CALIFORNIA
LITIGATING THEM AS WELL AS
ELSEWHERE. SO I HAVE SOME
FAMILIARITY WITH THE TOPIC. BOTH
IN TERMS OF LITIGATION AND ALSO
SOME ACADEMIC RESEARCH. SO WHAT
I'M HOPING TO DO IS GIVE YOU A
LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF
WHAT GEO FENCES ARE AND WHAT GEO
FENCE WARRANTS FOR, AND I KNOW
THE OTHER SPEAKERS ARE GOING TO
SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH
ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF GEO
FENCES. SO, BASICALLY WHAT A GEO
FENCES IN THE MOST BROAD TERMS
IS. A DIGITAL FENCE, LET'S SAY
OR DIGITAL AREA THAT'S
DELINEATED BY BOTH SPACE AND
TIME. SO ALL DIGITAL DEVICES
THAT PASSED THROUGH THAT SPACE
AND TIME WOULD BE COLLECTED IN
THE GEO FENCE. SO ONE CAN
IMAGINE THE REASON THAT THIS WAS
INDEED THE REASON THAT THIS WAS
DEVELOPED ORIGINALLY WAS FOR
ADVERTISING PURPOSES, SO LET'S
SAY YOU WANTED TO TARGET SOMEONE
WHO WENT DOWN A CENTRAL SHOPPING
MALL FREQUENTLY IN A TOWN YOU
COULD GO TO GOOGLE OR ANOTHER.
ADVERTISING. TECHNOLOGY
AGGREGATOR AND ASKED THEM, YOU
KNOW, CAN YOU GIVE ME THE
IDENTIFY IRS FOR EVERY PERSON
WHO PASSES BY? THIS DOWNTOWN
MALL AREA MORE THAN TWO TIMES A
WEEK. THE BENEFITS ARE OBVIOUS
TO ADVERTISERS BECAUSE THEY CAN-TARGET THE CUSTOMERS WHO THEY
KNOW GEOGRAPHICALLY ARE GOING TO
THESE LOCATIONS AS FREQUENTLY AS
POSSIBLE. SO THE TECH FIRST
DEVELOPED IN THIS ADVERTISING
REALM, AND THEN IT WAS WRAPPED
PRETTY RAPIDLY IN THE LATE 2000
AND TENS CUT ON BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THIS COULD BE A
TOOL FOR INVESTIGATING CRIMES.
SO I KNOW OTHER PANELISTS WILL
DISCUSS KIND OF THE HUGE
INCREASE THAT GOOGLE HAS SEEN
OVER TIME IN THESE REQUESTS.
GOOGLE IS REALLY I THINK THE
GIANT IN THIS IN THIS QUESTION
THEY'VE SET UP A PRETTY ROBUST
SYSTEM FOR TAKING LAW
ENFORCEMENT. REQUESTS VIA
WARRANTS AND SOME MECHANISMS
THROUGH WHICH THEY ARE THEN
RETURNING THEM IN A TIMELY
MANNER. SO TO TURN TO GEO FENCE
WARRANT SPECIFICALLY. WHAT THEY
BASICALLY ARE. IS THAT UH, LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS GOING TO A
MAGISTRATE JUDGE OR YOU KNOW,
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND SEEKING A
WARRANT. FOR INFORMATION ABOUT A
CERTAIN PLACE OVER A CERTAIN
SPAN OF TIME. SO YOU KNOW IT
COULD BE LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW A
COUPLE BLOCKS OVER THE SPAN OF
20 MINUTES OR IN SOME CASES MUCH
LONGER, AND I THINK ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED
BY VARIOUS PARTIES IS THAT THERE
ARE CURRENTLY NO LIMITS ON HOW
LARGE BOTH IN TERMS OF SPACE AS
WELL AS TEMPORARILY THAT THESE%
CAN BE SO I KNOW THERE IS ONE
SOMEWHAT PUBLICIZED GEO FENCE
WARRANT THAT COVERED OVER 7.5
ACRES, SO THESE AREN'T SMALL
PLACES NECESSARILY, AND THERE'S
NO UPFRONT REQUIREMENT EITHER IN
FEDERAL OR STATE CASE LAW. NOR
IN LEGISLATIVE, THE FEDERAL OR
STATE LEVEL THAT HAS REQUIRED
THAT SO FAR. SORT OF GIVE YOU A
LITTLE BIT OF SENSE OF WHERE
THIS LOCATION DATA IS COMING
FROM. THE TECHNOLOGY IS BUILT ON
THE LOCATION SHARING OF MOBILE
DEVICES. SO IF YOU WOULD OPEN UP
YOUR GOOGLE ACCOUNT RIGHT NOW
FOR GOOGLE MAPS OR ANY GOOGLE
PRODUCT YOU OWN, WHETHER IT BE
AN ANDROID OR AN APPLE. PRODUCT
YOU WOULD SEE SOMETHING CALLED
LOCATION, HISTORY. AND WHEN YOU
FIRST START YOUR GOOGLE ACCOUNT
, WHETHER THAT WAS IN 2010 OR,
YOU KNOW, JUST YESTERDAY YOU'RE
ASKED IF YOU WANT TO TURN ON
LOCATION, HISTORY STORAGE. IF
YOU OPT IN YOU THEN ARE SHARING
YOUR LOCATION HISTORY WITH
GOOGLE, AND IT'S BEING PUT INTO
THIS REPOSITORY OF LOCATION DATA
THROUGH WHICH THESE GEO FENCES
CAN BE RUN. IT'S BEEN FAIRLY
WELL DOCUMENTED THAT EARLY ON,
IT WAS EXTREMELY EASY TO OPT IN
TO SHARING LOCATION HISTORY OF
GOOGLE. I KNOW THERE WAS A
RECENT ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT
THAT SAID THAT, IF PRIOR TO I
BELIEVE IT WAS MID 2018. YOU
STARTED A GOOGLE DEVICE AND YOU
OPTED IN SAYING, YES, I'M
WILLING TO I HAVE MY LOCATION
HISTORY RECORDED THAT LOCATION.
HISTORY IS STORED FOREVER.
THERE'S NO KIND OF SUNSET
PERIOD. SUBSEQUENTLY GOOGLE HAS
COME THROUGH AND THEY PUT IN
REQUIREMENTS, SAYING, YOU KNOW,
AFTER THREE YEARS IS GOING TO BE
THE DEFAULT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT
SO FAR THAT DEFAULT HAS ONLY
BEEN APPLYING TO NEW USERS. SO I
IMAGINE MOST PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM
CERTAINLY MYSELF HAD A GOOGLE
ACCOUNT BEFORE 2018. THEREFORE
THE LOCATION HISTORY IS BEING
STORED THROUGH THIS DAY AND INTO
THE FUTURE. AND INDEED, SEARCHES
HAVE BEEN MADE USING GEO FENCE
WARRANTS AS FAR BACK AS 2015 FOR
DATA, SO THESE ARE SOLVING COLD
CASES, BUT IT'S ALL ADDRESSED IN
A SECOND. THERE ALSO ADDRESSING
WHAT I WOULD SAY ARE NOT IN
VIOLENT, LESS SERIOUS CRIMES.
BEFORE TURNING TO THE CRIMES AND
A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE BY LIKE LEGISLATORS ON
BOTH SIDES. I WANT TO TALK
BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DATA ACCURACY
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF
UNDERSTANDING HOW THESE
TECHNOLOGIES WORK. SO PROBABLY
MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD THE
EXPERIENCE OF WHEN YOU OPEN UP
YOUR PHONE AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT
WHERE YOU ARE. YOU SEE THAT
YOU'RE INSIDE A PRETTY LARGE
BLUE RADIUS, USUALLY ON GOOGLE
MAPS OR APPLE MAPS. WHAT THAT
IS, IS BASICALLY THAT'S GOOGLE'S
ALGORITHM OR WHATEVER MAPPING
SYSTEMS ALGORITHM. GIVING YOU AN
ESTIMATE OF WHERE YOU ARE, AND
THAT'S BASED PRIMARILY ON TWO
THINGS. IT'S BASED ON YOUR CELL
PHONE SERVICE, AND IT'S BASED ON
NEARBY WIFI NETWORKS. SO THE
RESULT IS THAT THE KIND OF
SPECIFICITY OR THE CIRCUMFERENCE
OF EXCUSE ME. THE RADIUS OF THAT
CIRCLE CAN VARY DEPENDING ON HOW
FAR HOW MANY DIFFERENT INPUTS
GOOGLE'S RECEIVING. AND THEN THE
SECOND THING THAT'S WORTH
NOTING, IS THAT WHEN GOOGLE IS
RETURNING A GEO FENCE SEARCH
WARRANTS SO IF THE INVESTIGATOR
ASKED FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THEY
SAID, GIVE ME ALL THE DEVICES
THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THIS AREA
. GOOGLE RETURNED AN
INDIVIDUAL'S DATA IF THEY HAVE A
68% CERTAINTY THAT THEY WERE
WITHIN THAT AREA, SO ONE CAN
IMAGINE OPENING UP THEIR PHONE
AND SEEING A BIG BLUE CIRCLE AND
THEN SOME NUMBER OF MONTHS OR
YEARS LATER. GOOGLE ASKING FOR A
WARRANT AND IT'S COMING BACK,
AND IT'S RECEIVING INFORMATION
FOR PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE BEEN
HUNDREDS OF YARDS FROM THAT
AREA. POINT BEING THE LOCATION.
SPECIFICITY IS LESS DIRECT, THEN
IT MAY BE IMPLIED BY THESE
BINARY RETURNS OF DEVICES THAT
WERE WITHIN THE GEO FENCE SEARCH
AREAS. OAN. THE LAST THING
THAT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK
UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE WARRANT
SPECIFICALLY, IS THAT IT'S A
PROCESS BY WHICH BY WHICH LAW
INVEST LAW FORCED LAW
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS CAN
GET INFORMATION TURNED OVER TO
THEM. WITH ONLY WITHOUT HAVING
AN OVERSIGHT BY JUDICIARY BY A
MAGISTRATE OR ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL
JUDICIARY AFTER THE FIRST STEP,
SO THERE'S BASICALLY A THREE
STEP PROCESS THAT GOOGLE HAS PUT
IN PLACE SO FAR. WARRANTS
REQUESTED AND THEY GET A LARGE
INITIAL DATA DUMP OF ANONYMIZED
DEVICE NUMBERS AND LOCATION
INFORMATION FOR ALL DEVICES THAT
PASSED THROUGH THAT AREA AT SOME
TIME DURING THE SPECIFIED TIME
PERIOD IN THAT SPACE. LAW
ENFORCEMENT, THEN HAS THE
ABILITY TO GO BACK TO GOOGLE. BE
AN EMAIL, YOU KNOW A NOTE AND
SAY, I WANT ADDITIONAL LOCATION
HISTORY INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF
THE SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA
AND TEMPORAL ZONE. FOR ANY OF
DEVICES THEY DEEMED TO BE OF
INTEREST. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NO
MAGISTRATE OVERSEEING THAT
PROCESS, JUST A LETTER FROM THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT TO GOOGLE.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE THIRD STEP
IS THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATOR CAN SAY ABOUT ALL
THE DEVICES THAT THEY RECEIVED A
SECTION OR SECTION THERE OF WE
WANT TO GAIN PERSONAL
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, SO I
WANT ANOTHER PERSON'S NAME.
THEIR REGISTERED EMAIL ADDRESS
REGISTERED PHONE NUMBER, WHAT
OTHER ACCOUNTS OR WHAT OTHER
APPS THEY'RE USING, WITH GOOGLE
POINT BEING THE MAGISTRATE HAS
AUTHORIZED ABROAD. INITIAL
ANONYMIZED DISCLOSURE OF
INFORMATION. BUT BY THE LAST
STEP INVESTIGATORS FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARE GAINING
BASICALLY UNFETTERED, AT LEAST
ACCORDING TO MAGISTRATE OR LACK
OF MAGISTRATE CONTROL ACCESS TO
THAT DATA. SO THE TERM BRIEFLY
TO THE CRIMES THAT HAVE BEEN
INVESTIGATED. THERE REALLY IS A
WHOLE RANGE SO I THINK SOME OF
THE CASES THAT YOU OFFENSES HAVE
BEEN USED. YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE
HORROR STORIES YOU HEAR ABOUT.
RAPES, MURDER. THESE KIND OF
THINGS AND GEO FENCES HAVE
CERTAINLY BEEN USED THEIR
INSTANCES OF THOSE, BUT THERE'S
ALSO A BROAD RANGE OF INSTANCES
IN WHICH DO YOU HAVE FENCES HAVE
BEEN USED FOR SMALL CRIMES. ONE
THING HAS BEEN AFTER PROTESTS SO
AFTER THE SHOOTING AND KILLING
OF GEORGE FLOYD IN MINNEAPOLIS.
