>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
IT'S APRIL 27, 2022 MEETING OF
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL'S
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
TECHNOLOGY, AND CITY LIGHT
COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER.
IT'S 9:30 A.M.
I'M SARA NELSON, CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO SAY HAPPY WELCOME
BACK DAY TO THE RENT
DEPARTMENT.
IT'S PARTICULARLY FITTING
BECAUSE YESTERDAY I READ A
REPORT FROM DR. FAUCI WHO SAID
WE ARE CERTAINLY RIGHT NOW IN
THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THE
PANDEMIC STAGE.
I WELCOME MY COLLEAGUES BACK TO
CITY HALL AND READY TO MEET NEW
PEOPLE.
ALL RIGHT, THEIR TWO COUNCIL
BILLS ON THE AGENDA FOR
DISCUSSION TODAY WHICH WOULD
APPROVE THE SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT ON SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY ALREADY IN USE BY
SPD.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> HERE COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE
AGENDA?
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MEUFORT AGENDA?
>> YES, I WOULD.
>> I'M SORRY.
YOU KNOW THE PRETTY COOLS.
>> AT THE REQUEST OF SPD, I
HAVE ONE MOMENT.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WOULD BE TO REMOVE ITEM
TWO FROM THE AGENDA?
>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
THE AMENDED AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AMENDED AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL GO INTO THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA.
SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR
PATIENCE AND COOPERATION AS WE
OPERATE THIS REMOTE PUBLIC
COMMENT SYSTEM.
LOOKING FORWARD TO MAYBE WHEN
THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS COME
BACK IN PERSON.
I WILL MODERATE THE PUBLIC
COMMENTED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.
IT'S UP TO 20 MINUTES AND EACH
SPEAKER WILL HAVE UP TO TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK.
SPEAKERS ARE CALLED UPON IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED
ON LINE TO COMMENT.
EACH SPEAKER MUST CALL IN FROM
THE PHONE NUMBER PROVIDED WHEN
REGISTERED AND USE THE PASSWORD
AND EMAIL FROM CONFIRMATION.
AND PLEASE NOTE THIS IS
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS LISTED
ON THE AGENDA.
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL
CONFIRMATION, PLEASE CHECK YOUR
SPAM OR JUNK MAIL FOLDER.
AGAIN, I WILL CALL EACH SPEAKER
BY NAME IN THE ORDER THEY
REGISTERED ON THE COUNCIL'S
WEBSITE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED TO
SPEAK AND YOU WOULD YOU WOULD
LIKE TO YOU CAN GO TO THE
COUNCIL'S WEBSITE AT
SEATTLE.GOV/COUNCIL.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LISTED AT
THE TOP OF TODAY'S AGENDA.
ONCE I CALL THE SPEAKER'S NAME
THE STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
MICROPHONE AND IT WILL SAY YOU
HAVE BEEN UNMUTED AND IT'S YOUR
TURN TO SPEAK.
AND THE SPEAKER MUST PRESS STAR
SIX TO BEGIN SPEAKING.
PLEASE SPEAK YOUR NAME AND THE
ITEM THAT YOU ARE ADDRESSING.
THE SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME
WHEN THERE IS 10 SECONDS OR
LESS IN THE ALLOTTED TIME
PERIOD.
WE ASK YOU TO WRAP UP YOUR
PUBLIC COMMENT WHEN YOU HEAR
THE CHIME.
IF THEY DO NOT WRAP UP IN THE
ALLOTTED TIME, THE SPEAKER'S
MICROPHONE WILL BE MUTED.
AND IF YOU PLAN TO FOLLOW THE
MEETING PLEASE DO SO ON THE THE
AGENDA.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS SIGNED UP
TO SPEAK AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD IS OPEN AND WE WILL
BEGIN WITH THE FIRST SPEAKER ON
THE LIST.
PLEASE REMEMBER TO PRESS STAR
SIX AFTER YOU HEAR THE PROMPT
QUOTE YOU'VE BEEN UNMUTED."
SO GO AHEAD.
>> I AM CYNTHIA, THE DISTRICT
SIX RESIDENT.
THE CITY HAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN
HONEST DIALOGUE WITH THE PUBLIC
ON THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
MOST OF THE PUBLIC'S QUESTIONS
ARE UNANSWERED.
THIS IS PARTLY DUE TO SEATTLE
IT NOT ALLOWING TIME TO ASK
ENOUGH QUESTIONS.
THERE IS ONLY TIME TO ANSWER
THREE OUT OF 25 QUESTIONS AND
MANY FROM MALTEGO.
THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROBLEM
WAS SPD NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS
SAYING WE WILL HAVE TO GET BACK
TO YOU AND NEVER DID SO OR
PROVIDED INCORRECT INFORMATION.
IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT I AS A
RANDOM MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
WILL HAVE MORE OF AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOOLS THAN
AN OFFICER THAT USES THEM.
THIS IMPLYS THAT SPD DOESN'T
UNDERSTAND THE TOOLS OR IS
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION.
REGARDLESS THE RULE IS THE
SAME.
SPD SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED TO
OPERATE THE SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
NO TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.
PLEASE REQUIRE THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD FOR CURRENT OR
FUTURE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
AUTOMATICALLY REMAIN OPEN IN
ONE WEEK SO THE PUBLIC'S
QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED.
MY WRITTEN COMMENTS IT INCLUDED
PRECISE IMPROVEMENTS WITH
SECURITY, BYSTANDER PROTECTION,
DATA SOURCE, COFUNCTIONALLITY,
CONTRACT ALL ODD WHY ITING,
SCOPING, TRANSPARENCY,
VALIDATION, AND THIS ONLY
HAPPENS WITH NEW COUNCILMEMBERS
VOTING AGAINST THE TECHNOLOGY
OR PASSING THE AMENDMENTS.
IN THE FUTURE PLEASE PASS THE
RECOMMENDS BY EMAIL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, AND OUR NEXT
SPEAKER IS JENNIFER LEE.
GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
I'M SORRY.
GO AHEAD.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS JENNIFER LEE OF THE
ACLU, WASHINGTON AND A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE
WORKING GROUP COMMENTING ON CB
120307 AND 08 AND 09 WITH
MALTEGO'S RECORDING SYSTEM.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT IT
SEVERELY LIMITS THE PUBLIC AND
COUNCILMEMBERS TO MEANINGFUL
REVIEW THIS TECHNOLOGY.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS
TO CREATE TRANS PATIENCEY AND
WITHOUT PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, THE
MANUFACTURER EVENEDDOR, MODEL
NAME, AND NUMBER OF THE AUDIO
RECORDING DEVICES IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE TO APPROVE THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
AND SPD'S USE OF MALTEGO, WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MEDIA
INACCURACIES.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE
INADEQUATE POLICIES FOR DATA,
NATURAL CYST.
THE WORKING GROUP FOR
INDEPENDENT VAL HRAEUGZ OF DATA
IS NOTE ADDRESSED BY AN
INTERNAL SPD OFFICER REVIEWING
THE DATA ON A CASE BY CASE
BASIS.
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE
CITY'S CONTRACT WITH IBM HAS
NOT BEEN PUBLICALLY DISCLOSED
AS I REQUIRED BY THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE WITH THE
RELATIONSHIP ANALYSIS ARE
LIKELY TO GENERATE DATA ERRORS
THAT COMPOUND EXISTING BIASES.
SPD HAS SAID THAT FALSE
CONNECTIONS OCCUR YOU BUT HAVE
NOT SHARED OFTEN THEY OCCUR.
NO LIMITATIONS ON EMPLOYEE
ACCESS TO RECORDS, NO LIMITS ON
USE OF POTENTIALLY ERRONEOUS
DATE AND NO PROHIBITION OF
POLICING.
WITHOUT ANSWERS TO OUTSTANDING
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE WORKING
GROUP AND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC, WE URGE COUNCILMEMBERS
TO PAUSE ON APPROVING THESE
TECHNOLOGIES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT WAS THE LAST SPEAK OR THE
LIST AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING
YOUR TIME TO SHARE WITH US, AND
SEEING THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS
SIGNED UP FOR THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD, THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW CLOSED.
WE WILL TAKE UP TWO PIECES OF
RELATED LEGISLATION.
WE WILL READ THEM BOTH INTO THE
RECORD AT THIS POINT.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM
ONE AND THREE INTO THE RECORD?
>> ITEMS NUMBER ONE AND THREE,
COUNCIL BILL 120307 AND 120309,
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF USES AND ACCEPTING
THE 2021 SURVEILLANCE IMPACT
REPORT AND 2021 EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW FOR THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S USE OF AUDIO
RECORDING SYSTEMS WITH THE IBMI
2 I BASE.
>> SO LET ME EXPLAIN.
THIS REQUIRED ADVANCED APPROVAL
FOR THE ADOPTIO OF THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND
REQUEST RETRO ACTIVE APPROVAL
IF THE TECHNOLOGIES HAVE
ALREADY BEEN USED.
THAT IS THE CASE.
COUNCIL BILL 120307 AND 120309
WOULD CONTINUE THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S CONTINUED USE OF
THOSE TECHNOLOGIES AND THE
REPORT AND THE OVERVIEW OF
TECHNOLOGY.
TODAY IS THE FIRST DISCUSSION
OF THOSE COUNCIL BILLS AND THE
SECOND POSSIBLE VOTE WILL BE IN
THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING ON
MAY 11.
SO WE HAVE A LOT OF GROUND TO
COVER.
SO I WOULD LIKE THE PRESENTERS
TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND I
WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE
DISCUSSIONS WILL GO, AND LET'S
HAVE INTRODUCTIONS STARTING
WITH I.T.AND INTERNAL STAFF.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
I AM THE INTERHIM CHIEF
TECHNOLOGY AND DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR FOR SEATTLE I.T.