SUBSEQUENTLY GEO FENCE WARRANTS
WERE SOUGHT TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN
PROTESTERS WHO ARE ON THE
STREETS OF MINNEAPOLIS. SIMILAR
IN KENOSHA, WISCONSIN. AFTER THE
JACOB BLAKE SHOOTING. THERE WAS
ALSO GEO FENCE WARRANTS THAT
WERE SOUGHT TO IDENTIFY CERTAIN
PROTESTERS. WHO OUR PRESIDENT
THAT MOMENT. THERE'S ALSO BEEN
NONVIOLENT CRIMES THAT HAVE
INVESTIGATED THAT CAN BE POSTAL
CRIMES THAT CAN BE ROBBERIES
FROM HOUSES WHEN NO ONE WAS
HOME. POINT BEING. I THINK THIS
IS TECHNOLOGY THAT WE
AUTOMATICALLY JUMP TO THE WORST
CONCLUSION ABOUT WHAT CAN BEING
INVESTIGATED, BUT BECAUSE
THERE'S BEEN NO JUDICIAL OR
LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, THE
ABILITY FOR THESE TO BE USED
BROADLY WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINTS
IS CONCERNING TO MANY. AND THE
LAST THING THAT I WANT TO SAY
BEFORE CONCLUDING MY REMARKS IS
JUST A KIND OF TOUCH ON WHAT
BIPARTISAN CONCERN HAS BEEN MADE
BY LEGISLATURES AND OTHER STATES
ARE FEDERALLY ABOUT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES. SO PROBABLY ONE OF
THE MOST EYE CATCHING MOMENTS IN
THE WHOLE, AT LEAST FOR ME AND
THIS WHOLE ANTITRUST, BIG TECH
REGULATION PUSH THAT'S BEEN MADE
BEING MADE BY CONGRESS. WAS BEEN
A REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM
NORTH DAKOTA BY THE NAME OF
KELLEY ARMSTRONG. HE WAS
SPEAKING TO THE ALPHABET CEO
SUNDAR PINK EYE, AND HE SAID TO
HIM THAT GEO FENCE WARRANTS ARE
AND I QUOTE THE SINGLE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE. CLOSE QUOTE
BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST,
COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW. THIS IS A COMMITTEE THAT
WAS ALSO LOOKING ANTITRUST
VIOLATIONS. BUT IN THIS
REPUBLICAN U S CONGRESSMAN'S
VIEW THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE
BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEMS THAT WERE RAISED BY
THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS GEO FENCE
WARRANTS. SIMILARLY, THERE'S A
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR IN THE
UTAH STATE LEGISLATURE, WHO HAS
INTRODUCED MULTIPLE BILLS WITH
THE AIM OF LIMITING THE SCOPE OF
GEO FENCE WARRANTS AND
SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDING THE DATA
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS AROUND
THESE WARRANTS AGAINST, CITING
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS WITH THE
FACT THAT THESE ARE NOT BEING
CONSTRAINED BY ANY PRIVACY OR
OTHER REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN
FINALLY, I INCLUDED, I THINK IN
THE PACKET THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMITTEE. A PROPOSAL THAT'S
BEEN PUT FORWARD BY NEW YORK.
WHICH THEY'RE CALLING THE
REVERSE LOCATION SEARCH
PROHIBITION ACT. MR BOLD
PROPOSAL IT WOULD BAN ALL
INVESTIGATORY GEO FENCES VIA
WARRANTS BY STATE INVESTIGATORS
OR THROUGH WORK AROUNDS USING
FEDERAL AGENCIES. IT ALSO WOULD
NOT ALLOW ANY STATE GOVERNMENT
ENTITY TO SEEK A GEO FENCE
WARRANT. IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT
ANY GEO FENCE WARRANT THAT'S
PRODUCED THAT PRODUCES HAVEN'T
DENTS IN NEW YORK THAT ALL THE
FRUITS OF THAT INVESTIGATION BE
SUPPRESSED IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES
REGARDED REGARDLESS OF THE CRIME
BEING INVESTIGATED. AND FINALLY
, IT WOULD GIVE STANDING FOR ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CHARGED WITH
EXCUSE ME, WHOSE DATA IS USED IN
A GEO FENCE WARRANT THE ABILITY
TO SUE THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE THE
PERSON WHO IS BEING
INVESTIGATED. WHAT THE
LEGISLATURE THERE IS CONCERNED
ABOUT AND I THINK WHAT MANY
PRIVACY ADVOCATES ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS.
IF NOT THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS
. DATA CAN BE RETURNED FOR ANY
GIVEN GEO FENCE WARRANT. THEY
WERE MAYBE PASSING THROUGH THAT
AREA. THERE'S MANY STORIES
ABOUNDING OF KIND OF THIS FALSE
ARREST LOTTERY OR THIS, YOU KNOW
, INCORRECT IDENTIFICATION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS THEN
INVESTIGATED IN SOME INSTANCES
JAILED BY POLICE INVESTIGATING
USING A GEO FENCE WEREN'T
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PROOF BEYOND
THAT GEO FENCE WARRANT. THE LAST
THING THAT I THINK IS WORTH
MENTIONING ABOUT THE NEW YORK
LAW SPECIFICALLY IS THAT IT'S
ACTUALLY BACKED BY AN INDUSTRY.
GROUP THAT INCLUDES BASICALLY
EVERY LARGE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY,
SO IT INCLUDES APPLE AND
INCLUDES MICROSOFT SNAPCHAT
pGOOGLE POINT BEING. I THINK THAT
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES ARE
REALIZING THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY
IS INVASIVE. IT'S ALSO VERY
DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO DEAL WITH
, AND BECAUSE NO LEGISLATIVE
ACTION AND NO JUDICIAL ACTION
HAS BEEN TAKEN THUS FORTH,
THERE'S BASICALLY NOBODY
LIMITING HOW THESE SEARCHES ARE
BEING DONE. ASIDE FROM PRIVATE
PLAYERS, AND WITH THAT I'LL
CONCLUDE MY REMARKS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. UM AND SO WE'RE ALSO
HAVE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MIA BONTA
IS HERE. AND THEN WE HAVE.
FORMER STATE SENATOR KEVIN
MURRAY JOINED US PROBABLY HIS
FIRST PUBLIC SAFETY MEETINGS
EVER GONE, TOO. SO WE WELCOME
HERE. UM AND NOW, MR RAIN WHOA!
RING ROSE OR LYNCH? WHOEVER
WANTS TO GO FOR, OR SNOW JACOB
SNOW. WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO GO
FIRST. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY AND
THANK YOU TO THE STAFF. CRANK IT
UP. WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. YOU HEAR
ME? IT MAY BE US. IS THIS BETTER
OR YES, THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
HERE TODAY AND THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFFER REACHING OUT
TO MY TEAM HERE. AND ALERTING US
TO THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE
INFORMATION WITH YOU ABOUT
GOOGLE'S APPROACH TO G OFFENSE
WARRANTS. I'M CAITLIN RING ROSE
GLOBAL POLICY LEAD FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND GOVERNMENT
ACCESS HERE AT GOOGLE. I WORK AT
THE INTERSECTION OF ACCESS AND
USER PRIVACY AND SECURITY WILL
TRY TO USE MY TIME HERE
JUDICIOUSLY. AS YOU KNOW, A
VARIETY OF LAWS ALLOW GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AROUND THE WORLD TO
REQUEST USER INFORMATION FOR
CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE, CRIMINAL
AND NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSES.
THOSE REQUESTS COME TO GOOGLE
AND VARIETY OF FORMS, INCLUDING
WARRANTS TH PENIS OR QUARTERS.
GO AHEAD. IT'S NOT YOU. IT'S
SOMETHING IN THE HALLWAY GOING
ON. NO WORRIES. UM GOOGLE IS
PROUD TO HAVE LED THE CHARGE ON
PUBLISHING TRANSPARENCY, REPORTS
ABOUT IT WAS PARTICULAR QUESTS.
SO EVERY SIX MONTHS WE REPORT
THE NUMBER OF REQUESTS MADE BY
GOVERNMENTS FOR USER INFORMATION
AND THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS THAT
WERE SUBJECT TO THOSE REQUESTS
ARE LATEST TRANSPARENCY REPORT
SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENTS ARE
INCREASINGLY REQUESTING USER
INFORMATION. THAT TREND IS
CONTINUED EVERY YEAR SINCE 2010
WHEN WE FIRST BEGAN REPORTING
THAT COULD EITHER BECAUSE BE
BECAUSE OF GOOGLE'S EXPANDED
USER BASE, OR JUST BECAUSE SO
MANY OF US ARE MORE ONLINE NOW
THAN EVER KEEPING THE SAME
INFORMATION WE PROBABLY WOULD
HAVE ONCE KEPT IN OFFICE ROAR UP
ON A WEB PAGE. THIS GENERAL RISE
IN THE NUMBER OF REQUESTS WE
RECEIVED IS ALSO MANIFESTED IN
THE RISE OF GEO FENCE WARRANTS,
WHICH ARE PROBABLE CAUSE
WARRANTS LIKE BRETT MENTIONED
ISSUE THE UNITED STATES AND
OVERSEEN BY A JUDGE THAT COMPEL
GOOGLE TO IDENTIFY USERS BASED
ON THEIR LOCATION HISTORY.
INFORMATION WHO MAY HAVE BEEN IN
A GIVEN AREA WITHIN A CERTAIN
TIMEFRAME. LAST YEAR. WE WERE
THE FIRST IN THE INDUSTRY TO
REALLY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
DETAILING JUST HOW MANY DO YOU
OFFENSE WARRANTS WE'VE RECEIVED
, INCLUDING WHICH STATES REQUEST
INFORMATION FROM US AND THE
NUMBER OF REQUESTS FROM EACH
JURISDICTION ALONE. WHILE THAT
INFORMATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN
AVAILABLE IN OUR TRANSPARENCY,
REPORTING, BREAKING OUT YOUR
OFFENSE DEMANDS IN PARTICULAR
ALLOWED US TO SHARE A CERTAIN
TRENDS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
ALTHOUGH WARRANTS ISSUED BY
FEDERAL COURTS AREN'T
INSUBSTANTIAL, OUR REPORTING
SHOWS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE
OFFENSE WARRANTS WE RECEIVE 95%
OF THEM ACTUALLY COME FROM
STATES. AND A HANDFUL OF STATES
ARE OUR TOP REQUESTERS. THERE'S
INCLUDED CALIFORNIA, TEXAS,
FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN AND
GEORGIA. FOR CALIFORNIA ALONE,
THE STATE THAT SUBMITS THE MOST
OFFENSIVE WARRANTS TO GOOGLE.
FAVORITE QUESTED OR YOUR STATE
HAS REQUESTED 209 1519 100
SEPARATE REQUESTS IN 2018, 19
AND 20 ALONE. THAT TOTALS 2 36
100. TOTAL REQUESTS OUT OF
20,000 REQUESTS WE RECEIVED IN
THAT THREE YEAR PERIOD. FINALLY
OVERALL IN THE UNITED STATES
SINCE 2016 WHEN WE RECEIVED THE
FIRST SUCH REQUEST, THE NUMBER
OF GEO FENCE WARRANTS HAS ONLY
GROWN STEADILY. AS OF LAST YEAR,
25% OF THE TOTAL US WARRANTS WE
RECEIVED WRE FERGIE OFFENSE,
INFORMATION. ALL THESE NUMBERS
ARE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET.
THEY'RE ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC ON GOOGLE'S TRANSPARENCY.
REPORT. AND WHILE THESE NUMBERS
ARE HELPFUL AND NEW INCOME MANY
GEOPHONES FLORENCE GOOGLE
RECEIVES I ALSO WANT TO RESPOND
TO THE NOTION THAT GOOGLE
RECEIVES THE MAJORITY OF SUCH
WARRANTS. TODAY, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
TO KNOW HOW MANY WARRANTS ABSENT
GREATER EFFORTS TOWARDS
TRANSPARENCY ACROSS INDUSTRY AND
GOVERNMENT HAVE AN ISSUE TO
OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS OR HOW
MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT REQUEST
OVERALL OR EVEN HOW MUCH
LOCATION DATA IS BOUGHT AND SOLD
BY DATA BROKERS OPERATING IN THE
SHADOWS. WE'RE SELLING IT
SCRAPING USER INFORMATION,
INCLUDING USER LOCATION DATA.
FINALLY I WANT TO COVER WHAT
GOOGLE DOES WHEN IT RECEIVES GEO
FENCE REQUESTS AND HOW WE
PROVIDE NOTICE TO OUR USERS.