>> I AM SARAHH CARRIER FROM
SEATTLE I.T.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M BRIAN MAXEY.
I AM THE CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER.
>> REBECCA BOATRIGHT, DIRECTOR
OF RISK MANAGEMENT AND LEGAL
AFFAIRS.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM CAPTAIN JIM BRITT
TECHNOLOGY FOR SPD AND WITH ME
IS VIOLENT CRIME ANALYST
SPENCER HAYNE, A CIVILIAN CRIME
ANALYST.
>> I AM LISA KAYE ON THE
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> AND I WOULD LIKE ALSO TO
NOTE THAT KATE NOLAN IS MY
CLERK.
I SHOULD HAVE INTRODUCED HER TO
THE MEETING.
TEAM, HERE IS HOW WE WILL
PROCEED.
SEATTLE I.T.
WILL LAY OUT THE PRESENTATION
AND OVERVIEW OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES AND DESCRIBE THE
TECHNOLOGY.
I ASK THAT YOU HOLD YOUR
QUESTIONS TO WILL END OF THE
PRESENTATION AND GROUP THEM TO
WHAT THEY PERTAIN TO.
AND YOU ARE JUST JOINING US, WE
HAVE REMOVED ITEM TWO FROM THE
AGENDA, SO WE WILL JUST BE
TALKING ABOUT RECORDING DEVICES
AND IBASE.
SO LISA KAYE WILL WALK US
THROUGH HER PRESENTATION,
POLICIES CONSIDERATIONS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THEM ASK
THEIR QUESTIONS AFTER EACH ITEM
OR HOLD THEM UNTIL THE END?
>> I THINK HOLD THEM.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
AND THIS IS A TABLE OF ISSUES
BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE WORKING
GROUP AND SPD'S AND I.T.
'S RESPONSES TO THE ISSUES.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO
THROUGH THE BEAUTIFUL MEMOS
TODAY BUT THEY CAN BE USED TO
INFORM FUTURE QUESTIONS AND
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL
AND EACH ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS
A MEMO APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL
STAFF ON THE SIR PROCESS AND
RELATED INFORMATION.
OKAY.
SO, I WITHOUT FURTHER ADO WILL
MOVE ON TO THE FIRST
PRESENTATION.
TAKE IT AWAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SARA.
THIS IS JIM LODER SPEAKING.
I AM HERE TO INTRODUCE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE AND
PROCESS WE FOLLOW, SPECIFICALLY
OR IN GENERAL BUT ALSO
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE
TECHNOLOGY UNDER REVIEW.
I WILL BE HANDING THIS OFF TO
OUR PARTNERS IN SPD TO DISCUSS
THE DETAILS OF THE SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGIES UNDER REVIEW
TODAY.
BUT FIRST FOR REVIEW OF THE
SURVEILLANCE IMPACT REPORT
PROCESS IN 2017, AS THE
COUNCILMEMBER ALREADY NOTED.
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE WAS
ADOPTED TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO
CONDUCT OR TO PLACE ADDITIONAL
CONTROLS AND GAIN APPROVAL
RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION OF
TECHNOLOGY THAT OBSERVE OUR
MOVEMENTS AND BEHAVIOR AND
ACTIONS IDENTIFIABLE OR
VISIBLE.
THIS ORDINANCE PROVIDES
ADDITIONAL REGULATION IN TYPES
OF FUNCTION OF TECHNOLOGIES
THAT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND
CLARIFIED AS SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY AND THE EXCLUSION
AND INCLUSION CRITERIA ARE
LISTED HERE ON THE SLIDE.
OKAY.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE SURVEILLANCE REQUIRES THE
CITY TO PRODUCE SURVEILLANCE
IMPACT REPORTS OR SIRs IS THAT
ADDRESS THE SEVEN AREAS
OUTLINED ON THE SCREEN HERE AND
FOLLOWS THE PROCESS THAT
INCLUDES ANALYSIS, PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND
REVIEW, FURTHER REVIEW BY A
WORKING GROUP OF TECHNOLOGY AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES
REPRESENTATIVES.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP A SIR
AND STEWARD THE SURVEILLANCE
IMPACT REPORT FROM CREATION TO
COUNCIL REVIEW IS ABOUT AN
EIGHT TO NINE-MONTH PROCESS
THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE STAGES
INCLUDING PUBLIC COMMENTS,
WORKING GROUP REVIEW,
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CHIEF
TECHNOLOGY OFFICER TO RESPOND
AND FINALLY, EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
PRIOR TO BEING SUBMITTED TO
COUNCIL FOR VOTE.
AS I MENTIONED, THAT'S EIGHT TO
NINE MONTHS.
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE
REQUIRES THE CITY TO REVIEW THE
EXISTING TECHNOLOGY THAT MET
THE DEFINITION OF SURVEILLANCE
AND WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS
OF DOING THAT.
WE EVALUATED THE EXISTING
TECHNOLOGIES IN USE BY THE CITY
TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES MET THE
CRITERIA AND AS FOR THE LAST
FEW YEARS IN INTRODUCING THEM
TO COUNCIL THROUGH THIS
PROCESS, WE ARE NOW UP TO GROUP
FOUR, BROKEN INTO TWO SUBGROUPS
AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
GROUP A. COUNCIL HAS
ALREADY RECEIVED THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT'S EMERGENCY TEAM
CAMERAS, HAZMAT CAMERA SIRs.
THERE IS A MEMO BENDING ABOUT A
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS BEING
DECOMMISSIONED, AND WE ARE
HERE TO TALK ABOUT THREE AUDIO
RECORDING SYSTEMS -- I'M SORRY,
TWO AUDIO RECORDING SYSTEMS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS MALTEGO WAS
DEFERRED AND THE FINAL THING ON
THE LIST, SOMETHING CALLED
CALLYO, IS STILL IN
DEVELOPMENT, AND SPD WILL
ADDRESS THE STATUS OF THAT FOR
AN UPDATE, AND I THINK I AM
PASSING IT OVER TO SARAH TO
TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT.
>> YES.
SO THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS RAN FROM THE END OF MAY
THROUGH JULY OF 2021.
DURING THAT TIME, THEY DRAFTED
THE IMPACT REPORT AND IS
DRAFTED PUBLICALLY ON THE
SEATTLE.GOV WEBSITE FOR THE
POSSIBLE TO LOOK AT AS WELL AS
A ONE-PAGE HIGH LEVEL INTERVIEW
THAT IS TRANSLATED INTO
LANGUAGES.
AND WE HAVE HELD PUBLIC
MEETINGS, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE
WERE 13 ATTENDEES IN TOTAL
BETWEEN THE TWO MEETINGS.
EACH OF THOSE MEETINGS IS
RECORDED AND POSTED AND MADE
AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR THOSE NOT
ABLE TO ATTEND THE EVENT.
WE ALSO RECEIVED TWO LETTERS
FROM THE COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY
ADVISORY BOARD AS WELL AS THE
ACLU.
ALL OF THIS INFORMATION ALONG
WITH THE SIR HAS BEEN BUNDLED
UP AND PROVIDED TO THE
SURVEILLANCE ADVISORY WORKING
GROUP WHERE THEY START THEIR
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS IN THE
PROCESS.
NOW, I WILL THAT OVER TO
CAPTAIN BRITT FROM SPD TO WALK
US THROUGH THE TECHNOLOGY.
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
CAPTAIN JIM BRITT, SEATTLE PD.
THE FIRST TECHNOLOGY WE'LL TALK
ABOUT IS THE AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEM.
>> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
>> YES, MA'AM?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND
THAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
JOINED US SEVERAL MINUTES AGO,
AND I DID NOT NOTICE.
PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.
I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOTE TO
MENTION THAT WE HAVE ON THE
CALL, WORK AS A CIVILIAN AND
WORK ON BEHALF OF SPD BY
GATHERING INFORMATION FROM THE
SUBJECT MATTER AND WORKING
DEVICES TO GET THE SUBJECT
MATTER WITHIN THE QUESTIONS.
AND THEY WILL BE ON THE CALL AS
WELL.
THEY DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO
INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THE MISSION OF THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT IS TO PREVENT
CRIME AND ENFORCE THE LAW, AND
THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE
HELPS US DOING SO BY MAKING
SURE THAT WE ARE FULFILLING OUR
OBLIGATION TO THE PUBLIC BY
MEETING THESE NEEDS AND MAKING
SURE WE ARE DOING IT IN A
PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT WAY WITH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS.
IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT
SLIDE, THE AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS ARE THE DEVICES THAT
YOU SEE ON TELEVISION OFTEN
REFERRED TO AS WIRES, AND THEY
ARE AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES HID
OWN A PERSON OR ON AN OBJECT
WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENT MEANT TO
CLANDESTINELY RECORD A PERSON.
THEY HAVE TO BE TURNED ON BY A
PERSON.
THEY ARE NOT REMOTELY ACTIVATED
OR LEFT IN A LOCATION FOR AN
EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.
THEY ARE SPECIFIC TO AN
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT AND ARE
GOVERNED HEAVILY BY THE COURTS
AS WE WILL DISCUSS IN A MOMENT.
THEY ALLOW US TO RECORD
CONVERSATIONS RELATED TO
SERIOUS OR VIOLENT CRIMES AND
GAIN INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE
AND INVESTIGATIVE STEPS THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE
AVAILABLE TO US.
WE DON'T USE THESE ON LOW-
LEVEL, RUN OF THE MAIL, LOW-
LEVEL CRIMES.
WE USE THESE ON VERY SERIOUS
AND VIOLENT CRIMES BECAUSE IT'S
VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE FIND
THOSE PERSONS.
BY RECORDING THE CONVERSATIONS,
IT PROVIDES KEY EVIDENCE WHEN
IT COMES TIME TO PRESENT THE
TRIAL TO THE PROSECUTOR'S
OFFICE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I KNOW THERE WAS CONCERN WITH
ALL THE OFFICERS HAVING ACCESS
TO THESE.
THAT IS NOT QUITE ACCURATE.
THE ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL
UNIT HAS ACCESS, AND THEY ARE
SENT OUT TO A DETECTIVE UPON
COMPLETION OF A WARRANT THEY
HAVE FILED WITH THE COURT.
UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE
MISSION, THEY ARE COLLECTED,
AND THEY PULL THE AUDIO
RECORDINGS FROM THAT, AND THEY
ARE RESTORED FOLLOWING THE
GUIDELINES.
UNRELATED RECORDINGS THAT ARE
IRRELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION
ARE DELETED.
SO WE DON'T HANG ON TO
INFORMATION THAT ISN'T RELEVANT
TO OUR INVESTIGATION AND ARE
NOT COVERED BY THE WARRANT.
AUDIO DEVICES ARE UTILIZED
AFTER THE COURT ISSUED WARRANTS
HAVE BEEN IN THE AS REQUIRED BY
THE PRIVACY ACT.
I KNOW THE WORD CONSENT CAUSES
CONCERN AND CONFUSION.
THE CONCEPT IS WHEN A PERSON IS
WEARING A RECORDING DEVICE OR
ALLOWING A RECORDING DEVICE TO
BE PLACED WITHIN THEIR VEHICLE
OR BUSINESS OR HOMES OR AREAS
WHERE THEY CONTROL, THEY HAVE
TO GIVE UP CONSENT TO DO SO TO
WEAR THAT, WHGHTER COOPERATING
WITH AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER WHO
MIGHT BE DOING STUFF,
AND HOWEVER, TO RECORD THE
CONVERSATION WITH THE PERSON
WHO IS UNAWARE THAT THEY ARE
RECORDED, WE STILL HAVE TO GET
A WARRANT FROM THE JUDGE.
AND IN THAT WARRANT, THE JUDGE
GETS TO CONSTRICT OR RESTRAIN
WHAT THE NATURE OF THE
RECORDING IS AND HOW LONG THE
WARRANT IS VALID FOR AND WHAT
AREAS THE WARRANT IS ALLOWED TO
RECORD AND HOW LONG THE
RECORDING WOULD BE ALLOWED TO
GO AND ALL THE DIFFERENT
STIPULATION THAT IS THE COURT
CAN PLACE UPON US FOR THE USE
OF THE RECORDING DEVICE.
THEY MAINTAIN THE LOG RECORDS,
AND IT'S SUBJECT TO AUDIT BY
THE OID AND THE FEDERAL MONITOR
AND ANY OTHER INTERNAL AUDIT.
SO THE CONTROLS IN PLACE
REGARDING THE USE OF THESE
DEVICES AND THE DEPLOYMENT OF
THE DEVICES IS GOVERNED VERY
STRICTLY BY THE COURTS AND THE
LAW, AND WE CAN MOVE TO THE
NEXT TECHNOLOGY, I'M SORRY, THE
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE PRIVACY ACT THAT
GOVERNS THE USE OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS QUITE
A LIST.
THE SPD MANUAL COVERS A GREAT
DEAL OF DIFFERENT AREAS BUT
THIS TECHNOLOGY MANY OTHER
PIECES OF EQUIPMENT TOUCH MANY
PARTS OF OUR MANUAL, AND IT'S
RATHER EXTENSIVE HOW WE CAN AND
CAN'T USE IT.
NEXT SLIDE.
I HAVE CRIME ANALYST SPENCER
HAYNE WITH ME TO MAKE SURE I
DON'T MISTAKE.
WE HAVE A TECHNOLOGY BASED
DAYLIGHTA TO DISPLAY IN A
MANNER THAT ALLOWS THE
DETECTIVES TO SEE THE
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS,
BETWEEN VEHICLES AND CRIMINAL
INCIDENTS AND WEAPONS THAT WERE
USED IN CRIME AND IT DISPLAYS
IT IN A FORM THAT IT ALLOWS IT
TO MAKE THE CONNECTIONS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO THAT THIS
DOES NOT GIVE US ACCESS TO
INFORMATION WE WOULD NOT
OTHERWISE HAVE ACCESS TO.
IBM'S I2 IBASE DOES NOT REACH
OUT AND GRAB INFORMATION THAT
WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE.
IT GOES THROUGH THE INFORMATION
THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AND MAKE
THE CONNECTION THAT THE
DETECTIVES WOULD TAKE A GREAT
DEAL OF TIME TO DO.
SO THIS IS AN EFFICIENCY
PROCESS MORE THAN ANYTHING
ELSE.
WE USE IT TO ASSIST A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION AND TO TRY AND
CONNECT THE DOTS IN CASES THAT
MAY BE RELATED WHICH ALLOWED A
HIGHER CULPABLABILITY FACTOR.
I HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE
IS TWOZ I DATE BASE WOULD LOOK
LIKE.
SPENCER WAS KIND ENOUGH TO
SCRUB IT UP FOR US.
GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE.
AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS
PULLING INFORMATION FROM SPD'S
SPECIFIC SYSTEM.
IT DOES COMB OUR RECORDS
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WE
ALREADY HAVE AND OUR OFFICERS
AND DETECTIVES HAVE ACCESS TO
AND OUR COMPUTER-AIDED DISPATCH
THAT HANDLED ALL OF THE
DEPLOYMENTS IN THE FIELD AND
ARE ALREADY IN PATROL, AND THEY
REACH IN THE DATABASE FOR
CONNECTIONS, BUT AGAIN, NOT
REACHING INTO DATABASES WE
DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO.
AND THE DATA COLLECTION RELATES
TO AGENCIES THAT HAVE PROVIDED
INFORMATION RELATED TO THEIR
CASES OR AN EXAMPLE WHERE WE
GET INFORMATION OFF OF BULLETS
THAT WERE FIRED AT DIFFERENT
CRIME SCENES.
WHEN WE GET RESULTS OF THOSE
AND IT MENTIONS THAT THEY ARE
CONNECTED TO OTHER CRIMES WE
CAN MANUALLY PUT THE
INFORMATION INTO IS I2 I BASE.
AND SHOWS US WHERE IT WAS USED
IN MORE THAN ONE SENSE.
AND IT'S LIMITED TO PASSWORD
LOGGING IN CREDENTIALS.
EVERYONE USING IT IS CERTIFIED
AND HAS APPROVED ACCESS TO THE
INFORMATION, AND THERE IS AN
AUDIT LOG THAT SHOWS THE USAGE
LOG THAT SHOWS WHEN A PERSON IS
LOGGED ON AND THE DATA THAT IS
ADDED TO IT.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
IBM I2 IBASE HAS INFORMATION
ADDED TO IT.
SPENCER, ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THERE IS INFORMATION THAT IS
PUT IN EVERY NIGHT.
AT 3:00 A.M.
THERE, IS AN UPDATE.
A PORTION OF OUR DATA IS PUSHED
INTO THE IBASE DATABASE.
IT DOESN'T REACH OUT AND GRAB
ANYTHING.
LIKE YOU SAID IT DOESN'T
GENERATE ANY LINKAGES WE DON'T
ALREADY HAVE IN THE SYSTEM.
>> THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE.
ONCE AGAIN, HERE ARE THE
POLICIES THAT RELATE TO THE
IBASE.
IT'S A SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE.
I KNOW THERE WAS A CONCERN
ABOUT THE LACK OF A CONTRACT.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR --
I WILL GET ANY CASEWORK THAT WE
HAVE RELATED TO THE
DESCRIPTIONS
SUBSCRIPTION WITH THEM.
GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE.
AND I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS
AT THIS POINT, COUNCILMEMBERS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
PRESENTATION, AND BECAUSE YOU
TEASED US WITH INFORMATION
ABOUT A VISUAL REPRESENTATION
OF HOW IBASE WORKS, CAN YOU
SHOW THAT, PLEASE?
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO WITH THE
MODERATOR.
JUST A MOMENT.
HOPEFULLY, EVERYONE IS SEEING
THE DISPLAY, A SIMPLIFIED MODEL
OF THE DISPLAY CHART.
AT THE TOP WE HAVE A BUN.
GUN.
THIS IS A BALLISTICS MATCH OF
THE GUN THAT FIRED ON THE NEXT
LEVEL DOWN.
THIS SOLDIER ARE SPD-NATIVE
CASES.
THESE ARE CASES THAT ARE PULLED
IN OUR STATS WITH INFORMATION
IN THOSE CASES RELATED TO
VEHICLES INVOLVED IN THOSE
CASES OR PERSONS INVOLVED IN
THOSE CASES.
YOU CAN SEE ADDITIONAL CASES
HERE THAT WERE PULLED IN BY
BALLISTIC MATCHES.
YOU CAN SEE THE KING COUNTY
SHERIFFS OFFICE, RENTON PD.
THESE WERE MATCHES THAT WERE
RETURNED TO THE CASE DETECTIVES
AS IT RELATES TO YOU RAN THIS
GUN WITH THIS BALLISTICS.
IT MATCHED A REPORT IN THIS
AGENCY'S BALLISTICS, AND WE
GET THE INFORMATION AND WE ARE
ABLE TO PULL IN ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION THAT HELPS US TO
LEAD TO AN IDENTIFIED SUSPECT
AT THE BOTTOM.
THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF
HOW I2 IBASE ALLOWS US TO
DISPLAY THE INFORMATION ALREADY
IN OUR REACH AND QUICKLY REACH
TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE AN
IDENTIFIED SUSPECT THAT WE CAN
FURTHER INVESTIGATE.
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
POINT.
THIS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE US GO
OKAY, THAT'S OUR GUY.
LET'S GO GET HIM.
THIS SIMPLY LEADS THE
DETECTIVES TO SAY, OKAY.