GOOGLE HAS A LONG TRACK RECORD
OF PUSHING BACK AGAINST OVERLY
BROAD DEMANDS FROM LAW
ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING TO SOME
DEMANDS ENTIRELY. INCLUDING
OBJECTING TO SOME ENTIRELY. WE
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PRIVACY
AND SECURITY EXPECTATIONS OF
PEOPLE USING OUR PRODUCTS, AND
WE NOTIFY PEOPLE WHEN WE COMPLY
WITH GOVERNMENT DEMANDS UNLESS
WORK PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO OR
WHEN LIVES ARE AT STAKE, SUCH AS
AN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. TODAY'S
HEARING FOCUSED REALLY HEAVILY
ON TRANSPARENCY. AND I WANT TO
BE CLEAR THAT WE TAKE THAT VERY
SERIOUSLY, AND WE'RE COMMITTED
WHENEVER POSSIBLE TO LETTING
THEIR USERS KNOW ABOUT REQUESTS
FOR DATA, BUT YOU MAY KNOW THAT
NONDISCLOSURE ORDERS OR N. D O
S, WHICH ARE ISSUED BY STATE OR
FEDERAL COURTS. OFTEN GAG
PROVIDERS LIKE GOOGLE FROM
NOTIFYING OUR USERS. WE DON'T
DISCLOSURE ORDERS. OF COURSE,
THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE
SECRECY IS JUSTIFIED IN THE
INTEREST OF PRESERVING PUBLIC
AND INDIVIDUAL SAFETY. FOR
EXAMPLE, WHEN INVESTIGATING A
VIOLENT CRIME WITH AN UNDERWEAR
SUSPECT, HOWEVER, THE WAYS IN
WHICH NON DISCLOSURE ORDERS ARE
ISSUED TODAY OFTEN OUTPACES THE
NEED FOR THAT SECRECY. FOR
EXAMPLE, WE'VE SEEN THEM ISSUED
IN CASES WHERE SUSPECTS ARE
ALREADY AWARE OF AN
INVESTIGATION, ALREADY SITTING
IN JAIL ALREADY HAVE NOTICED
THAT ACCESS OCCURRED. FRANKLY
AND IN SHORT WHEN ITCOMES TO
GOVERNMENT ACCESS, SECRECY
SHOULD BE THE EXCEPTION. NOT THE
NORM. GOOGLE IS GOING TO
CONTINUE STANDING BY OUR USERS
PUSHING BACK ON A REALLY BROAD
REQUEST, ADVOCATING FOR GREATER
TRANSPARENCY. AND WE BELIEVE
THAT CONVERSATIONS LIKE THESE
WHERE POLICYMAKERS, ACADEMICS,
EXPERTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT COME
TOGETHER. CAN PROVIDE
COLLABORATIVE AND THOUGHTFUL
CONVERSATIONS AND ALSO CAN
RESULT IN POSITIVE CHANGES
AROUND TRANSPARENCY, NOT JUST
FOR GEO FENCE WARRANTS, BUT FOR
ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR HOSTING THIS
CRITICAL PANEL. I APPRECIATE IT
READY TO BE HERE, AND I WELCOME
ANY QUESTIONS AS TO GOOGLE'S
PROCESSES AND TRANSIT SEEN IN
THE SPACE. THANK YOU, MISS
LYNCH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU HEAR
ME? SPEAK UP. GO AHEAD. I'M
SORRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE
CAN. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY ON
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. EXCUSE ME
. MY NAME IS JENNIFER LYNCH. AND
I'M THE SURVEILLANCE LITIGATION
DIRECTOR AT THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION. I WANTED TO
TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT WHAT THE
COURTS ARE DOING WITH RESPECT TO
GEO FENCE WARRANTS AND ALSO WHY
WE FIND THESE WARRANTS SO
PROBLEMATIC. SO FAR AT LEAST SIX
COURTS NATIONALLY HAVE LIKENED
GEO FENCE WARRANTS TO SOMETHING
CALLED A GENERAL WARRANT AND
HELD THAT THESE WARRANTS ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO WHAT ARE
GENERAL WARRANTS? WELL, THE
FIRST THING THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
IS THAT THEY ARE OUTLAWED BY THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ARTICLE ONE
SECTION 13 OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION COME FROM COLONIAL
TIMES WHEN THE KING ISSUED
ORDERS ALLOWING BRITISH OFFICERS
TO SEARCH EVERY HOME AND
BUSINESS FOR EVIDENCE OF
SEDITIOUS LIBEL. OFFICERS DIDN'T
KNOW WHERE TO LOOK. SO THEY JUST
RANSACKED EVERYONE'S HOUSE.
GENERAL WARRANTS WERE SO HATED
THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL EQUIVALENTS
WERE DRAFTED EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT
THEM INSTEAD, WE REQUIRE IN THE
UNITED STATES SPECIFIC WARRANTS
. THESE ARE WARRANTS BASED ON
INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION OF
WRONGDOING, AND THE SUPREME
COURT HAS SAID OVER AND OVER
AGAIN THAT WARNS THAT AREN'T
BASED ON INDIVIDUALIZED
SUSPICION VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION. SO HOW ARE YOU
OFFENSE WARRANTS LIKE GENERAL
WARRANTS? WELL THEY START WITH A
CRIME, BUT THERE ARE NO
SUSPECTS. THEY ARE THE
EQUIVALENT OF ALLOWING THE
POLICE TO GO DOOR TO DOOR
DEMANDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF
EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
JUST BECAUSE A CRIME TOOK PLACE
THERE. AND WORSE. THEY DO THAT
WITHOUT LETTING THOSE PEOPLE IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW THAT THEY
WERE TARGETED FOR INVESTIGATION.
THE OFFENSE. WARRANTS ALSO ALLOW
POLICE TO LOOK BACK IN TIME,
WEEKS OR YEARS TO FIND EVERYONE
WHO WAS THERE IN THE PAST. SO,
AS I SAID, SIX QUARTS NATIONALLY
, INCLUDING A CASE IN FEDERAL
COURT IN VIRGINIA, CALLED THE
UNITED STATES VERSUS CHATREE
HAVE ISSUED PUBLIC ORDERS
HOLDING G OFFENSE, WARRANTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL. THE THING IS,
THOUGH, WE KNOW THAT MANY, MANY
MORE COURTS ARE JUST RUBBER
STAMPING THESE GOVERNMENT
REQUESTS AS CAITLYN JUST NOTED.
GOOGLE HAS SAID THAT GEO FENCE
WARRANTS NOW MAKE UP 25% OF ALL
WARRANTS IT RECEIVES. SO THERE
ARE THREE MAIN REASONS WHY GEO
FENCE WARRANTS ARE PROBLEMATIC
AND ONE SPECIFIC REASON WHY WE
SHOULD BE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THEM TODAY. FIRST THEY CAN
IMPLICATE INNOCENT PEOPLE.
SECOND THEY CAN CRIMINALIZED
FIRST AMENDMENTPROTECTED
ACTIVITY. THIRD THEY THREATEN
PRIVACY, AND FINALLY, THEY CAN
HELP POLICE PROSECUTE PEOPLE FOR
THEIR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES.
FIRST OFFENSE WARRANTS CAN
IMPLICATE INNOCENT PEOPLE. THIS
IS PARTICULARLY A PROBLEM
BECAUSE GOOGLE SAYS THAT ITS
ABOUT 68% ACCURATE. THAT MEANS
THAT PEOPLE MAY BE I MAY BE
IDENTIFIED AS WITH ENERGY
OFFENSE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE
NOWHERE NEAR THE CRIME. THIS IS
ACTUALLY HAPPENED A FEW TIMES IN
THE PAST THAT WE KNOW ABOUT SO,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN GAINESVILLE,
FLORIDA, A CYCLIST WAS WANTED AS
A SUSPECT IN A HOME BURGLARY
AFTER AFTER THE EXERCISE
TRACKING APP ON HIS PHONE SHOWED
HIM AS RIDING PAST THE HOUSE
SEVERAL TIMES ON THE DAY OF THE
BURGLARY. THIS WAS JUST PART OF
HIS FREQUENT, UH LOOP THROUGH
THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT HE BECAME
A SUSPECT IN THE CRIME, AND HE
HAD TO HIRE A LAWYERTO CLEAR
HIS NAME. AT THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION. WE ALSO
WORKED WITH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY
IN VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
WHOSE CLIENT WAS CHARGED WITH
ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING BECAUSE
DATA FROM A GEO FENCE WARRANT
PLACED HIM AT A PUBLIC PARK. AT
THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CRIME.
SO EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NOTHING
ELSE CONNECTING HIM TO THE CRIME
, HE WAS ARRESTED AND HIS NAME
AND PICTURE WERE PUBLISHED IN
THE LOCAL PAPER HE HAD TO HIRE
AN ATTORNEY TO PROVE HIS
INNOCENCE. GEO FENCE WARRANTS
ALLOWED POLICE TO IDENTIFY
PEOPLE INVOLVED IN FIRST
AMENDMENT PROTECTED ACTIVITY
LIKE POLITICAL PROTESTS AND TO
TARGET THEM FOR FURTHER
INVESTIGATION. AS BRIGHT NOTED
EARLIER IN KENOSHA, WISCONSIN,
THE A T F USED AT LEAST 12 GEO
FENCE WARRANTS TO COLLECT
PEOPLE'S LOCATION DATA DURING
THE PROTESTS FOLLOWING THE
POLICE SHOOTING OF JACOB LIKE IN
MINNEAPOLIS. GEO FENCE WARRANTS
WERE ALSO USED DURING THE
PROTESTS FOLLOWING THE POLICE
KILLING OF GEORGE FLOYD. AND THE
FBI USED GEO FENCE WARRANTS TO
IDENTIFY RIOTERS AT CAPITAL ON
JANUARY 6TH. MY THIRD POINT IS
THAT YOU OFFENSE WARRANTS
THREATENED PRIVACY. GOOGLE HAS
HIGHLY DETAILED LOCATION DATA ON
MOST OF US THAT MAY GO BACK A
DECADE OR MORE. THIS IS
CONCERNING BECAUSE USING
LOCATION DATA, IT'S TRIVIALLY
EASY TO RE IDENTIFY SOMEONE AND
TO CREATE A DETAILED PICTURE OF
THEIR LIVES. THERE'S A PERFECT
EXAMPLE OF THIS IN 2018. THE NEW
YORK TIMES GOT ACCESS TO A VERY
LARGE LOCATION DATA SET AND THAT
ALLOWED THEM TO TRACK PEOPLE
BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND SCHOOLS
. THIS INCLUDED KIDS TO
POLITICAL GATHERINGS AND TOO
SENSITIVE LOCATIONS LIKE HEALTH
CLINICS AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
THE DATA THAT GOOGLE HOLDS COULD
ALLOW POLICE TO IDENTIFY A LOT
OF PEOPLE. IN THE FEDERAL CASE I
MENTIONED UNITED STATES VERSUS
CHATRI. THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
INCLUDED WITHIN THE GEO FENCE
WAS ABOUT 17.5 ACRES. THAT'S
ABOUT 3.5 TIMES THE FOOTPRINT OF
THE DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES CITY
BLOCK. IN THIS AREA INCLUDED A
CHURCH, A CHAIN RESTAURANT HOTEL
, SEVERAL APARTMENTS AND
RESIDENCES, A SENIOR LIVING
FACILITY, A SELF STORAGE
BUSINESS AND TOO BUSY STREETS. I
WANT TO GET TO MY FINAL POINT,
WHICH IS THAT WE ARE
INCREASINGLY CONCERNED THAT
POLICE FROM STATES WHERE
ABORTION IS ILLEGAL, WILL TRY TO
USE GEO FENCE WARRANTS TO
IDENTIFY THEIR RESIDENTS WHO GO
TO A STATE LIKE CALIFORNIA TO
SEEK AN ABORTION. CALIFORNIA
CURRENTLY HAS A STATUTE THAT
REQUIRES CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES
TO RESPOND TO OUT OF ST MORITZ
FOR DATA. AND THAT IS CALPINE Ó
CODE PENAL CODE 15 24.2. SO EVEN
IF A COMPANY OBSCURES LOCATION
DATA AROUND THE PLANT PARENTHOOD
, AS GOOGLE HAS SAID THAT IT
WOULD DO IT MAY STILL BE
POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY A PERSON
WHO COMES FROM OUT OF STATE JUST
TO GET AN ABORTION BY COMBINING
THEIR LOCATION DATA WITH OTHER
INFORMATION. SO I WILL LEAVE YOU
WITH TWO THINGS. FIRST OFFENSE
WARRANTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND SHOULD BE OUTLAWED AND
SECOND CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
SECTION 15 24.2 MUST BE CHANGED
TO ALLOW CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES
TO PUSH BACK ON OUT OF STATE
REQUESTS FOR USER DATA. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY. I WELCOME ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. AND THE
LAST ONE UH, MR SNOW. GOOD
MORNING. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
GREAT WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU
TODAY, AND MY NAME IS JACOB
SNOW. I'M A SENIOR STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH THE TECHNOLOGY AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES PROJECTS AT THE
W. OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. THE
COMMITTEE HAS HEARD TODAY THAT
YOU OFFENSE WARRANTS ALLOW
PEOPLE TO BE LOCATED AND TRACKED
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NEAR
PARTICULAR LOCATION AT A RANGE
OF TIMES. BECAUSE THOSE WARRANTS
SEEK TO GRANT THE STATE POWER TO
OBTAIN PRIVATE RECORDS THAT
CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT
NUMEROUS PEOPLE. THESE WARRANTS
GENERALLY ARE NEITHER TARGETED
NOR SPECIFIC AND THEY ERODE THE
PRIVACY AND SAFETY OF COUNTLESS
PEOPLE WHO JUST HAPPENED TO LIVE
OR GO ABOUT THEIR DAILY LIVES,
WALKING AND EXERCISING OR
COMMUTE THROUGH A VIRTUAL
PERIMETER AROUND SOME LOCATION.
DIFFERENT WARRANTS ARE HARD TO
SQUARE WITH A SOCIETY THAT
RESPECTS PEOPLE'S AUTONOMY,
PRIVACY AND SAFETY IN THE
DIGITAL AGE. USED TO. THIS KIND
OF SURVEILLANCE APPARATUS SHOULD
BE STRICTLY LIMITED AND IT
SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN THE SHADOWS.
CALIFORNIA LAW AND IN PARTICULAR
THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT AS
STRONG SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS AND
TRANSPARENCY MANDATES THAT
PROTECT PEOPLE AND ALSO
ILLUMINATE FOR THE PUBLIC. WHAT
IS GOING ON? I WOULD LIKE TO
TALK ABOUT THOSE LIMITS TODAY.
SO THE OFFENSE WARRANTS RAISED
REALLY SERIOUS CONCERNS UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT, BOTH
ON THE SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS AND
THE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS.
THAT SHOULD PUSH A LOT OF THIS
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND THE
USE OF THE SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY OUT OF THE SHADOWS.