THAT'S WHERE I NEED TO GUIDE MY
INVESTIGATION TO SEE WHAT IS
GOING ON WITH THAT INFORMATION
AND THAT PERSON.
AND WE CAN REACH OUT TO THE
AGENCIES INVOLVED HERE AND
VALIDATE INFORMATION RELATED TO
THEIR CASES.
ALL OF THAT VALIDATION WOULD
HAVE TO BE DONE BY A DETECTIVE.
THIS SIMPLY ALLOWS A DETECTIVE
TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS OF
EVALUATING THE INFORMATION AND
TRY AND GET PERSONS INVOLVED IN
GUN CRIMES OFF THE STREETS.
>> I WOULD JUST NOTE THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE AND WERE
ABLE TO DO BEFORE WE HAD IBASE.
IT WAS MUCH MORE TIME-CONSUMING
AND MUCH MORE ERROR PRONE
BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO
PHYSICALLY TYPE IN ALL THIS
INFORMATION AND WE HAD PEOPLE
MAKING MISTAKES.
>> THANKS, SPENCER.
>> OKAY.
I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT
WERE PROMPTED BY THE
PRESENTATION BUT DOES ANYONE
HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR SLIDE OR HOW IBASE
WORKS?
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, MADAM
CHAIR.
>> YES, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WISH THIS WAS BIGGER.
I APOLOGIZE FOR MOVING MY FACE
WAY IN TO THE LAPTOP.
OH, THANK YOU.
ALL OF THE AGENCIES THAT YOU
ARE DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION TO
LIKE KING COUNTY, YOU USED AS
AN EXAMPLE, AND YOU HAVE KENT
AND YOU HAVE RENTON.
IS THIS JUST AN EXAMPLE?
ARE YOU SENDING IT OUT TO -- IS
IT JUST WITHIN KING COUNTY?
>> I CAN CLARIFY THAT.
WE ARE NOT SENDING THIS TO
THESE AGENCIES THIS MUCH IS
FOR OUR DETECTIVE FOR HIS OR
HER KNOWLEDGE.
THIS GUN USED IN YOUR HOMICIDE
WAS USED IN A RENTON PD CASE,
AND YOU SHOULD REACH OUT TO THE
RENTON PD DETECTIVES AND
COORDINATE WITH THEM.
>> SO YOU ARE NOT LIMITED,
THEN?
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE GUN
AND HOW YOU GOT TO THE SUSPECT.
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT THIS IS A REAL CASE.
WE SIMPLY SCRUBBED IT.
THIS WAS USED IN A 2017
SHOOTING.
>> RIGHT.
GOT IT.
I FOLLOW ALL THAT.
BUT YOU ARE SHARING.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY LIMIT
ITSELF TO KING COUNTY.
IT TELLS THE DETECTIVE ON THE
CASE?
>> RIGHT.
IF THERE WAS A RETURNED HIT OUT
OF ANOTHER AGENCY, WE WOULD BE
ABLE TO MANUALLY ADD AN AGENT,
LIKE A NEW YORK AGENCY.
ANYTHING THAT WAS MANUALLY
ADDED
>> GREAT.
I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES
WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS
IN POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
AND I WANT TO SEE HOW THAT
WORKED.
I HAVE A MUCH BETTER
UNDERSTANDING NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A
PREVIOUS SLIDE.
IS THIS THE TIME TO ASK IT?
>> YES.
I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT
THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.
>> SURE.
COULD YOU PLEASE GO BACK TO
SLIDE FIVE OF THE PRESENTATION,
THE GENERAL SIR CREATION
TIMELINE?
>> LET ME BACK UP.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S GO BACK.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU; SO THIS PROCESS SAYS
THAT IT'S EIGHT TO NINE MONTHS.
BUT THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN
2017.
IT'S NOW 2022.
SO WHAT WAS -- THIS TECHNOLOGY
WAS IN IN USE IN 2017.
WHAT WAS -- THIS SEEMS LIKE A
LONG TIME TO GO THROUGH A
REVIEW WITH THE TECHNOLOGY.
AND WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER
VENDOR OR NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES
ON BOARD?
WOULD YOU ALLOW FOR THE SAME --
PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION?
MY POINT IS SIMPLY THIS IS A
LONG TIME.
CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE
ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE IN THE INTERVENING
TIME FRAME?
>> SURE.
I'LL ASK SARAHTO ASSIST IF
NEEDED BUT THE TIMELINE
QUESTION TO DETERMINE THE
NUMBER OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT MET
THE CRITERIA, WE WORKED WITH
THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME TO
PROPOSE A SEQUENCE PATH FORWARD
TO DO THE RETROACTIVE ANALYSIS.
EIGHT, NINE MONTHS IS AVERAGE,
AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK
AND MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES OR,
YOU KNOW, DO ADDITIONAL
RESEARCH ON THE TECHNOLOGY.
THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS SLATED FOR
THE TIME PERIOD THAT WE ARE IN
NOW.
AND THAT EXPLAINS WHY IT'S
TAKEN, REALLY, CLOSER TO FIVE
YEARS AND NOT OR FOUR YEARS AND
NOT EIGHT TO NINE MONTHS.
WHEN WE STARTED WORKING ON THIS
OR THESE PARTICULAR
TECHNOLOGIES, THE TIME PERIOD
IS CLOSER TO THE TIMELINE THAT
IS LISTED.
BUT THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS AND A
CONCLUSION DRAWN THAT WE HAD TO
SEQUENCE THE TECHNOLOGIES DUE
TO THE RESEARCH TO DO THE WORK,
AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE LOOKING
AT GROUP FOUR TODAY AND BACK IN
2017.
AND FORGIVE ME.
YOUR SECOND QUESTION WAS WHAT
HAPPENED TO THE NEW TECHNOLOGY
THAT COMES IN PLACE?
SARAH, CAN YOU SPEAK ON HOW WE
ARE EVALUATING NEW REQUESTS AND
HOW WE MIGHT HAVE PARTLY AN
EXAMPLE HERE THAT REPRESENTS
THE TECHNOLOGY THAT THE
DEPARTMENT DECIDED TO
DECOMMISSION DURING THE
PROCESS?
>> YEAH.
SO THE PRIVACY TEAM, THE
PRIVACY PROGRAM REVIEWS
TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITIONS AND
MAKES AN INITIAL DETERMINATION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS
TECHNOLOGY, YOU KNOW, MEETS THE
DEFINITION OF SURVEILLANCE OR
WHETHER IT DOESN'T.
EVERY QUARTER, WE PROVIDED THE
ANALYSIS BY WAY OF QUARTERLY
REPORT.
AND YOU ALL KNOW, OBVIOUSLY,
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION OUT OF THAT
REPORT, AND THAT'S HOW WE
EVALUATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AS
THEY COME IN.
AND, YEAH, TO JIM'S POINT, YOU
KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTHY
PROCESS THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES
WHEN TECHNOLOGY CHANGES
RAPIDLY.
RIGHT?
AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES
WHERE DEPARTMENTS HAVE CHOSEN
TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE ON TO
TECHNOLOGY OR A DIFFERENT WAY
TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME BUSINESS
GOAL, YOU KNOW, IN THE PROCESS,
SO.
>> IF I COULD ADD ON TO THAT?
>> YES.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> SO IF THERE IS A NEW
TECHNOLOGY OR A NEW WAY TO DO
THIS, DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT'S
A NEW VERSION OR A STANDARD
VERSION OF THE AUDIO RECORDING
DEVICES, THEY WOULD NEED TO
UPDATE THE SIR AND THE REVISED
SIR WOULD BECAUSE THE
TECHNOLOGY WOULD COME BACK TO
COUNCIL, AND IF IT'S A NEW
TECHNOLOGY WITH A DIFFERENT
VENDOR AND A DIFFERENT WAY OF
DOING IT, IT WOULD REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT SIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYTHING FOR CAPTAIN
BRITT THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO
ADD BEFORE WE GO ON?
NO.
OKAY.
SO BASICALLY SETTING UP
PROCESSES AND IT TAKES A LONG
TIME, AND SO THAT ACCOUNTS
PARTLY FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME
TO GET HERE.
SO MOVING ON, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
IT'S A RELATED QUESTION, AND
MAYBE YOU HAVE ANSWERED IT, BUT
IF YOU HAVE, I NEED TO HEAR IT
AGAIN.
WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
ARE IN USE THAT ARE -- THAT WE
ARE HEARING ARE RETROACTIVE
APPROVAL OF, AND THEN WE HAVE
THE NEW TECHNOLOGY OR ADD
CAPACITIES TO THE EXISTING
TECHNOLOGY.
HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE WHAT WE
ARE ACTING ON?
ARE WE JUST TRYING TO JUST DEAL
WITH THE RETROACTIVE
TECHNOLOGIES FIRST OR GET TO
THE CAPACITIES OF THE ALREADY-
APPROVED TECHNOLOGIES?
OR ARE WE CONSIDERING THIS
PROCESS FOR THE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AS WE GO AS WELL?
>> WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT?
>> SARAH, CAN YOU ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT
HAVE COME UP IN THE INTERIM AS
WELL AS INSTANCES WHERE WE
DETERMINE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A
MATERIAL CHANGE TO
TECHNOLOGISTS AND HOW OFTEN
THAT HAS HAPPENED AND COME UP?
>> YEAH.
SO SURE.
THINGS ARE KIND OF HAPPENING IN
PARALLELS.
RIGHT?
WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSED PRIMARILY
ON GETTING THROUGH THE
RETROACTIVE LIST IN THE
PROCESS, THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
WE HAVE DETERMINED ARE
SURVEILLANCE THROUGHOUT 2017,
AND THAT HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY
FOCUS BUT WE ARE STILL DOING
REVIEWS, RIGHT N PARALLEL OF
NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE ARE
AWARE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGES,
WE, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH THAT
PROCESS THAT LISA MENTIONED
ABOUT UPDATING THE SIR FOR
TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE ALREADY
BEEN APPROVED TO THE COUNCIL.