THOSE BASTARDS 1015 BY A
SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE
LEGISLATURE, AND IT HAS A STRONG
SUPPRESSION REVENUE IN THE
STATUTE. IT'S STRONGER THAN BOTH
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND FEDERAL
EPA, AND IT'S GOT A CLEAR
UNIFORM WARRANT RULE FOR
CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT
APPLIES TO PEOPLE'S LOCATION
FROM NATION WHETHER IT'S HELD ON
THEIR DEVICES OR IN THE HANDS OF
SERVICE PROVIDERS. AND THERE'S A
PARTICULAR IZATION REQUIREMENT
THAT REQUIRES THAT ANY WARRANT
BE SPECIFIC TO INDIVIDUALS,
ACCOUNTS AND EVEN PARTICULAR
APPLICATIONS OR SERVICES ON A
MOBILE PHONE. AND IT ALSO
REQUIRES CEILING OF THAT
INFORMATION AND PROHIBITS ANY
FURTHER USE. AND THAT MANDATE
MUST BE ON THE FACE OF THE
WARRANT, AND ALL THESE
SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS APPLIED
DIRECTLY TO THE OFFENSE
WARRANTS. UM THEY CALL IT THE
GOV. THE CALICA REQUIRES ALL
ELECTRONIC INFORMATION HELD BY
SERVICE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING
DATA AND ALSO METADATA, BUT ANY
OTHER ELECTRONIC INFORMATION AS
WELL BE EXPLICITLY INCLUDED
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
PROTECTIONS. AND BECAUSE THE
WARRANT HAS TO BE PARTICULAR
RISED. IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE A
GEO FENCE WARRANT, WHICH THE
WHOLE POINT POINT IS THAT IT'S
NOT PARTICULARIZED THAT IT LOOPS
IN ALL THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE
IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION AT A
PARTICULAR TIME. UM AND SO IT'S
HARD TO IMAGINE THAT BEING
PARTICULARIZED AND IF YOU LOOK
TO THE NEW YORK TIMES PIECE
CALLED ONE NATION TRACKED FROM
DECEMBER 2019. YOU CAN
UNDERSTAND HOW THAT SENSITIVE
LOCATION INFORMATION, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S CALLED ANONYMOUS CAN
BE LINKED TO A PERSON. SO. BUT
REALLY DOES IMPOSE STRONG LIMITS
ON WHEN YOU VIDEO OFFENSE
WARRANTS CAN BE USED. AND THAT
NEEDS TO BE IN THIS BEING
FORCED. TRANSPARENCY
REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO STRONG
UNDER THE LAW, AND FUNDAMENTALLY
IF THE PUBLIC LACKS ADEQUATE
INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN, WHERE
AND HOW OFTEN THIS KIND OF
INVASIVE SURVEILLANCE IS
HAPPENING, THEN IT'S MORE
DIFFICULT FOR PUBLIC
ACCOUNTABILITY TO HAPPEN. AND
COLLECTOR REQUIRES THAT WARRANTS
THAT DON'T HAVE AN IDENTIFIED
TARGET AND ALL GEO FENCE
WARRANTS DON'T HAVE AN
IDENTIFIED TARGET. THAT'S
BASICALLY THE POINT BE REPORTED
BY THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
WITH THEN IS REQUIRED TO POST
THEM PUBLICLY. UNFORTUNATELY
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF WARRANTS
THAT APPEARED TO BE MISSING FROM
THE STATES. DISCLOSURES UM, AND
THE INFORMATION THAT MS RING
ROSE FROM GOOGLE DESCRIBED WITH
THE THOUSANDS OF WARRANTS THAT
GOOGLE HAS RECEIVED AND HAS
DISCLOSED IN A TRANSPARENCY
REPORTS ARE NOT APPARENTLY
PRESENT IN THE STATES
DISCLOSURES, AND THERE COULD BE
A FEW REASONS FOR THAT ONE IS
THAT THEY'RE BEING SEALED AND
THE DISCLOSURES ARE NOT COMING
FROM LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
BECAUSE OF SEALING EFFORTS, BUT
EVEN WHEN WARRANTS ARE SUBJECT
TO SEAL CALIPER HAS A HIGH BAR
TO GET IN THERE, GET A SEALING
ORDER, AND IT'S EFFECTIVELY WHEN
THERE'S AN EMERGENCY. AND THAT
EMERGENCY NECESSARILY HAS TO
DECLINE IN SEVERITY. AS TIME
PASSES AFTER 90 DAYS, 180 DAYS
OR 270 DAYS OR IN A SITUATION
WHERE SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY BEEN
ARRESTED AND INCARCERATED THAT
CLAIM THAT HIDING THE
INFORMATION FROM THE PEOPLE AND
THE PUBLIC, UM CONSTITUTES AN
EMERGENCY STARTS TO BECOME
PRETTY FARFETCHED. FINALLY I
WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF THE OFFENSE WARRANTS
ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND
GENDER, GENDER AFFIRMING CARE.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING ON A JUDGE
AS WE HEARD FROM MS LYNCH THAT
WHERE PEOPLE ARE BEING TARGETED
FOR PERSECUTION AND HARM FOR
SEEKING ABORTIONS OR FOR SEEKING
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE. AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER STATES
COULD USEGEO FENCE WARRANTS TO
TARGET THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ALREADY MARGINALIZED AND ARE
ALREADY SUFFERING. IT'S WORTH
CONSIDERING HOW THE EFFECT OF
THIS SURVEILLANCE WILL AFFECT
PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS. HOW
CAN A PERSON WHO NEEDS AN
ABORTION OR WHO NEEDS GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE FROM FROM ANOTHER
STATE COME TO CALIFORNIA AND DO
SO SAFELY AND COMFORTABLY WHEN
THE THREAT IS THAT YOUR FRIENDS
WARRANTS COULD REVEAL THEM AS
THEY GET THE CARE THAT THEY SO
DESPERATELY NEED? RULES
ANNOUNCEMENT IN THIS AREA DOES
SOME GOOD, BUT IT DOESN'T OF
COURSE COVER OTHER COMPANIES WHO
MIGHT BE THE RECIPIENT OF GEO
FENCE WARRANTS. AND SO THERE
THERE IS A STRONG NEED TO
ADDRESS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
OFFENSE WARRANTS CAN BE A TOOL
FOR PERSECUTION FOR PEOPLE
SEEKING ABORTIONS OR GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE. THANK YOU VERY
I WANT TO
GO TO THE NEXT PANEL SO WE CAN
GET EVERYONE IN AND IT YES, OUR
LAST PANEL. AND WE THEN WE CAN
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T
WANT TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC WITHOUT
ANY COMMENT. SO THANK THANK
EVERYONE AND IF WE IF YOU STICK
AROUND, WE HAVE ELECTRIC TIME
BECAUSE I SEE SOME PEOPLE
ITCHING THERE. SOMETHING UM I
WANT TO LEAST GET OUR LAST
FACIAL RECOGNITION PANEL AND
GIVE THE PUBLIC SOMETIMES TO
SPEAK. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF
THEM WHEN THEY TESTIFIED, AND
WILL NOW BRING THE FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY GROUP.
HEARD AND. JONES I BELIEVE ARE
ON THE VIDEO. AND IS THERE MR
SABATINI? AH, THERE IS HERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN FIRST?
IF YOU WANT, IT WOULD BE GREAT.
THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME HERE
TODAY. HOPEFULLY I HOPE THAT
HAVING A LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSPECTIVE ON FACIAL
RECOGNITION, HOW WE USE IT WILL
BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS PANEL. MY
NAME IS LIEUTENANT DEREK
SABBATINI FROM LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HERE
ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF ALEX IN A
WAIVER. I'M HERE TO DISCUSS
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
AND HOW THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
UTILIZES IT IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY IS MANAGED BY THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL
IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM, ALSO
KNOWN AS LA CHRIS. WHICH I
MANAGE. I HAVE SPOKEN ON THE
ETHICAL USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION BOTH INTERNATIONALLY
AT THE I C P TECH CONFERENCE AND
NATIONALLY AT NUMEROUS
CONFERENCES IN THE UNITED
STATES. INCLUDING. THE POLICE
EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM IN
WASHINGTON, D. C. FACIAL
RECOGNITION WHEN APPROPRIATELY
USED DRAMATICALLY ENHANCES LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S CAPABILITIES TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC. IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY. WE HAVE
ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND
PRACTICES TO ENSURE AGAINST
CARELESS AND IMPROPER USE. THAT
MEANS NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
PRIVACY AND INFRINGE ON CIVIL
LIBERTIES. RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN MADE
AVAILABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY. WITHIN THE COUNTY
SINCE 2006. AND OUR CURRENT
SYSTEM SINCE 2009 TO DATE WE
HAVE NOT HAD WE HAVE NOT. HAD
ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT. CRIMINAL OR CIVIL
ISSUES WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. WE ARE COMMITTED TO
PROTECTING CITIZENS, PRIVACY AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES WHEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES UTILIZE OUR
SYSTEMS OUR FACIAL RECOGNITION
SYSTEMS REQUIRE USERS TO ATTEND
AND SUCCESSFULLY PASSED A
TRAINING CLASS BEFORE THEY CAN
USE THE TECHNOLOGY. THIS
ALLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION'S STANDARDS AND
PROCEDURES. THE FACIAL
IDENTIFICATION SCIENTIFIC
WORKING GROUP INTERNATIONAL
GROUP OF EXPERTS CONSISTING OF
LACQUERS EMPLOYEE CREATED THE
TRAINING STANDARDS WHICH
LACROSSE USES AND WHICH WAS
ULTIMATELY ADOPTED BY THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS. CHRIS IS
TRAINING PROGRAM IS KNOWN
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS ONE OF
ONLY A FEW OFFERING OFFERINGS
THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE FBI'S
REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE USE
OF PATIENT RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. KEY POINTS OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY THAT
LACQUERS PROVIDES THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IN LOS
ANGELES. FACIAL RECOGNITION. IS
NOT IDENTIFICATION, NOR CAN IT
BE THE BASIS OF AN ARREST OR
DETENTION. THE USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION PRODUCES A POTENTIAL
INVESTIGATIVE LEAD AND REQUIRES
INVESTIGATIVE FOLLOW UP TO
CORROBORATE THE LEAD BEFORE ANY
ACTION IS TAKEN. PROBABLE CAUSE
OR THE EVIDENCE THAT A SUSPECT
HAS COMMITTED. THE CRIME IS
DEVELOPED THROUGH AN
INVESTIGATION AND NOT THROUGH
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
LACROSSE'S POLICY STRICTLY
GOVERNS THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH FACIAL RECOGNITION MAY BE
UTILIZED. INCLUDING WHAT PROGRAM
ITCHES MAY BE USED. FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IS
PROVIDED STRICTLY FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES WITH HUMAN
REVIEW AN ADDITIONAL
INVESTIGATION NEEDED. USER
ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SYSTEM IS
ROUTINELY AUDITED BY
ADMINISTRATORS TO PREVENT MISUSE
AND TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
TRAINING TOPICS FOR FUTURE
USERS. FACIAL RECOGNITION TOOLS
OFFERED TO LOS ANGELES LAW
ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY ARE NOT
SURVEILLANCE. OUR SYSTEM DOES
NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO
RECORD AND JUST PROCESS SCAN OR
SAVE LIFE. EXCUSE ME, LIVE VIDEO
FEEDS. WE ARE COMMITTED TO
ENSURE ENSURING THAT OUR FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
CAPABILITIES ARE REGULARLY
TESTED, EVALUATED AND IMPROVED.
EXCUSE ME. IN THE COUNTY. ALL
CRIMINAL MUG SHOTS ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH CRIMINAL
FINGERPRINTS AND CRIMINAL
HISTORY RECORDS. THE FACIAL
RECOGNITION SYSTEM ONLY ALLOWS
AUTOMATED SEARCHES BY TRAINED
AND AUTHORIZED USERS. THE USER
SUBMITS AN UNKNOWN OR PROGRAM
EGE. THAT IS OBTAINED PURSUANT
TO AN AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATION. TO BE SEARCHED
AGAINST THE MUG SHOT DATABASE.
THE SYSTEM, THEN RETURNS A
GALLERY OF CANDIDATE PHOTOS.
DURING THE SECOND STEP OF THE
PROCESS. THE USUAL MANUALLY
REVIEWS THE CANDIDATE PHOTOS AND
PERFORMS A MORE THOROUGH 1 TO 1
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE IF
ANY OF THE CANDIDATES PHOTOS ARE
POTENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE
PERSON IN THE PROBE PHOTO.
CALIFORNIA REQUIRES COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CRIMINAL RIVER FENDER,
CRIMINAL OFFENDER RECORDS,
INFORMATION OR COREY LAWS. AND
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
JUSTICE CONDUCTS BIANNUAL AUDITS
OF EACH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
FOR COMPLIANCE. COREY MEANS AND
I QUOTE FROM CALDERON O. J
INFORMATION BULLETIN. 13 04
SIEGES AUTHORED BY THEN ATTORNEY
GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS. QUOTE
RECORDS AND DATA COMPILED BY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES FOR
THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFYING
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS AND OF
MAINTAINING AS TO EACH SUCH
OFFENDER, A SUMMARY OF THEIR
ARRESTS AND QUOTE THE COLLECTION
OF THIS INFORMATION IS REQUIRED
BY LAW. USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY WITHIN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMPLIES WITH
COREY LAWS. ALL USERS MUST
DOCUMENT THE REASONS FOR THEIR
SEARCH. WHEN CONDUCTING A FACIAL
RECOGNITION SEARCH USERS MUST
HAVE BOTH A NEED TO KNOW. AND A
RIGHT TO KNOW BEFORE SEARCH CAN
BE CONDUCTED. THE REASONS FOR
ACCESS MUST BE REFERENCE A BILL
NUMBER SO WHEN AUDITED, IT WILL
ALLOW THE USER TO PROVIDE AN
ADEQUATE EXPLANATION. AND A
LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY THE
SEARCH FELL WITHIN COMPLIANCE.