SO THEY'RE KIND OF HAPPENING IN
PARALLEL.
THOUGH THE FOCUS THUS FAR HAS
PRIMARILY BEEN ON GETTING
THROUGH THE RETROACTIVE STUFF.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> YEAH.
>> AND THAT BEGS THE QUESTION
FOR CAPTAIN BRITT.
HAVE YOU BOUGHT ANY NEW
TECHNOLOGY, SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY SINCE -- IN THIS --
SINCE 2017 OR SINCE THE PROCESS
BEGAN?
>> NO, MA'AM.
THERE WERE POINTS WHERE WE HAVE
UPDATED EXISTING PRIVACY IMPACT
REPORTS AND EVALUATED, FOR
EXAMPLE, TECHNOLOGY TO USE 3G
WIRELESS HAD TO BE UPGRADED TO
USE 5G WIRELESS, AND WORKING
WITH FOLKS AT THE SEATTLE LIGHT
PRIVACY OFFICE AND GINGER
ARMBRUSTER AND HER TEAM TO
UPDATE.
BUT SINCE THE ORDINANCE PASSED
WE HAVE NOT UPDATED OR MADE
CHANGES TO OUR CAPABILITIES.
>> AND COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, I
WILL POINT OUT IT'S SEATTLE
LIGHT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
CONDUCT ALL TECHNOLOGY
ACQUISITIONS AND PARTLY IN PART
BECAUSE OF PROCESSES LIKE
THESE, THE THEORY REVIEW
PROCESS AND WE MAKE SURE THEY
ARE NOT REDUNDANT AND NOT CAUSE
UNDO SUPPORT BURDENS FOR THE
CITY.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHECKS
AND BALANCES THAT WE HAVE IN
PLACE.
ALL OF THE TECHNOLOGY PURPOSES
TO GET A SURVEILLANCE REVIEW
EITHER TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE
LIKELY TO BE A SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY OR NOT AND THEN THE
DETERMINATIONS THERE ALL GET
THROUGH COUNCIL ANNUALLY SO YOU
ALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
LOOK AT THE ONES THAT WERE NOT
SURVEILLANCE AND HAVE THE
ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OR
FURTHER REVIEW.
>> AND THAT'S -- THANK YOU,
SIR.
WE HAVE PURCHASED TECHNOLOGY,
BUT EVERY TECHNOLOGY WE
PURCHASE HAS GONE THROUGH THE
PRIVACY ACCESSMENT TO DETERMINE
IT'S WORTHY TO HAVE A TAG OF
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THIS
ORDINANCE, WE HAVE NOT
PURCHASED ANY NEW SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY.
>> CORRECT, AND WITH SPD AND
OTHER DEPARTMENTS WE ENGAGE IN
A PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF THERE
ARE OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEMS THAT THEY WANT TO
SOLVE OR BYPRODUCTS TO HAVE
CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS
OR SURVEILLANCE AND
SURVEILLANCE-LIKE OPERATIONS
AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS, NOT JUST
SPD.
THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ALL
CITY DEPARTMENTS, AND WE DO
THAT REVIEW FOR ALL CITY
DEPARTMENTS AND HAVE HAD MANY
INSTANCE WHERE IS WE TALKED THE
DEPARTMENT OUT OF ACQUIRING
SOMETHING BECAUSE WE DETERMINED
THAT YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO WITHOUT BEING SNEAKY
ABOUT IT.
>> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY THAT -- FOR EXAMPLE,
CITY LIGHT OR, I DON'T KNOW,
PARKS, EVEN LAPTOPS OR IPADS OR
THINGS LIKE THAT, I MEAN, THAT
IS WHY THERE IS SO MUCH
MATERIAL TO GO THROUGH.
AM I CORRECT?
>> YEAH.
FOR EXAMPLE, EXACTLY, THERE ARE
TECHNOLOGISTS LIKE iPADS AND
PHONES AND LAPTOPS AND WE DON'T
DO A REVIEW FOR EVERY INSTANCE
OF THAT TECHNOLOGY BUT, YEAH.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUY A NON-
STANDARD PRINTER, YOU KNOW, WE
ASK THE SAME BASIC QUESTIONS OF
THAT AS ANYTHING.
ARE YOU COLLECTING PUBLIC DATA?
THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE BASIC
QUESTIONS WE WILL ASK IF WE DO
A FURTHER REVIEW.
WE ASK THAT OF ALL NON-STANDARD
PURCHASES.
FOR ANYTHING THAT IS STANDARD,
SOMETHING YOU CAN JUST BUY, WE
HAVE DONE THE REVIEW ON THE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT CONSTITUTE
THAT STANDARD.
SO WE ARE NOT REVIEWING EVERY
LAPTOP OR PHONE PURCHASE BUT IF
YOU WANT TO BUY SOMETHING NEW
WHETHER IT'S A DATA SET THAT
WAS ACCUMULATED IN SOMEWHERE
ELSE OR MY GO-TO EXAMPLE IS A
PICTURE-TAKE ROBOT THAT ROAMS
AROUND DOWNTOWN, WE WILL PUT
THAT THROUGH A SECURITY -- I'M
SORRY, A SURVEILLANCE REVIEW
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN
INSTANCES WHERE THE DEPARTMENTS
HAVE REALIZED YES, WE AGREE
THAT SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
AND THE PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING
TO SOLVE OR THE RESULTS WE ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE DON'T REALLY
MERIT THE LEVEL OF RISK THAT
THIS INTRODUCES TO OUR PUBLIC.
SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO
FORWARD WITH THAT PURCHASE.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
PRESENTATION, COULD YOU TAKE IT
DOWN AND THEN PROCEED.
IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, PLEASE
VOICE THEM.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR NELSON.
AND I WILL PUT MY PRESENTATION
UP ON THE SCREEN, AND I AM
GRATEFUL FOR THIS OFFER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND GOOD MORNING,
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I HAVEN'T SEEN MOST OF YOU IN
PERSON YET.
BUT THAT WILL CHANGE AT
SUPPORT.
SO I'M GOING TO MOVE PRETTY
QUICKLY THROUGH THE FIRST FEW
SLIDES SO AS NOT TO REPEAT THE
INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE
ALREADY HEARD.
MY PRESENTATION WILL COVER A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEM AND FOCUS
OMIT TKPWAEUGZ AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND IMPACT AND POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS.
MY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WILL
FOCUS ON SEVERAL LIBERTIES'S
IMPACT.
AS CHAIR NELSON POINTED OUT, IF
YOU WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL
BACKGROUND ALL OF THIS
INFORMATION YOU CAN LOOK AT THE
REFERENCE IN STAFF MEMOS THAT
WE WILL TALK ABOUT WITH THE
WORKING GROUP AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES ASSESSMENT AND
WHETHER IT'S REGULATED BY
FEDERAL OR STATE OR CITY LAW
AND IF IT'S IMPACTED BY SPD
SUCH AS ASSISTED POLICING.
SO I'LL -- YOU'LL -- YES?
>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.
YOUR VOICE IS A LITTLE BIT
FUZZY OR LOW WHEN YOU TALK, SO.
YOU CAN PROCEED.
>> LET ME SEE IF CAN I --
>> THAT IS BETTER.
GO AHEAD.
>> I'M SORRY.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
SO IF WE CAN HAVE THE NEXT
SLIDE, JIM, PLEASE.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO
HEARINGS.
THE SECOND HEARING WILL BE ON
MAY 11 WITH A POSSIBLE VOTE.
I WOULD NOTE IF YOU HAVE ANY
AMENDMENTS IN MIND, PLEASE GET
THOSE TO ME MY MAY 2.
THAT WOULD GIVE ME ENOUGH
SOMETIME TO DRAFT THEM AND
OBTAIN A LEGAL REVIEW TO MEET
THE DEADLINE FOR THE MAY 11th
MEETING.
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO IN ADDITION TO BEING SUBJECT
TO THE CITY'S SURVEILLANCE, THE
DEPARTMENT'S OPERATIONS ARE
GOVERNED BY SECTION 1412 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH DEFINES
THE CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING
HOW THE DEPARTMENT CAN SELECT
AND RECORD AND RETAIN AND SHARE
INFORMATION.
SO IF YOU WANT INFORMATION,
MORE BACKGROUND ON THE
SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCES OR
INTELLIGENCE ORDINANCES I WOULD
POINT YOU TO THE BACKGROUND
MEMO THAT CHAIR NELSON POINTED
OUT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I'M GOING TO SKIP OVER THIS
ONE.
THIS IS AN ABBREVIATED OF THE
CHART THAT CTO LODER SHOWED
YOU.
SO THIS IS COUNCIL BILL 12307
AND RETRO ACTIVELY APPROVE THE
AUDIO RECORDING SYSTEMS AND
ACCEPT THE SIR AND OVERVIEW.
YOU PRETTY MUCH HEARD THE
DESCRIPTION OF THIS.
I AM GOING TO SKIP OVER THIS.
THE NEXT SLIDE, THEN.
SO EACH SIR HAS TO INCLUDE AN
ADAPTIVE VERSION OF A RACIAL
EQUITY TOOLKIT AND IDENTIFY
MITIGATION OF THE PROPORTION OF
IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS OF
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES.
THIS IDENTIFIES SEVERAL RISKS
TO PRIVACY INCLUDING THE RISK
OF PRIVATE INFORMATION ON
SUSPECTS AND
BE ACQUIRED AND THE RISK THAT
DATE STORING CAN CONTRIBUTE TO
STRUCTURAL RACISM.
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MITIGATES
THE IMPACTS TO THE EVIDENCE
PROCEDURES AND ANTI-BIAS
POLICIES AND WARRANT
REQUIREMENTS.
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO FOR AUDIO RECORDING SYSTEMS
YOU WILL SEE THREE POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE STAFF
REPORT.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE EQUITY
ASSESSMENT METRICS.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN
THROUGH THIS WITH THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEE THAT LOOKED AT THE
SIRs, THIS IS UP TO THE
DEPARTMENT TO USE WITH THE CTO,
THE NET WEIGHS TO MEASURE THE
DISPROPORTIONAL IMPACTS.
MAN OF THE PREVIOUS SIRs HAVE
INCLUDED ANY OF THESE METRICS.
I THINK THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION
OF A PROCESS THAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN.
SO WHEN PREVIOUS COMMITTEES
HAVE DONE HAVE ASKED, REQUESTED
BY AMENDMENT THAT THEY PROVIDE
A REPORT ON PROPOSED METRICS BY
A SPECIFIC DATE.
THE NEXT ITEM I NOTED AS A
POLICY CONSIDERATION IS THE
MITIGATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
IMPACTS AND PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
LITIGATION BUT I FIND THAT IT'S
NOT REALLY POSSIBLE TO FULLY
EVALUATE IF THE CITIES ARE USED
EQUITABLY WITHOUT HISTORICAL
DATA.
YOU WILL SEE IN THE STAFF MEMO,
AN OPTION WOULD BE ASK TO THE
SPD REPORT ON HOW THE AUDIO
RECORDING SYSTEMS WERE DEPLOYED
AND HOW THE INCIDENT WOULD TIE
THE LOCATION AND IDENTIFY
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS.
THIS RECOMMENDATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
WORKING GROUPS.
THE NEXT ONE ALSO IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE WORKING GROUP'S
RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS
AUTHENTICATION OF THE
RECORDINGS.
SO THE SIR IS SILENT IN THIS
MATTER.
I BASICALLY FOUND THAT
INACCURATE IDENTIFICATION IN
SPEAKERS COULD LEAD TO MISTAKES
IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND
I FOUND THAT ACCIDENTAL OR
INTENTIONAL TAMPERING COULD BE
RENDERED
INADMISSIBLE IN COURT.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAPE THE
PEOPLE YOU SAY YOU ARE TAPING
SO THERE ARE NO MISSING GAPS
THAT WOULD BE VIABLE EVIDENCE
IN A COURT HEARING.
SO COUNCIL HAS AN OPTION TO ASK
THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
DEVELOP POLICY AND PROCEDURES
TO MORE FORMALLY VERIFY THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THE AUDIO
RECORDING.
I WILL MOVE ON TO THE IBASE
SOFTWARE, PLEASE.
YOU ARE SO GOOD AT THIS.
OKAY.
I AM NOT GOING TO GO OVER TOO
MUCH MORE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT
THE SOFTWARE DOES.
I THINK CAPTAIN BRITT DID A
WONDERFUL JOB OF THIS.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TALK
ABOUT THE NEXT SLIDE WHICH IS
THE CIVIL LIBERTIES IMPACTS.
SO IN THIS SIR, SPD NOTED THAT
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF INTENDED
CONVINCE IN IBASE IS THE TOOL
TO IDENTIFY RELATIONSHIPS.
THERE ARE TWO DETECTIVES THAT
USE THIS.
SO INSTEAD OF 10 DETECTIVES,
YOUR MAGNITUDE OF ERROR GOES
DOWN.
THEY ALSO IDENTIFIED SOME OTHER
POTENTIAL RISKS IN TERMS OF
ACQUIRING PRIVATE INFORMATION
ABOUT SUSPECTS AND VICTIMS,
POTENTIAL ETHNIC WEIGHS OR BIAS
BUILT INTO THE ALGORITHM AND
THE DATA SHARING AND RETENTION
TO CONTRIBUTE TO AND MAINTAIN
RACISM.
SPD SAID THAT THESE SET OF
RISKS ARE MITIGATED BY EVIDENCE
PROCEDURES AND ANTI-BIAS
POLICIES AND WARRANT
REQUIREMENTS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES.
YOU CAN SEE THE EQUITY
ASSESSMENT METRICS NEED TO BE
PROVIDED.
AND SIR LEFT BLANK A QUESTION
THAT WAS HOW SPD WOULD RESPOND
TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO, OBVIOUSLY, GOING FORWARD IF
COUNCIL CHOOSES TO, YOU COULD
ASK A REPORT TO PROVIDE THOSE
SETS OF MITIGATION.
THE MITIGATION OF CIVIL LIBERTY
IMPACTS IS A SIGNIFICANT POLICY
CONSIDERING, THE RISK OF
WRONGLY IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS
THAT HAS SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES AND COULD HAVE
TRAGIC OUT COMES.
SO, AGAIN, IN THE ABSENCE OF
HISTORICAL DATA WE DON'T KNOW
HOW OFTEN THIS TAKES PLACE.
WE DON'T HAVE AN ERROR RATE,
FOR EXAMPLE.
AND SO ONE WAY THAT THE COUNCIL
COULD MOVE FORWARD ON THIS IS
TO OBTAIN AN INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION AS TO THE RISKS FROM
SPD'S CURRENT PRACTICES AND
THAT COULD HELP SET THE STAGE
TO KNOW WHETHER SPD COULD
BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL
POLICIES AND PROTOCOLS TO
PROTECT AGAINST THE ERRORS AND
POTENTIAL BIAS AND DATA.
SO THAT KIND OF AN EVALUATION
COULD LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF THE
AREAS THAT BEING OF CONCERN BY
THIS SURVEILLANCE WORKING
GROUP, THE FOR EXAMPLES
INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTATION OF
THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS IN
WHICH SPD USES THE SYSTEM AND
DATABASES USED BY SPD, AND THE
TYPES OF DATE HISTORICALLY
INPUT BY OFFICERS, AND THE
INACCURACY OF THE ANALYSIS AND
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANALYSIS.
A RED FLAG, INDEPENDENT
EVALUATION SUCH AS THIS WOULD
PROBABLY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT
COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IN
AN UPCOMING GOVERNMENTAL
BUDGET.
SO I'LL QUICKLY GO OVER THE
LAST, AND THAT WILL COMPLETE
MY PRESENTATION.
THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS, CAPTAIN
BRITT NOTED --
>> I'M SORRY.
I ASKED IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE
QUESTIONS, BUT YOU MADE A POINT
OF EXTRA RESOURCES.
SO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT
WERE DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS
PRESENTATION, THOSE PUBLIC
COMMENTS SORT OF FEED INTO THE
WORKING GROUP WORK.
I MEAN, THEY CONSIDER PUBLIC
COMMENTS BEFORE THEY BEGIN
THEIR WORK.
AM I CORRECT?
>> YES.
THEY GENERALLY MONITOR THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS.
>> OKAY.
THANKS SO MUCH.
>> SURE.
FOR THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS, THE
CITY HAS ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED THE
SIR PROVIDED THAT WOULD PROVIDE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WOULD
PROTECT THE CITY'S DATA AND
PRIVACY AND SET PRIVACY
STANDARDS.
SO ANY SORT OF VENDOR PROVIDING
A LICENSE TO MEET AGREEMENTS
PROBABLY DOESN'T DO THAT.
I KNOW THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS
IN THE PAST ABOUT PRE-
TECHNOLOGY, NOT THE CASE WITH
THIS, BUT THAT BY USING A CITY
CONTRACT, YOU ARE ABLE TO
PROTECT THE DATA, THE CITY'S
DATA BETTER THAN IF YOU RELY ON
A VENDOR FOR THE DOCUMENTS.
AND ONE OPTION IS TO ASK SPD TO
GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP A CONTRACT
USING THE CITY VENDORS.
THE RETENTION SCHEDULE HERE,
SPD USES THE MAXIMUM RETENTION
PERIOD ALLOWED RECOMMENDED BY
FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS OTHER
THAN THE MINIMUM.
SO YOU CAN USE RECORDS FOR FIVE
YEARS.
IF YOU RETAIN, THIS COULD
RESULT IN A LOT OF OUT-OF-DATE
RECORDS ON HERE AND NOT
ACCURATE AND THERE IS NO WAY TO
VALIDATE THE INFORMATION EACH
YEAR.
ONE WAY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS
IF YOU CHOOSE WOULD BE TO ASK
SPD TO DEVELOP AND REVISE
RETAIN POLICIES AND PERHAPS
HAVE THE VALIDATION CHANGE OF
ONE YEAR.
AND FINALLY, THE SPD COMPUTER-
AIDED DISPATCH IS OPERATED BY
THE NEW COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER WHICH IS
ACTUALLY A SEPARAT DEPARTMENT
BY THE SPD, AND BOTH
DEPARTMENTS ARE UNDER THE
FEDERAL RULES SHARING BUT IT
WOULD PROVIDE A GREATER
TRANSPARENCY OF DATA SHARE.
AND YOU COULD ASK SPD TO
DEVELOP A MORE FORMAL MLA OR
MOU WITH THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
AND COMMUNICATIONS CENTER AS TO
HOW DATA WILL BE SHARED AND
PROTECTED.
THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I WILL NOW OPEN THE
CONVERSATION TO QUESTIONS FROM
MY COLLEAGUES.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
YOU CAN REMOVE THE
PRESENTATION.
NO.
DON'T REMOVE IT.
THERE MIGHT BE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
AND ON SLIDE FIVE, I KNOW ONE
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
WORKING GROUP WAS THAT SPD
DISCLOSE THE NAMES OF
MANUFACTURERS, MODEL NAMES AND
MODEL NUMBERS OF THE RECORDING
SYSTEMS AND THE RESPONSE FROM
SPD IS THEY WANT TO AVOID THE
RISK OF COUNTER MEASURES AS IT
RELATES TO THE AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> I AM GOING TO DIRECT THAT TO
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THAT.