IN THE COUNTY AUDITS ARE
CONDUCTED BY BOTH LACROSSE AND
THE LOCAL AGENCIES. OF THEIR
USER ACTIVITY WITHIN THE FACIAL
RECOGNITION SYSTEM. THE AUDIT
SERVE AS AN ESSENTIAL ROLE IN
IDENTIFYING AND MITIGATING RISKS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE USERS NOT
MEETING OUR LOCAL POLICY
REQUIREMENTS. WHEN CONDUCTING AN
AUDIT THE AUDITOR INSURERS,
USERS FOLLOW THE COREY LAWS AND
ESTABLISHED POLICIES WHEN
VIEWING AND ACCESSING CRIMINAL
OFFENDER RECORDS. IF THE AUDIT
REVEALS A USER ISN'T COMPLYING
WITH COREY LAWS AS OUTLINED IN
THE POLICY CONSEQUENCES CAN BE
BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO VERBAL
COUNSELING, RETRAINING REMOVAL
FROM THE SYSTEM AND DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATIONS FOR THIS
DISCIPLINE OR CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS. IN THE STATE. IT
IS NECESSARY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TO ENSURE THAT
COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES ARE
DEVELOPED, ADOPTED AND
IMPLEMENTED. SUCH POLICIES WILL
GUIDE THE AGENCIES AND ITS
PERSONNEL AND FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES DAY TO DAY ACCESS
AND USE. STRONG POLICIES WILL
STRENGTHEN THE COREY LAWS
PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY AT THE
AGENCY LEVEL, AND WILL GARDNER
PUBLIC TRUST. LACQUERS HAS
DEVELOPED A ROADMAP. FOR
ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIP FOR FACIAL
RECOGNITION USE. THE PROCESS HAS
BEEN SUCCESSFULLY USED IN CITIES
SUCH AS LOS ANGELES AND PASADENA
TO GARNER PUBLIC TRUST AND
ESTABLISHED TRANSPARENCY AND I
PROVIDED THE PANEL WITH A
INFOGRAPHIC OF THAT. THAT ROAD
MAP. IN SUMMARY. CALIFORNIA
ALREADY HAS LAWS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE FOR THE
ETHICAL USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION DURING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS. THE TECHNOLOGY
HAS BEEN IN USE FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE WITHOUT ISSUE AND HAS
INCREASED THE PUBLIC SAFETY
WHILE ENHANCING QUALITY OF LIFE.
THAT'S UM MR. MR JONES. SAWYER
UM, I KNOW YOU OPENED UP AT THE
BEGINNING WITH A STATEMENT
SAYING THAT YOU WERE IDENTIFIED
AS A SUSPECT IN A LINEUP OF
USING FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY, AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR
WITH HOW THAT THAT BECAME, BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION
ABOUT FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. AND IT DOESN'T
IDENTIFY ANYBODY. YOU HAVE TO BE
TOLD THAT THROUGH AN
INVESTIGATION. SO THAT STATEMENT
IS A FALSE STATEMENT. YOU WOULD
HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED TROUGH AN
INVESTIGATION. FACIAL
RECOGNITION DOESN'T RISE TO THE
LEVEL OF IDENTIFICATION.
THEREFORE, IT CAN'T BE
IDENTIFYING YOU AS A SUSPECT.
SO, UM AND I AND THERE'S A LOT
OF MISUSE OUT THERE, AND I THINK
THAT'S REALLY KEY TO WHY WE WANT
TO IMPLEMENT THAT, OR WE DO. USE
THAT COMMUNITY ROADMAP AND
SPEAKING WITH THE PUBLIC BEFORE
OR EDUCATING THEM ON THEIR
AGENCIES USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION. AND THAT'S ALL I
HAVE. AND I'M HERE FOR
QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATION. THE
SYSTEM AND THE ALGORITHM THAT
WAS USED IDENTIFIED NOT JUST ME.
BUT OVER TWO DOZEN. ELECTED
OFFICIALS. NOW IT MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT. BUT
THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS USED
IDENTIFIED US AS CRIMINALS. AND
THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED. YOU CAN
LOOK IT UP. REPLETE, NOT JUST
LETTING YOU KNOW THERE WERE
ARTICLES DONE. IF THAT
TECHNOLOGY WAS FALSE, AND THAT'S
THE POINT I'M MAKING WHATEVER
TECHNOLOGY THAT GROUP USED
WHETHER THEY DIDN'T DO ENOUGH.
WHETHER IT DID THE THAT'S THE
POINT, IF SOMEONE CAN NOT USED
THE SYSTEM CORRECTLY, I'M NOT
SAYING LAW ENFORCEMENT MADE A
DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DO THAT,
I'M SAYING THAT PARTICULAR
TECHNOLOGY IF NOT USED
CORRECTLY. COULD CAUSE A
PROBLEM. THAT WAS THE POINT I
WAS MAKING. I UNDERSTAND, AND I
THINK ONE THING THAT CAN HELP.
KIND OF CLEAR THAT UP IS NICE.
THIS IS YOU KNOW WHAT I DO? I'LL
GET THAT OUT. I WILL GET THOSE
ARTICLES AND I'LL GET THAT TO
YOU. AND UH, I'LL GET YOU THE
NAMES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, NOT
JUST ME THAT WE'RE A LITTLE
DISTURBED BY THAT SO THAT WE CAN
LOOK INTO THAT SO WE CAN CORRECT
WHATEVER THAT WHATEVER HAPPENED
WITH THAT? AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, SIR, I'M JUST
SAYING THAT NIST IS THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS
TECHNOLOGY. THEY'RE THE ONES
THAT SET THE STANDARDS. IF
SOMEONE IS SAYING THAT FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
IDENTIFIED IT WOULD BE
CONTRADICTORY TO THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE, STANDARDS AND
TECHNOLOGY IN 2019, THE NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND
TECHNOLOGY CAME OUT AND SAID
THAT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO USE,
UM A HUMAN COMPONENT NEEDS TO BE
PART OF IT. THEIR STANDARDS
TESTING TEST 1 TO 1 AND ONE TOO
MANY. UM COMES UP WITH A SCORE,
AND THAT'S FOR JUDGING
ALGORITHMS AS FAR AS WHICH ONE'S
BETTER THAN THE OTHER ONE. BUT
THEY CAME OUT AND CLARIFIED IN
2019 AND SAID THAT THE FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT. PURPOSES THEY
CANNOT PROVIDE A SCORE BECAUSE
IT REQUIRES AN INVESTIGATION TO
IDENTIFY AN INDIVIDUAL WITH
FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND THAT IS-DEPENDENT ON THE QUALITY OF THE
INVESTIGATION AND THE PERSON
THAT'S DOING THE INVESTIGATION
AND NOT THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. AND
I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT WAS DONE
AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE.
PERFECT OKAY, THAT WE WERE
COMPARED COMPARED APPLES TO
APPLES AND NOT APPLES, ORANGES.
UNDERSTAND? OKAY? NEXT. UM IS
THAT EITHER RETURN OR. MR JONES
ON THE. MR CHAIRMAN, THAT SCALAR
HER AND I CAN GO NEXT, PLEASE.
GO AHEAD. UH MORNING. MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS SKYLER
HEARN. AND I'M HERE IN MY
CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS FOR CLEARVIEW
AI, BUT EQUALLY SO I AM HERE AS
A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT AS A 30
YEAR LAW ENFORCEMENT VETERAN
WITH A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE AS A
STATE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR. UH
WITH INVESTIGATIVE EXPERTISE AS
WELL AS FOURTH AMENDMENT LAW
EXPERTISE. AS A STATE POLICE
ADMINISTRATOR THAT OVERSAW THE
STATE'S FORENSIC CRIME
LABORATORY SYSTEM. IT'S CRIMINAL
RECORD DIVISION. IT'S BIOMETRIC
SYSTEMS THAT INCLUDED FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
ELECTRONIC FINGERPRINTING IRIS
COLLECTION AND D N A. AND
FINALLY AS AN AGENCY EXECUTIVE
THAT WERE DIRECTLY WITH STATE
ELECTED LEADERS IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE. ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ISSUES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY AND
POLICING. AH! LIEUTENANT
SABBATINI KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT.
I SPEND MOST EVERY WORK DAY
TRYING TO HELP POLICYMAKERS. UH
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERS SIFT
THROUGH INFORMATION
MISINFORMATION. AND SOMETIMES
DISINFORMATION PROLIFERATED ON
FACIAL RECOGNITION. QUOTING OR
REFERENCE TO AN OUTDATED STUDY.
THE INNER INTENTIONAL OMISSION
OF RELEVANT PARTS OF AN
APPLICABLE STUDY. UH OR MOST
CRITICALLY, THE REFERENCE TO
FACIAL RECOGNITION AS A SINGULAR
TECHNOLOGY. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW
TO ADVANCE THE SLIDE THERE. IT'S
FUN. THERE WE GO. AH! THAT THE
DEBATE TODAY THE DISCUSSION
TODAY IS ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION, NOT
GOOGLE'S USE SPOT. APPLE IS
USED, NOT OTHER USES. LAW
ENFORCEMENT USES WHAT IS TERMED
IN THE INDUSTRY AS
IDENTIFICATION. AND THAT IS THAT
ONE TOO MANY SEARCH THAT THE
LIEUTENANT REFERENCED IT IS NOT
A 1 TO 1 VERIFICATION. THAT'S A
DIFFERENT USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY
. UH SO WHEN I SPEAK TODAY,
ABOUT. THE ACCURACY THE
DEMOGRAPHIC DISPARITY, THE USE
CASES. I'M TALKING ABOUT
IDENTIFICATION USE OF THE
TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE
IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT USE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. AND I KNOW. I HOPE THIS
THIS CAN BE CLEAR AND MAKE THE
DISTINCTION IN GOVERNMENT. THERE
ARE TWO BASIC USES OF THE
TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION, WHICH
IS THAT 1 TO 1 MATCHING UH, IT'S
USED IN REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S USED FOR AN ACCESS CONTROL
TO FACILITIES AND DEVICES AND
ACCOUNT. THE BIGGEST DISTINCTION
IS THE TECHNOLOGY MAKES THE
DECISION BY ITSELF. THERE IS NO
HUMAN IN THE LOOP. THERE IS NO
HUMAN DECISION THAT TECHNOLOGY
MAKES THAT DECISION. ENFORCEMENT
DOES NOT USE THAT. PART OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION. LAW
ENFORCEMENT ONLY USES THE LOWER
ONE, WHICH IS CALLED
IDENTIFICATION. IT'S THE ONE
THAT MANY THE TECHNOLOGY IS
ASKED TO PROVIDE A CANDIDATE
LIST OF SIMILAR FACES, AND
THAT'S ALL IT'S LOOKING AT. IT
REQUIRES A HUMAN TO MAKE THE
DECISION ON A MATCH EVERY TIME
100% OF THE TIME. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. WHEN A LOT OF TESTIMONY
A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THE
PUBLIC THAT YOU HAVE HEARD AND
THAT WE TALKED ABOUT ALREADY
JUST IN THE LAST, UH, PERSON
REFERENCES, THREE STUDIES. THE
GENDER SHADE STUDY IS REFERENCED
BY OPPONENTS OF THE TECHNOLOGY,
BUT IT WAS NOT BASED ON
RECOGNITION. IT WAS NOT
COMPARING ANY INFORMATION ANY
IMAGES TO EACH OTHER. IT WAS
TRYING TO DETERMINE RACE FROM A
SINGLE PHOTOGRAPH OF A PERSON
THAT'S NOT FACIAL RECOGNITION
THAT SPATIAL ANALYSIS MR
CHAIRMAN. YOU AND I SPOKE A FEW
MONTHS BACK ABOUT THIS STUDY.
AND YOU YOU TALKED ABOUT AGAIN
TODAY A COUPLE OF TIMES. THE
AMAZON RECOGNITION TEST. WAS NOT
A FAILURE. THE SOFTWARE THE
ALGORITHM PERFORMED EXACTLY AS
IT WAS SET UP TO PERFORM. THE
RESULTS HAVE BEEN MISREPRESENTED
, AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU
IN JUST A MINUTE OR A DIFFERENT
SLIDE. AND THEN THERE'S THE 2019
THIS STUDY ON DEMOGRAPHICS.
THERE'S NO DISPUTING THAT STUDY,
USUALLY BY OPPONENTS OR UP
PROPONENTS OF THE TECHNOLOGY.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS PARTS OF
THAT STUDY OR LEFT OUT WHEN IT'S
DISCUSSED. UH AND I'LL SHOW YOU
THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS
FROM NIST. THIS IS THEIR PAGE.
THIS IS NOT A VENDOR DOCUMENT.
THIS IS FROM THE EXPERTS IN THE
WORLD AND I SAY THE WORLD
BECAUSE THEY TEST EVERYBODY'S
ALGORITHMS. THEY FOUND FOUR
DEROGATORY OVERLYING ISSUES WITH
THE DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY IN 2019.