>> YES.
>> CAPTAIN BRITT HERE.
YEAH.
IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE
INFORMATION ABOUT THESE
DEVICES, EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE,
MAKE, MODEL, PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO
GATHER INFORMATION ABOUT THEM
AND DEVELOP WAYS TO DEFEAT OR
PREVENT US FROM USING THESE
ITEMS EFFECTIVELY.
>> THANK YOU.
A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS IF
I PLAY?
AS IT RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO
THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE
BE A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION ON
THE USE OF BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY
ON OR WITH AUDIO RECORDINGS,
APPRECIATE THAT SPD EXPLAINED
THAT THEY DO NOT USE BIOMETRIC
TECHNOLOGY IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE RECORDING SYSTEM BUT
WOULDN'T IT STILL BE AN ACTION
FOR THE COUNCIL THAT WE COULD
TAKE TO SPECIFY IN A WAY WITH
THE WORKING GROUP
RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY USE
THE TECH INTO WE STATE
PROACTIVELY THAT WE DON'T
SUPPORT THAT OR WOULD THAT BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH
THAT WE USE FOR THE
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES WHICH
IS BASICALLY IT IS PROHIBITED
UNTIL WE SAY IT'S NOT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK YOU
ARE RIGHT.
SOMETIMES, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
POLICY DECISION THAT YOU COULD
MAKE, THAT THE COUNCIL COULD
MAKE.
AND YOU ARE RIGHT.
IF THEY CHOSE TO USE THE
BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY, THEY
WOULD NEED TO SUBMIT AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
>> I BELIEVE WE DID A THAT ON
FACIAL RECOGNITION?
>> YES.
>> WOULD THAT BE AN AMENDMENTS
TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, OR WOULD THAT BE A
SEPARATE POLICY PROCESS?
>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER
YOU WANTED TO LIMIT THE
PROHIBITION THE TECHNOLOGY TO
ASSOCIATED AUDIO RECORDING
SYSTEMS OR THE USE ANY OF
BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, DO YOU
HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I DO.
BUT I AM GOING TO JUST PAUSE
FOR A MOMENT JUST TO SEE IF
THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
TECHNOLOGY.
MY OTHER QUESTIONS ARE RELATED
TO THE OTHER.
>> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE
MITIGATING OF CIVIL LIBERTIES?
AND THIS APPLIES TO BOTH OF THE
COUNCIL BILLS BECAUSE THAT IS
MENTIONED IN THERE.
SO ARE THESE -- WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT SEVERAL LIBERTIES, THESE
ARE ALL TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE
ALREADY BEEN -- THESE
INVESTIGATIONS -- YOU ARE USING
THESE BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A
WARRANT?
I MEAN, CAN YOU -- THAT'S A
BROAD TERM, MITIGATING CIVIL
LIBERTIES.
SO WHAT DOES THE WARRANT
PROCESS PROVIDE FOR ANY KIND OF
MITIGATION OF VIOLATIONS OF
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND IS THE
PRIVACY ORDINANCE THAT ALSO
GOVERNS THE USE OF SOME OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES?
THAT IS FOR SPD, I THINK.
>> YES.
>> CERTAINLY.
THE WARRANT PROCESS, THE
DETECTIVE WHEN SITTING BEFORE
THE JUDGE HAS TO SHOW WHY THEY
BELIEVE THIS PERSON HAS
RELEVANT INFORMATION AND WHY WE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECORD THE
WAY WE'RE RECORDING.
AND THEN THE JUDGE GETS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER WE ARE
ALLOWED TO CREATE A RECORDING
WITHOUT THE PERSON'S KNOWLEDGE,
WHERE AND WHEN WE ARE ALLOWED
TO DO THAT.
THEY CAN SAY WITHIN 30 DAYS.
YOU HAVE TO SERVE THIS WARRANT
WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THEY CAN SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT IN
PRIVATELY CONTROLLED AREAS.
YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN PUBLIC.
THEY CAN SAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT
WHEN THE PERSON IS ALONE OR
WITH A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PEOPLE
AROUND OR LESS THAN A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF PEOPLE AROUND.
THE JUDGES HAVE LEEWAY TO
CONTROL THE PROCESS.
WE GOING TO THE JUDGE AND THE
JUDGE DETERMINES THE LIMITS WE
HAVE IN THE RECORDING.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, ARE
YOU READY FOR ANOTHER QUESTION
OR ANY OTHER OF MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES, PLEASE?
>> SURE.
HAPPY TO JUMP IN HERE ON THE
NEXT TECHNOLOGY.
JUST WONDERING AS IT RELATES TO
SLIDE 11, I THINK MAYBE WE'VE
RECOVERED IT.
THE IBASE COMBINES DATA FROM
OTHER SOURCES AT SPD?
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE IBASE
RETAINS THE COMPILATION OF THE
DATA AND IT IS PULLED FROM FOR
THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS, AND
I'M WONDERING IS THERE A
MINIMUM?
LISA, YOU SUGGESTED THERE MAY
BE AN INTEREST IN ASKING FOR A
RETENTION SCHEDULE THAT IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE MAXIMUM?
I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE
THAT WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGIES AS
WELL.
>> THERE IS A STATE RETENTION
CENTRAL SCHEDULE AND THE
LENGTH OF TIME OR MAXIMUM --
I'M SORRY.
THE MINIMUM RETENTION BASES ON
THE CASE BUT I WILL ALSO TURN
THAT OVER TO SPD IF YOU WANT TO
ADD TO THAT STATEMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, MURDER CASES, THE
RECORDS HAVE TO BE HELD MUCH
LONGER THAN SHOPLIFTING CASES.
IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE
RECORDS.
>> AT THE RISK OF SPEAKING
OUTSIDE OF MY LANE, I WOULD
REFER TO THE SPD LEGAL
DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE
IT CORRECT CASE BY CASE BUT
YES, THE RETENTION IS SET BY
THE NATURE OF THE CRIME AND
STATE LAW.
>> REBECCA, DO YOU WANT TO ADD
ON ANYTHING HERE?
>> CAPTAIN BRITT IS CORRECT.
IT'S ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS
AND ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE
RETENTION DEADLINE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE IN THE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE HERE BUT IT
SEEMS TO ME, NOT KNOWING HOW
LONG IT TAKES THE CASE TO GO
THROUGH, WHAT IF THERE IS AN
ALLEGATION THAT YOU GOT THE
WRONG GUY, FOR EXAMPLE?
I MEAN, AND SO THE IDEA IS
THAT YOU WANT THE RECORDS
AVAILABLE FOR POSSIBLE APPEALS?
>> THAT'S THE NATURE OF WHY
IT'S A CASE BY CASE.
WE ARE REQUIRED, FOR EXAMPLE IN
A HOMICIDE CASE, REQUIRED BY
LAW TO OBTAIN ALL EVIDENCE
RELATED TO THE CASE INCLUDING
ALL INVESTIGATIVE FILES RELATED
TO THE CASE UNTIL ALL THE
APPEALS PROCESSES ARE
CONCLUDED.
THEY HAVE TO BE HELD FOR A
LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME BUT
RELATED TO THIS, ANY
INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS
WOULD NEED TO BE HELD
ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INVESTIGATIVE FILE FOR THE
LENGTH OF RETENTION AND YOU ARE
CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER, FOR THE
NEED FOR APPEAL.
>> AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE
DATA IN iBASE IS NOT THE ACTUAL
DATA GOING INTO THE
INVESTIGATION.
ANY LINK CREATED WOULD BE GIVEN
TO THE DETECTIVE AND IT WOULD
BE HIS OR HER RESPONSIBILITY
TO HOLD ON TO THAT THROUGH THE
NATURE OF THE CASE AND iBASE
WOULD BE DELETED AFTER FIVE
YEARS.
>> COLLEAGUES, DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
ABOUT EITHER THE TECHNOLOGIES
OR THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
BEFORE US?
BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO
HAVE THE EXPERTS IN THE ROOMS
TO ASK THE QUESTIONS UNLESS WE
DECIDE THAT WE NEED THAT LATER?
BUT NOW IS THE TIME TO ASK
DETAILED QUESTIONS ON THESE
TECHNOLOGIES.
OKAY.
BRIAN MAXEY?
>> GOOD MORNING.
I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF
THINGS THAT I AUTHORIZED MAKE
SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS A
FULL UNDERSTANDING.
FIRST OF ALL, IN TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT, THOSE ARE GENERALLY
UNDER I.T.
CONTROL.
THEY ARE DRAFTED BY SEATTLE
I.T.
AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE USE
OF THE DATA IN THE SYSTEM AND
WHETHER THE VENDOR HAS ACCESS
TO IT, AND THAT'S PART OF
THEIR PRIVACY AND DATE CONTROL
ANALYSIS.
THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY SPD
AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
AND SECONDLY, THE SLIDE THAT
THE SCREEN SCARED WITH THE CSC,
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, SPD
CONTROLS THE DISPATCH SYSTEM.
THAT IS USED BY THE CSCC, BUT
WE ARE THE ONES WITH THE DATA
MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND
CONTROL OVER THAT SYSTEM.
SO WE DO NOT HAVE -- THE DATE
SHARING GOES FROM US TO THEM,
NOT THE OTHER DIRECTION.
>> COULD I ASK, IS THERE A
WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE
OPERATION AND CONTROL OF SPD?
>> IT HAS NEVER CHANGED DURING
THE DE-COUPLING.