THE FIRST THREE OF THOSE FOUR
ARE NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT'S USE OF
THE TECHNOLOGY. LAW ENFORCEMENT
DOES NOT DO VERIFICATION. NUMBER
FOUR IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD
APPLY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND YOU
DON'T HAVE TO READ IT ALL. BUT
IT TALKS ABOUT A FALSE POSITIVES
FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALES.
AND THAT'S A TROUBLING
STATEMENT. AND IF IT STOPPED
THERE, IT WOULD BE REASON TO
HAVE PAUSED. BUT NUMBER. FIVE
MITIGATES NUMBER FOUR. AND IT
SAYS NOT ALL ALGORITHMS. ONLY
THE POOR PERFORMING ALGORITHMS
IN THE IDENTIFICATION IN THAT
ONE, TOO MANY HAVE THAT ISSUE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE HIGHEST
PERFORMING ALGORITHMS. HAVE
UNDETECTABLE BIAS. THIS IS LISTS
, QUOTE IN CONGRESSIONAL
TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT VERY STUDY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO HERE'S
THE FACTS. THIS IS AGAIN. THIS
IS NIST INFORMATION. AS OF JULY
, 2021. SO OVER A YEAR AGO, THE
TOP 150 ALGORITHMS TESTED BY
NIST. OR MORE THAN 99% ACCURATE
ACROSS THE DEMOGRAPHICS THAT
THIS TEST IN THEIR PROGRAM. THE
TOP 20 ALGORITHMS, WHICH
CLEARVIEW IS ONE OF THEM? BUT
THERE THERE ARE 19 OTHERS. THE
TOP 20 ALGORITHMS ARE NEARLY
PERFECT. 99.7 AND 99.8 IN
COMPARING MILLIONS OF PHOTOS.
AGAINST A PROBE IMAGE. UH IN
THAT CONTEXT ACROSS THESE
DEMOGRAPHICS AND COUNTER TO THE
NARRATIVE YOU HERE AND REPEATED
THE MAJORITY OF THOSE TOP 20
ALGORITHMS, THE LOWEST
PERFORMING ON HIS FOR WHITE
MALES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AGAIN. THIS IS CLEAR VIEWS
RANKING FOR THE NOVEMBER
TESTING. WE ARE THE NUMBER ONE
ACCURACY RANKED ALGORITHM IN THE
COUNTRY NUMBER TWO IN THE WORLD.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE HERE'S
THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL. JUST THE
PICTURE I WANT TO SHARE WITH
YOU, UH, FOR ALL OF YOU, BUT
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CHAIRMAN
ABOUT THE AMAZON STUDY OR THE
AMAZON TEST. WHEN YOU HAVE A
COMPETENCE LEVEL, YOU'RE ASKING
THE TECHNOLOGY TO IDENTIFY FACES
WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS. AT
OR ABOVE THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL.
YOU SAID IT. TODAY'S HIGH
PERFORMING ALGORITHMS RUN AT 99.
YOU'RE YOU'RE BASICALLY HAVE
500. POINTS OF INFORMATION ON A
BASE FROM A PHOTOGRAPH THAT MAKE
IT UNIQUE ENOUGH TO SEARCH
AGAINST OTHER FACES. WHEN YOU DO
A 99% CONFIDENCE SEARCH YOU'RE
ASKING FOR 497 OF THOSE SAME
POINTS TO BE PRESENT. AND YOU
MIGHT GET ANOTHER FACE. THAT'S
VERY CLOSE TO THAT. IT'S GOING
TO BE VERY CLOSE WHEN YOU MOVE
THAT CONFIDENCE LEVEL TO 80.
WHICH IS WHAT THAT AMAZON TEST
WAS RUN AT. YOU'RE ONLY ASKING
FOR 400 OF THOSE 500 SAME
POINTS. THE TECHNOLOGY PERFORMED
EXACTLY AS IT WAS ASKED TO IT
BROUGHT BACK 80% OR HIGHER
SIMILAR FACES. NEXT SLIDE. UH
JUST AN EXAMPLES OF THE
INFORMATION THAT THE IMAGES THAT
NESTS USED AS IN THEIR STUDIES.
THERE'S SOME SOME OPPONENTS OUT
THERE THAT SAY THEY DON'T USE
REAL LIFE PHOTOS. I CAN TELL YOU
AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
THESE ARE EXACTLY THE KIND OF
IMAGES THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
USES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THESE
ARE THREE CASES THAT ARE
ATTRIBUTED AT LEAST IN THE MEDIA
, AT LEAST BY OPPONENTS TO A
FAILURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY.
HOPEFULLY WITH EVERYTHING I HAVE
LAID OUT HERE BEFORE YOU WE KNOW
NOW THAT THE TECHNOLOGY NEVER
MAKES THE DECISION. THE
TECHNOLOGY ONLY LOOKS AT A FACE.
AND PROVIDES FACE A SIMILAR
FACE. AS A STARTING POINT. THE
TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT KNOW IF
YOU'RE £300 OR A BUCK 50. THE
TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T KNOW IF
YOU'RE SIX FT. TALLER FIVE FT.
TALL THE TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T KNOW
IF YOU HAVE TATTOOS OR NO
TATTOOS. ALL OF THAT IS WHAT THE
INVESTIGATORS JOB IS. ALL OF.
THAT IS THE HUMAN DECISION
MAKING THAT GOES INTO THIS LAW
ENFORCEMENT USE OF THE
TECHNOLOGY. ALL THREE OF THESE
GENTLEMEN WERE ABSOLUTELY
WRONGFULLY ARRESTED. BUT IT WAS
NOT THE TECHNOLOGY'S FAULT. IT
WAS HUMAN FAULT. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. UH, YOU GO THROUGH THAT
ONE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CLEAR
VIEW PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT
WITH PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. WE
ARE A SEARCH ENGINE. UM. CASE
RULINGS ON BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA. UH
SUPPORT WHAT CLEAR VIEWS.
OPERATIONAL MODEL IS EVEN SOME
GROUPS THAT MADE BE AGAINST US
ON FACIAL RECOGNITION, UH, ARE
IN A SIMILAR POSITION ON
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA AS YOU
CAN SEE BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA
ISSUE THERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AGAIN PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
INFORMATION. ONLY PHOTOGRAPHS
ONLY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ANYBODY
ELSE IN THE WORLD COULD ACCESS.
IT IS ONLY A LEAD. IT IS A FACE
. THAT'S A STARTING POINT FOR
INVESTIGATORS TO GO FORTH WITH
VERY SIMILAR IF YOU WERE USING A
PHONE TIP IF YOU WERE PUTTING A
PICTURE ON THE SIX O'CLOCK NEWS
AND SAYING CITIZENS OF
SACRAMENTO IF YOU KNOW THIS
PERSON CALL OUR TIP LINE. THE
TECHNOLOGY IS DOING THIS IN AN
AUTOMATED FASHION AND AGAIN FOR
CLEARVIEW. IT'S ONLY BIOGRAPHIC
BY. IT'S ONLY AN IMAGE. IT'S
ONLY A PHOTOGRAPH. WE DO NOT
HAVE BIOGRAPHICAL DATA. NO NAMES
, NO DATES OF BIRTH. NO
ADDRESSES NEXT SLIGHTLY. THIS IS
AN EXAMPLE OF A LEAD FROM A REAL
CASE. THIS IS DEEP THE CIRCLE.
THERE THAT YOU SEE WITH THE FACE
IN IT. THAT WAS IN THIS CASE, IT
WAS A SUSPECT THAT WAS IN A
CHILD EXPLOITATION. VIDEO
INVESTIGATORS TOOK A SCREENSHOT
OF THE FACE WHERE HE'S IN A IN A
BAD SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A CHILD.
THE TECHNOLOGY PROVIDED A LEAD
TO THIS PHOTOGRAPH. THE LEAD IS. THE INTERNET ACT ADDRESS WHERE
LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN LAWFULLY GO
WITHOUT A WARRANT. WITHOUT A
QUARTER TO THIS VERY PAGE.
THERE'S NO NAMES, NO DATES OF
BIRTH. NO ADDRESSES, LAW
ENFORCEMENT HAS TO DETERMINE HOW
THAT LEAD WORKS FOR THEM, BUT
THAT'S WHAT THEY PROVIDE NEXT
SLIDE. ALRIGHT. TECHNOLOGY IS,
UM, IS USEFUL FOR ALL OF THESE
TYPES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT USE
CASES, MANY OF WHICH DIFFICULT
IN EVERY STATE, BUT YOU KNOW, IN
CALIFORNIA WITH RETAIL THEFT AND
GUN CRIME NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AGAIN. USING THE TECHNOLOGY
PROPERLY IMPROVED POLICING. UH
IT HAS IT MANDATES
ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH ITS USE,
AND IT'S A BIT TIM CENTER
TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE WE PROVIDE
ACCESS TO INFORMATION LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAN ALREADY GET BUT
WE PROVIDED FASTER SO THAT
VICTIMS CAN BE RESCUED. NEXT
SLIDE, PLEASE. AND I JUST MY
LAST SLIDE CHAIRMAN. NO ONE
ADVOCATES FOR UNFETTERED USE OF
TECHNOLOGY. ALRIGHT NOTHING LAW
ENFORCEMENT USES TODAY IS USED
WITHOUT GOOD POLICY. GOOD
GUARDRAILS. GOOD STATUTORY
FRAMEWORK, EVEN GOOD CASE LAW
AROUND ITS USE. MISSION AND JUST
SOME IDEAS OF HOW THAT CAN WORK
AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT THE BEST
USES OF THE TECHNOLOGY ARE
AVAILABLE IN ANY OF THE CONCERNS
ABOUT ITS MISUSE OR PROHIBITED,
STARTING AT THE TOP, LEFT THEIR
ENSURING THAT IT CAN'T BE USED
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IDENTIFYING PEOPLE EXERCISING
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AH MOVING
TO THE RIGHT THERE CLOCKWISE. IT
REQUIRES HUMAN DECISION MAKING.
THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF. THE
RESULT OF A FACIAL RECOGNITION
SEARCH IS NOT A MATCH. IT IS NOT
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT HUMAN
INVESTIGATION BOTTOM, RIGHT? YOU
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T
USE POOR PERFORMING TECHNOLOGY,
AND THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT.
THERE'S A INDEPENDENT
VERIFICATION THAT YOU CAN PUT
INTO STATUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY TO
BE USED. AND FINALLY, THE FEAR
OF SURVEILLANCE. FACIAL
RECOGNITION ITSELF IS NOT A
SURVEILLANCE TOOL. IT PROCESSES
DATA, BUT IT COULD BE USED IN
CONCERT WITH AND THERE ARE
PLACES WHERE THAT'S DONE IN
OTHER COUNTRIES. WE DON'T WANT
TO DO THAT. WE CAN PROHIBIT IT
OR AT LEAST MAKE A HIGHER
STANDARD FOR WHEN THAT ONE CASE
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT CAN BE
USED. UH I'LL CLOSE THERE AND
SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
MR AARON, COULD YOU PLEASE FOR
THE COMMITTEE? UM YES, SIR, BY
SEVERAL MEMBERS, IF YOU COULD
PROVIDE US THE CLEARVIEW AI
SLIDES THAT YOU JUST PRESENTED
TODAY WE WOULD LOVE A COPY OF IT
SO WE CAN DISTRIBUTE EVERY
MEMBER IF YOU COULD PROVIDE THAT
TO US WOULD BE EXTREMELY
HELPFUL. YES, SIR. THANK YOU.
UM, WE'RE GONNA BRING ON THE A C
L U AH NOW AND WE'RE ALSO GOING
TO PROVIDE YOU. AND, UH, THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. THE
ARTICLE FOR WHICH I MENTIONED IN
WHICH FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY FALSELY IDENTIFIED 26
, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS WITH
THE MUG SHOTS. OF WHICH ADAM
GRAY, DAVID CHIU, FRANK BIGELOW.
UH, JIM COOPER. FUTURE, SHERIFF.
UM. MARCH STONE SENATORS BRIAN
DOLLY COULD BE FUTURE GOVERNOR.
KATHLEEN GALGIANI, JERRY HILL,
JIM BELL, SCOTT WIENER AND STEVE
GLAZER. WERE IDENTIFIED. WELL,
THOSE PEOPLE LOOK ALIKE. SO MAKE
SURE YOU GET THE ARTICLE FROM
WHICH I'M SPEAKING SO WE CAN
COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES BECAUSE
WE MAY BE TALKING ABOUT TWO
DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS, AND
SO, UH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE ALL HAVE THIS. THAT'S WHAT I
WANT THEIR INFORMATION. I'M
GONNA GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION
SO THAT WE ALL CAN STUDY IT. AND
TALK ABOUT IT. RATIONALLY. UM
AND I'M ALSO ON THAT LIST. AND
SO, UM LET'S BRING ON THE A C L
U NOW. YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. YOU
MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. UM GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS JENNIFER
JONES. AND I'M A STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH THE VALUE OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA'S TECHNOLOGY AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES PROJECT. THANK
YOU TO THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
COORDINATING THIS IMPORTANT
HEARING TODAY AND FOR INVITING
US TO DISCUSS THE CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION USED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT. UM I WOULD LIKE TO
OPEN TODAY BY BRIEFLY RECOUNTING
THE STORIES OF THE THREE
FAMILIES WHOSE LIVES WERE
OFFENDED WHEN THEIR LOVED ONES
WERE WRONGLY ARRESTED BY POLICE
DUE TO BEING MISIDENTIFIED BY
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
IN JANUARY. 2019 MICHAEL OLIVER
, A BLACK MAN WAS ARRESTED
DURING A TRAFFIC STOP IN
MICHIGAN BASED ON A WARRANT THAT
HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FIGHT THAT HAD OCCURRED
OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL. ALL OF
OUR WAS ACTUALLY AT WORK WHEN
THIS CRIME OCCURRED, BUT A
FACIAL RECOGNITION MATCH HAD
FALSELY IDENTIFIED HIM AS A MAN
WHO GRABBED HIS CELL PHONE FROM
A TEACHER AND THREW IT TO THE
GROUND. ALL OF OUR LOST HIS JOB
PAINTING CAR PARTS DUE TO THIS
ARREST. AND OLIVER'S OWN WORDS.
I'VE GOT A SON. I'VE GOT MY
FAMILY. I'VE GOT MY OWN LITTLE
HOUSE PAYING ALL MY BILLS. SO
ONCE I GOT ARRESTED AND I LOST
MY JOB, IT WAS LIKE EVERYTHING
FELL LIKE EVERYTHING WENT DOWN
THE DRAIN. NIGERIA PARKS OF NEW
JERSEY, ALSO A BLACK MAN WALKED
INTO A POLICE STATION IN 2019
AFTER DISCOVERING THAT POLICE
HAD BEEN TO HIS GRANDMOTHER'S
HOUSE EARLIER LOOKING FOR HIM.
DAYS EARLIER, A FACIAL
RECOGNITION SYSTEM HAD FALSELY
IDENTIFIED HIM AS A PERSON
SUSPECTED OF SHOPLIFTING FROM A
HOTEL. DESPITE THE FACT THAT
PARKS WAS 30 MILES AWAY AT THE
TIME OF THE INCIDENT. WHILE
TRYING TO CLEAR HIS NAME AT THE
STATION. PARKS WAS ALSO
WRONGFULLY ARRESTED. IT TOOK
SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM WERE
DROPPED. DURING WHICH TIME PARKS
DESPITE HIS INNOCENCE. CONSIDER
TAKING A PLEA DEAL TO AVOID
SPENDING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
TIME BEHIND BARS. I LOST FAMILY
AND FRIENDS WHO DIDN'T WANT TO
BE AROUND HIM FOLLOWING HIS
ARREST. IN JANUARY. 2020 ROBERT
WILLIAMS, ANOTHER BLACK MAN WAS
WRONGFULLY ARRESTED AT HIS HOME
IN FRONT OF HIS NEIGHBORS AND
YOUNG DAUGHTERS, WHO WERE ONLY
FORM SEVEN YEARS OLD. FOR
ALLEGEDLY STEALING WATCHES FROM
A STORE IN DETROIT. WILLIAMS WAS
ALSO RIGHTFULLY IDENTIFIED BY
FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE. AND
WHILE THE CHARGES WERE
EVENTUALLY DROPPED, ONE OF
WILLIAM'S YOUNG GIRLS CONTINUES
TO CRY ABOUT THE INCIDENT TWO
YEARS LATER, WORRIED THAT POLICE
ARE COMING TO TAKE HER FATHER
AWAY FROM HER AGAIN. I SHARE
THESE STORIES TO ILLUSTRATE THE
DEVASTATING IMPACT THAT FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY HAS HAD.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE ON
PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
ALREADY DISPROPORTIONATELY
SURVEILLED POLICE INCARCERATED.
BLACK COMMUNITIES, IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES, MUSLIMS, QUEER AND
TRANS PEOPLE AND OTHER
MARGINALIZED GROUPS. REFLECTING
ON THE FACT THAT IN THE STORIES
JUST SHARE IT ALL THREE MEN WERE
BLACK. THAT'S YOUR PARKS
COMMENTED WELL, IT'S NOT A
COINCIDENCE. AND IT'S NOT A
COINCIDENCE. AND I THINK IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT THAT THESE DEEPLY
TRAUMATIC STORIES HAVE HAVE NOT
BEEN SHARED WITH US IN VAIN.
STUDY AFTER STUDY SHOWS THAT
INACCURACY ISSUES WITH FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY PERSISTS.
WITH PARTICULARLY HIGH AND
ACCURACY RATES FOR PEOPLE OF
COLOR, ESPECIALLY BLACK WOMEN
AND MEN AND ASIAN WOMEN. IN FACT
, AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS TO
FACIAL RECOGNITION SYSTEMS
COMMONLY USED BY POLICE AGENCIES
CONDUCTED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2020.
DOWN THAT THEY EITHER HAD AN
IMPROVED OR ACTUALLY PERFORM
WORSE THAN IN PREVIOUS YEARS,
PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY WERE
APPLIED TO BLACK PEOPLE. REPORTS
THAT FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED TO OUR
KNOWLEDGE OR TYPICALLY BASED ON
STUDIES FINDING IMPROVED
ACCURACY AND IDENTIFYING FACES
WEARING MASKS. HOWEVER THOSE
TESTS DON'T NECESSARILY FACTOR
AND RACE AND GENDER TO TELL US
WHETHER ACCURACY HAS IMPROVED
WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PARTICULAR
DEMOGRAPHICS. WE'VE HEARD
FIRSTHAND ACCOUNTS OF ISSUES
WITH THE TECHNOLOGY THAT
SUGGESTS THAT THERE REMAIN
GLARING INACCURACY ISSUES. AND
THAT THOSE ISSUES CONTINUE TO
PRIMARILY IMPACT BLACK PEOPLE
AND OTHER PEOPLE OF COLOR. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN 2020, THE STATE PARK
, CALIFORNIA UTILIZED FACIAL
RECOGNITION SOFTWARE TO VERIFY
IT. EXAM TAKERS IDENTITIES. WHEN
THEY SAT FOR A REMOTE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BAR EXAM
DURING THE PANDEMIC. THERE WERE
REPORTS THAT EXAM TAKERS OF
COLOR HAD ISSUES VERIFYING THEIR
IDENTITY DURING BAR PREP. AND
DURING THE EXAM. INCLUDING A
YOUNG BLACK WOMAN WHO HAD TO
KEEP A LIGHT SHINING DIRECTLY ON
HER THE ENTIRE TIME TO AVOID
ISSUES WITH THE FACIAL
VERIFICATION. WE'VE ALSO HEARD
REPORTS DETAILING HOW THE USE OF
FACE RECOGNITION AND PUBLIC
BENEFIT SYSTEM. IMPROPERLY
DELAYED AND OUTRIGHT THE NINE
PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO GET CRITICAL
PUBLIC BENEFITS DURING THE
PANDEMIC. BUT I WANT TO BE VERY
CLEAR THAT WILL FACIAL
RECOGNITION, OF COURSE, IS
DANGEROUS IF IT'S INACCURATE.
OUR VIEW IS THAT IT'S EQUALLY
THREATENING TO CIVIL RIGHTS AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES, EVEN IF
ACCURACY WERE TO IMPROVE. THE
WRONGFUL ARRESTS BASED ON THIS
IDENTIFICATION THAT WE ALREADY
KNOW ABOUT. ARE JUST THE TIP OF
THE ICEBERG. THERE ARE GRAVES,
CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
CONCERNS WHEN FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY GETS IT RIGHT. AND
THAT IS BECAUSE FACE RECOGNITION
IS A DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY THAT
GIVES GOVERNMENTS AND
UNPRECEDENTED POWER TO TRACK AND
SEVERE LESS. THE TARGET
COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND UNDERMINE
EQUITY AND JUSTICE. WE'VE SEEN
REPORTS FROM OTHER STATES WHERE
FACE RECOGNITION WAS USED TO
UNDERMINE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE POLICE USED
IT TO TRY AND IDENTIFY AND TRACK
PEACEFUL RACIAL JUSTICE
PROTESTERS WHO WEREN'T SUSPECTED
OF ANY CRIME AT ALL. WE KNOW
THAT THEY USED THE FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT WILL EXACERBATE
RACIAL DISPARITIES THAT ALREADY
EXIST IN POLICING. THIS IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN YOU
CONSIDER THAT MUD SHOT
DATABASES, FOR EXAMPLE. ARE
ALREADY DISPROPORTIONATELY
COMPRISED OF BLACK AND BROWN
PEOPLE'S PHOTOS. DO TO ALARM
SORTED HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATORY
POLICING IN OUR STATE AND
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THE
TECHNOLOGY IS CERTAIN TO EXPOSE
PEOPLE WHO ALREADY SEPARATELY
TARM ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY AND
CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE
USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY FOR POLICING HAS
PROVEN TO BE AN INEFFECTIVE
WASTE OF MONEY. WE'VE THOUGHT
THROUGH MANY PUBLIC RECORDS
REQUESTS. ANY REPORTS OR DATA
THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT FACIA
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO REDUCE CRIME FOR
HOUSE REDUCED CRIME. TODAY WE
HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REPORTS OR DATA
THAT MIGHT GIVE INSIGHT INTO
ADVOCACY. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN,
HOWEVER, ARE FAILED EXPERIMENTS
WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. AND SAN
DIEGO, FOR EXAMPLE, A SEVEN YEAR
OFFICIAL RECOGNITION PROGRAM
RESULTED IN OVER 65,000 SCANS OF
PEOPLE'S FACES WHITE POLICE
OFFICERS. A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARMENT SAID
THEY WERE UNAWARE OF A SINGLE
ARREST. SINGLE PROSECUTION THAT
STEMMED FROM THAT PROGRAM. WE'RE
ALSO, OF COURSE, CONCERNED ABOUT
MISSION CREEP. THERE IS A LONG
HISTORY OF THIS WITH OTHER
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES AND
DATABASES. THAT HAVE BEEN USED
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. ONCE A
SURVEILLANCE AND DATA STORAGE
INFRASTRUCTURES IN PLACE. THE
TEMPTATION TO USE IT FOR OTHER
PURPOSES CAN PROVE IRRESISTIBLE.
INDEED WE HEARD EARLIER
PANELISTS SPEAK TO SOME OF THESE
INSTANCES OF MISUSE. WE ARE
FURTHER CONCERNED WITH THE LACK
OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND LAW
ENFORCEMENT. YOU SAID. THIS
TECHNOLOGY AGAIN. WE'VE
SUBMITTED HUNDREDS OF PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUESTS OVER THE YEARS
, SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT
EXACTLY HOW POLICE DEPARTMENTS
DEPLOY THESE SYSTEMS. YET THOSE
REQUESTS HAVE YIELDED VERY
LITTLE INFORMATION. FINALLY, WE
KNOW FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH
PUBLIC DEFENDERS THAT THE USE OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
OFTEN HIDDEN EVEN FROM DEFENSE
ATTORNEY SO WE AREN'T CLEAR AS
TO THE SCOPE OF ITS USE, OR HOW
MANY OTHER STORIES ARE OUT THERE
THAT ARE SIMILAR TO WILLIAM'S
STORY, OR OLIVER PARTS THAT WE
SIMPLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT. FOR
THESE REASONS AND MORE A DIVERSE
AND VERY BROAD COALITION OF
GROUPS IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN
DEMANDING THAT FACIAL
RECOGNITION NOT BE USED BY THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT REALLY
SHOULDN'T SURPRISE US. BECAUSE
THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS
STATE. FROM THOSE WHO CARE ABOUT
RACIAL JUSTICE. ABOUT THE RIGHTS
OF IMMIGRANTS ABOUT ECONOMIC
JUSTICE, REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND
GENDER JUSTICE. DEEPLY
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD
RECOGNITION DIRECTLY THREATENS
ALL OF THESE RIGHTS. AND THAT
FACE SURVEILLANCE IS SIMPLY TOO
POWERFUL, AND THE STAKES ARE
SIMPLY TOO HIGH FOR THE RIGHTS
AND SAFETY OF CALIFORNIANS. SOME
GUARD RAILS AGAINST THE USE OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
CANNOT DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO
PREVENT HARM AND TO PROTECT
CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES. WE KNOW THAT LOST
LIKE ASSEMBLY BILL 12 15, WHICH
PERMITS THE USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION ON OFFICERS, MORE
CAMERAS. AS WELL AS LOCAL BANDS
ON FACIAL RECOGNITION IN OUR
CITIES. I'VE WORKED TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS. IT'S VERY POSSIBLE
THAT THEY HAVE HELPED TO PREVENT
MORE WRONGFUL ARREST LIKE WE SAW
WITH MR WILLIAMS, MR OLIVER AND
MR PARK. THEY'VE HELPED TO MAKE
SURE THAT CALIFORNIANS
EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO FREE EXPRESSION. AND
ENGAGING IN MOVEMENTS FOR SOCIAL
JUSTICE ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AND
TRACKED AND INTIMIDATED. AND
THEY PROTECTED OUR IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND WILL
PROTECT OTHERS SEEKING SANCTUARY
AND SUPPORT IN CALIFORNIA FOR
CRITICAL HEALTHCARE AND MORE.
CLOSE TO DUBAI, EMPHASIZING TO
THIS COMMITTEE THAT CALIFORNIANS
WANT EQUALITY AND JUSTICE IN
REAL SAFETY FOR ITS DIVERSE
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. GOVERNMENT USED TO
DANGEROUS FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY IS COMPLETELY AT ODDS
WITH THESE VALUES. NOW IS THE
TIME TO BE MAKING SURE THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS THE STRONGEST
PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. TO PROTECT
PRIVACY, SUPPORT SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS AND SAFEGUARD
VULNERABLE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
NOT ALLOWED DANGEROUS SPACE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY TO BE
USED AGAINST US. WE HOPE THAT
ALL CALIFORNIA LAWMAKERS TAKE
THESE CONCERNS SERIOUSLY AND
TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO MAKE
SURE THAT DANGEROUS SPACE
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IS NOT
USED BY THE POLICE. AND OTHER
PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THANK
YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK WITH YOU, AND I'M HAPPY TO
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
WE'RE NOW UM PROBABLY ABOUT 10
MINUTES BEFORE THIS HEARING ENDS
. I WANT TO THANK ALL OUR
WITNESSES HAS BEEN VERY
ENLIGHTENING WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN
US AND WE'RE GONNA GO TO PUBLIC
COMMENT AND GET AS MUCH AS WE
CAN. BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY WANT
TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF
THIS ROOM, AND THEY ARE HERE
TODAY AND THEN IF WE STILL HAVE
TIME, WHICH I DOUBT UM, WELL,
LET MEMBERS ASKED FOR SOME
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. IF YOU
COULD STICK AROUND, SO IT WE'RE
NOT OPENING UP FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT IN THE ROOM. IS ANYONE
THAT WITH ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN
HERE IN THE HEARING ROOM? SEEING
NONE WILL GO TO THE PHONE LINES
OR ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
PHONE LINES. BUT DID WE OPEN IT
UP OR DID WE. MEMORIES OF THE
PUBLIC AND ATTENDANCE ON THE
PHONE LINES. TO CARRY YOU ABLE
TO HEAR ME. THERE'S NO ONE IN
THE QUEUE. THERE'S NO ONE IN. Q,
UM WE STILL HAVE ABOUT 12
MINUTES, SO I KNOW THERE WAS
SOME MEMBERS THAT WERE LEARNING
TO ASK SOMETHING, SO HOPEFULLY
THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT HUNG
AROUND. SO ANY MEMBERS COMMITTEE
YOU WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR
ASK SOMETHING. JUST THIS WOULD
BE THE TIME. OKAY, LET'S GO
AHEAD. SO YEAH. THANK YOU ALL
FOR PARTICIPATING THIS HEARING.
IT WAS VERY EDUCATIONAL FOR US
HERE. ALL SIDES OF THE ISSUES
SURROUNDING THIS ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY. UM I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. UH, THAT AS WE
INCREASE THE ABILITY. FOR THOSE
THAT NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE THAT WE
ALSO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE THAT GET
CAUGHT IN THAT TECHNOLOGY NET
ARE ALSO, UM AH! YOU KNOW, GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY NOT TO, UH,
SUFFER FROM THAT. IN OTHER WORDS
, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE
SAFEGUARDS, AS MANY OF THESE
FOLKS HAVE SAID. UM YOU KNOW,
WE'VE HAD SOME RECENT CRIMES
LATELY. UM AND WE'VE ALSO HAD
PEOPLE WHO GET EXONERATED BY
SOME OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. WHEN
THEY APPLY IT AND, UH AND OUR
AND THEIR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
APPLY IT. THEY CAN ALSO BE USED
TO EXONERATE PEOPLE. SO, UM YOU
KNOW, JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY
ISN'T CAUGHT. DOING SOMETHING
ILLEGAL DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S
NOT AN ILLEGAL ACT. AND THIS IS
INCREASING THE CHANCES OF PEOPLE
GETTING CAUGHT. AND GETTING
CAUGHT IS A DETERRENT. UM I SAW
PERSON DRIVING 100 MILES AN HOUR
DOWN THE FREEWAY THIS MORNING,
WEAVING IN AND OUT ALMOST
CAUSING ACCENTS. HE DID NOT GET
CAUGHT. SO I BET YOU I'LL SEE
HIM AGAIN SOMEDAY. UM SO YOU
KNOW, THE I THINK THEY HAVE A
PLACE. THESE TECHNOLOGIES DO
HAVE A PLACE THEY HAVE TO BE
APPLIED APPROPRIATELY WHEN WE'RE
TRYING TO CAPTURE SERIAL KILLERS
, WHO HAVE BEEN NOTORIOUSLY HARD
TO CAPTURE UM, USING, UH, THE
GEO FENCING OR OR WHATEVER. THIS
TECHNOLOGY WAS USED RECENTLY TO
GET A STRING OF HOMICIDE
ROBBERIES CAPTURE SOME SUSPECTS
THERE. AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE OFF
THE STREET, NOT KILLING PEOPLE
NOW. AH SO THEY DEFINITELY DO
HAVE A PLACE IN PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE DO HAVE TO SAFEGUARD INNOCENT
CITIZENS RIGHTS AS WELL. AND BUT
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL THESE
SHOULD BE SHELVED IN THE IN THE
, UH, EFFORT TO NOT AFFECT OR
NOT MAKE MISTAKES. MISTAKES GET
MADE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE
HAVE TECHNOLOGY OR NOT. UM, BUT
SOMETIMES THAT TECHNOLOGY CAN
ALSO BE USED TO ALLEVIATE THOSE
MISTAKES AS WELL. SO THANK YOU
FOR OUR FOR YOUR EFFORTS TODAY
AND IN EDUCATING US, AND
HOPEFULLY WE CAN TAKE THIS
FORWARD WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH
SOME OF THE, UH ISSUES ARE SOME
OF THE BILLS THAT COME FORWARD
IN REGARDS TO TECHNOLOGY AND THE
USE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. THANK
YOU. YES, MR LACKEY. YEAH. I
HAVE TO SAY THAT. FIRST OF ALL,
I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR THE
BALANCED APPROACH THAT TAXI
EXISTED TODAY AND VERY, VERY
THANKFUL FOR THAT. AND I THINK
THAT ALL OF US NO MATTER WHERE
WE ARE PREDISPOSED TO THINK WE
HAVE SOME THINGS TO REALLY
MARVEL AT AND SOME THINGS TO BE
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. AND I'M AS. AS WAS STATED EARLIER. HUMAN
APPLICATION WILL ALWAYS BE THE
VULNERABILITY. AND ONE OF THE
THINGS WE GET TO DO, AND
GOVERNANCE IS TO TRY TO REGULATE
THAT AND TO TRY TO MINIMIZE
MISTAKES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE
ALL BENEFIT FROM. AND AS LONG AS
WE HAVE THAT THAT BALANCED
APPROACH OF TRYING TO BE FAIR.
BUT ALSO HOLDING PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE THAT DO BAD THINGS.
THAT IS REALLY CRITICAL. AND I
THINK THAT SOMETIMES WE GET
THINGS A LITTLE BIT, UH,
IMBALANCE BECAUSE OF. SOME
BLURRY INFLUENCES, BUT I'M
HOPING THAT WE KEEP THE GENERAL
UM, PUBLIC'S INTEREST AS OUR AS
OUR TARGET, AND I THINK THAT IF
WE DO THAT WE CAN LOOK FORWARD
TO EVEN MORE GOOD THINGS,
RESULTING AND THE TECHNOLOGY IS
JUST BAFFLING. BUT AS WITH ALL
TECHNOLOGY, INCLUDING THE ONE
THAT'S IN MY POCKET RIGHT NOW,
YOU CAN EITHER BE A BLESSING OR
A CURSE. AND WE GET TO DECIDE,
AND THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY AND
I'M THANKFUL TO BE PART OF THIS
BODY AND TO ACTUALLY BE EXPOSED
TO SOME OF THIS VERY, VERY
POWERFUL INFORMATION AND I TAKE
THIS ROLE. THEY'RE VERY SERIOUS
, AND I HOPE THAT ALL OF US, UM
, CAN WORK COLLABORATIVELY
TOGETHER BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN
WE'RE AT OUR BEST. THANK YOU. MR
BANTER. I KNOW YOU CAME IN.
THANK YOU. I UH YOU KNOW, I
CONTEMPLATE THINGS LIKE THE UM.
THE INVENTION OF THE
FINGERPRINTS OR THE ABILITY TO
CAPTURE FINGERPRINTS OR WHEN WE
HAD TO THINK ABOUT ACTUALLY THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS US TO DO
DNA TESTING. UM AS WE THINK
ABOUT THESE FRAMES AROUND
AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS
OR SHUT SPOTTERS OR GEO FENCING
OR EVEN FACIAL RECOGNITION, AND
I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH MR LAKIS
COMMENTS THAT WE ARE IN A
POSITION NOW, THANKFULLY, TO BE
ABLE TO NAVIGATE AND LEGISLATE
THROUGH ESSENTIALLY BALANCING
OUR ABILITY TO ENSURE
INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND
ENSURING OUR COLLECTIVE
OPPORTUNITY FOR, UH, USING THOSE
TECHNOLOGIES TO INCREASE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PEOPLE WHO NEED TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE ARE ARE ACTUALLY THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE CAUGHT. UM, WHEN
WE USE THESE TECHNOLOGIES, SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE
AS LEGISLATORS, PARTICULARLY IN
THIS BODY AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND
THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATURE. AS
WE WRESTLE WITH THESE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY THE APPLICATION OF THOSE
TECHNOLOGIES ARE ONES THAT ARE
WELL BALANCED. SO I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
SO I HOPE EVERYONE GETS AN
OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST LOOK AT THE
TAPE. AND THERE AND EVERYTHING.
UM I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU, UM
I'VE HAD. OBVIOUSLY
DISAGREEMENTS PHILOSOPHICAL.
DISAGREEMENTS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. BUT I'VE ALWAYS
TRIED TO BE OPEN MINDED AND TRY
TO HAVE A BALANCED APPROACH. UM. AND I'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE.
I'VE NEVER HAD ANY, UM RUN INS
BAD RUN INS FAR AS COMMITTING A
CRIME OR ANYTHING WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. I'VE ALWAYS
BELIEVED IN THE RULE OF LAW. UM
BUT TODAY WAS THE FIRST TIME I
EVER. I MEAN, I TRULY EVER FELT
WHAT IT WAS LIKE WHEN PEOPLE
TOLD ME THEY FELT LIKE LAW
ENFORCEMENT TREATED THEM THAT
THEY WERE GUILTY. UNTIL PROVEN
INNOCENT. AND SO BUT WHEN I SAID
WHAT I SAID AND I WAS TOLD THAT
I WAS NOT. SAYING THE RIGHT
THING IT TOOK ANOTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. TO SHOW ME
RETIRED ONE TO SHOW ME WHERE I
HAD READ THAT. AND IF SOMEONE
TOLD ME MY TECHNOLOGY. SAID THAT
YOU ARE A FELON. IT'S WRONG.
IT'S NEVER NOT EVEN NOT EVEN
BEING ABLE TO SAY, LET ME DOUBLE
CHECK. LET ME DOUBLE CHECK WHAT
YOU JUST SAID. BECAUSE YOU SEEM
TO BE EARNEST AND WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING. AND YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT
EVEN THOUGH FROM WHAT I HAVE IN
THE DATA THAT I HAVE SAYS THAT
WE'RE 100% RIGHT. THE REASON WE
HAVE PEOPLE. WHO GET WRONGLY
CONVICTED BECAUSE WE'RE NOT
FLEXIBLE ENOUGH. IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM. TO SAY THAT
MAYBE SOMETIMES. LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS JUST WRONG. AND THEY MAKE A
MISTAKE AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE
TO GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO BE
ABLE TO BE PALATABLE ENOUGH TO
ENSURE THAT WE DON'T PROSECUTE
OR GO AFTER PEOPLE. UM, WHO ARE
WRONGLY CONVICTED. TODAY WAS THE
FIRST DAY I FELT THAT AND I'VE
NEVER FELT THAT AS A HUMAN BEING
AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN. AND I
NOW KNOW HOW SCARY THAT CAN BE
NOW. NO I USED TO SAY I WOULD
NEVER ADMIT TO A CRIME. BUT I
COULD FEEL THAT PRESSURE FOR A
VERY, VERY, VERY FIRST TIME IN
THIS ROOM IN PUBLIC RIGHT NOW,
AND THAT IS WRONG, AND WE NEED
TO WE NEED TO FIX THAT, TOO,
BECAUSE AT SOME POINT UM YES,
THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL
LIE AND NOT TELL THE TRUTH TO
TRY TO GET OUT OF SOMETHING. BUT
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE
INNOCENT, TRYING TO EXPLAIN
SOMETHING. WE NEED TO DO A
BETTER JOB AT MAKING SURE WE
HAVE ALL THE FACTS BEFORE WE
COME SO RIGID. AND SO I THINK
THIS IT'S BEEN A VERY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY AS MR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ORTEZ POINTED
OUT, WILL BE USED TO SAY THIS IS
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS
THE WAY IT IS. AND IT'S JUST
STILLMAYBE SOME SOME PROBLEMS
WITH IT, AND WE NEED TO BE
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE COULD BE
SOMETHING SO I THINK AT THE END
OF THE DAY, THIS IS OPENED UP A
LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT WE COULD
THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH. AND SO I
THANK EVERYBODY FOR BEING HERE.
I'M GLAD WE DID HAVE THIS BACK
AND FORTH. AND THAT WE DO HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT
WITHOUT BEING, UM MEAN OR
AGGRESSIVE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND
THAT WE CAN OPEN DIALOGUE. AND
SO WITH THAT COVER YOUR EARS
CLOSED. THE INFORMATIONAL
HEARING.