RIGHT NOW, SPD IS MAINTAINING
THE OPERATIONAL, ALL THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS FOR
CSCC.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS A --
THERE WOULD BE AN AGREEMENT TO
TRANSFER THE CONTROL TO CSCC
RATHER THAN AN AGREEMENT TO
LEAVE IT WITH SPD.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT DOCUMENT
DOES NOT EXIST.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS
FROM ANYONE EVEN MY COLLEAGUES
OR THE DEPARTMENTAL STAFF THAT
ARE WITH US TODAY?
OKAY.
LISA, DO YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW
UP?
>> JUST WANTED TO REMIND PEOPLE
IF YOU HAVE AMENDMENTS, PLEASE
GET THOSE TO ME.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE FULLY
BAKED, BUT PLEASE GET THEM TO
ME MY MAY 7 AND I WILL WORK
WITH YOU ON THOSE TO GET THEM
THERE IN TIME FOR THE MAY 11
MEETING.
>> CAPTAIN BRITT?
>> YES, MA'AM.
SPENCER WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE
OF CLARIFYING COMMENTS.
>> I AM SPENCER HAYNE, A
VIOLENT CRIME ANALYST, AND I
WANTED TO SAY THE PEOPLE WITH
ACCESS TO THE IBASE IS ME AND
ANOTHER CIVILIAN.
WE ARE CIVILIANS, NOT
DETECTIVES.
I LOOKED THROUGH THE AGENDA,
AND I FULLY APPRECIATE AND
UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THAT
WERE RAISED.
WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO
ANYTHING UNTOWARD.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO BE
WASTING ON CONTRIBUTING TO ANY
MISAPPROPRIATION OF ATTRIBUTION
OF DATA.
SO I APPRECIATE THOSE CONCERNS.
I THINK MANY OF THOSE CONCERNS
HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BY A
MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
EXACTLY IBASE IS AND WHAT IT
DOES.
IT'S NOT SMART.
THERE IS NO ALGORITHM.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SORT OF
ANALYSIS.
ANY ANALYSIS USING iBASE IS
DONE BY US USING ANALYSIS.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE CONCERNS,
INCLUDING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS
WERE DRIVEN BY THE SALES PITCH
INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED
BY IBM ON THEIR WEBSITE WHICH
IS AT BEST AN EXAGGERATION OF
WHAT iBASE CAN DO.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS CONCERN
RAISED OVERHEAT MAPS.
THE MAPS DON'T WORK.
WE DON'T USE THEM FOR MAPPING
AT ALL.
IT WAS THE WAY THAT IT CAME
OUT.
WE DON'T EVEN USE THE MAPS AT
ALL.
ANOTHER CONCERN OVER THE SOCIAL
NETWORK ANALYSIS.
THE WAY THAT WE BRING THE DATA
IN WE CAN'T USE IT FOR SOCIAL
NETWORK ANALYSIS IT.
REQUIRES A LINKAGE BETWEEN TWO
PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO KNOW EACH
OTHER AND ANALYZE THE NETWORK.
THAT IS NOT HOW WE BRING IN THE
INFORMATION.
WE BRING OFF THE RECORDS
MANAGEMENT DATA SYSTEM.
SO A PERSON IS ARRESTED IN AN
INCIDENT.
IF ANOTHER PERSON IS ARRESTED
IN THE INCIDENT AS WELL, THEY
ARE LINKED BUT YOU CANNOT RUN
THE SNA ON THAT, SO IT DOESN'T
WORK, AND IN ADDITION, IT HAS
BEEN STATED THAT WE HAVE NO
RELATIONSHIP WITH IBM ANYMORE.
I.T.
HAS THE CONTRACT WITH THEM, AND
THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO OUR DATA
WHATEVER.
AND WOULD SAY THAT NO POLICE
ACTION IS TAKEN OFF INFORMATION
GENERATED.
AND WHILE WE TECHNICALLY ARE
IN OUR REALTIME CRIME CENTER,
IT'S DOWN TO ONE DETECTIVE AND
THE TWO ANALYSTS.
WE RARELY ARE PAYING ATTENTION
TO THE REALTIME STUFF THAT IS
HAPPENING IN THE CITY.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE TIME FOR
THAT.
WE ARE FOCUSED ON LARGER
HOMICIDE AND SHOOTING
INVESTIGATIONS, AND THAT SORT
OF THING.
IT'S REALLY NOT USED TO DRIVE
ANY SORT OF DAILY ACTIVITIES BY
OFFICERS.
YEAH.
I WISH WE HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN
THIS PROCESS MORE DIRECTLY
EARLY ON.
WE WERE NOT APPROACHED BY THE
WORKING GROUP, BUT I COULD HAVE
PROVIDED SOME CLARITY ON
EXACTLY HOW WE USE IT.
WE PROVIDED THE TEAM THE MANUAL
INFORMATION THAT WE DO PUT IN
THERE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT
DID NOT MAKE IT TO THE WORKING
GROUP.
WE HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.
I WELCOME ANY OVERSIGHT, ANYONE
THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE EXACTLY
HOW WE ARE DOING IT.
I WISH I COULD GIVE A
DEMONSTRATION HERE BUT IT'S
PRETTY RESTRICTED IN WHO IS
ACTUALLY ABLE TO SEE THE DATA.
BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE NOTHING TO
HIDE AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
FURTHER ENGAGEMENT WITH ANYONE
WHO WANTS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE
ARE DOING.
>> THANK YOU.
WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
MAYBE SOME OF THE CONCERNS WERE
BASED ON MESSAGING, ON THE
PACKAGING, IT RAISED A QUESTION
FOR ME.
CAN WORK GROUP MEMBERS CALL YOU
UP AND SAY, HEY, WHAT ABOUT
THIS?
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE SAYING
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
BUT IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP SO
THAT YOU CAN ANSWER SOME OF
THESE QUESTIONS EARLIER ON?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
I MEAN, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTION OR CONCERNS
THAT ANYONE HAS DIRECTLY.
>> MISS KAYE HAS BEEN GOOD
ABOUT FORWARDING THE QUESTIONS
OVER FROM THE WORKING GROUP AND
WE ARE DOING OUR BEST TO ANSWER
THEM.
I THINK A LOT OF TIMES THERE IS
A TELEPHONE GAME GOING ON THERE
AND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE
AS WE ENGAGE IN THE PROCESS IT
MAY BE GOOD TO GET EVERYONE IN
THEROOM AND RUN A
DEMONSTRATION TO SEE IT.
>> AND WE POINTED OUT HOW LONG
THIS PROCESS HAS TAKEN, BEYOND
THE EIGHT OR NINE TIMES AND WE
WOULD LIKE TO GET EVERYONE IN
THE SAME ROOM AFTER COVID.
>> WHICH IS APPARENTLY END
GAME.
>> I AM NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> WE HAVE SEVEN MORE
TECHNOLOGIES COMING FROM SPD
THIS FALL, AND I URGE THEM TO
CONNECT THE DETECTIVES EARLY TO
THE WORKING GROUPS IN THE
PROCESS SO THEY CAN FOCUS THEIR
QUESTIONS ONCE THEY HAVE
RECEIVED FULL INFORMATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> THANK YOU.
ON THAT POINT, IS THERE -- IS
THE ISSUE A SCHEDULING AND
LOGISTICS ISSUE OR THE ISSUE
THAT THERE IS NO TOUCH POINT
BUILT INTO THE PROCESS THAT
SEATTLE I.T.
FACILITIES NOT JUST WITH SPD
BUT ANY DEPARTMENT WITH STAFF
WITH EXPERTISE -- OPERATIONS
EXPERTISE AROUND THE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT THEY ARE
BROUGHT IN TO PRESENT TO THE
WORKING GROUP?
DOES THAT STEP EXIST IN THE
PROCESS?
OR DOES IT NOT EXIST?
>> IT DOES NOT --
>> YEAH.
I'M SORRY.
MEAN TO INTERRUPT.
>> NO.
YOU SHOULD BE ANSWERING AT THIS
POINT.
>> IT DOES EXIST.
THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FROM
THE DEPARTMENT ARE INVITED TO
THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS.
SARAH, DO YOU HAPPEN TO
REMEMBER, WAS IT THIS
TECHNOLOGY IN PARTICULAR
REGARDING THE WORKING GROUP?
WERE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS TO
MEET DIRECTLY WITH THE WORKING
GROUP?
ON THIS TECHNOLOGY AND ALSO IN
GENERAL?
>> YEAH.
SO TYPICALLY WHEN WE OPEN A
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WINDOW,
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WE DO
INFORM THE WORKING GROUP THAT
WE ARE OPENING THE WINDOW,
ENCOURAGE THEM TO NOT ONLY
ATTEND MEETINGS WHICH ARE IN
OUR VIRTUAL WORLD BUT ALSO TO
TRY AND HELP ENCOURAGE AND
DRIVE THE CONNECTIONS WITH
FOLKS THEY 99 THEIR COMMUNITY
AS WELL.
THERE IS NO DIRECT PRESENTATION
TO THE WORKING GROUP FROM THE
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT BUT THEY
ARE ENCOURAGED AND INVITED AND
INFORMED THAT THERE WILL BE
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT
WITH THE TECHNOLOGY UNDER
REVIEW THROUGH THE PUBLIC
COMMENT WINDOW.
>> SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS THE
OPPORTUNITY EXISTS THROUGH THE
MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP
AND THE PUBLIC TO RECEIVE THE
INFORMATION DIRECTLY FROM AND
ENGAGE WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER
EXPERTS TO ENGAGE.
>> WHY WOULD THERE NOT BE AN
ACTUAL PRESENTATION FROM THE
DEPARTMENT SEEKING TO PURCHASE
THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE
RETROACTIVE USE OF THE
TECHNOLOGY?
WHY WOULD THAT NOT BE A
COMPONENT?
>> A PRESENTATION THROUGH THE
WORKING GROUP DIRECTLY?
>> YEAH.
>> SARAH, IS THAT PART OF THE
PROCESS?
IS THAT AN OPTION APART OF THE
PROCESS?
>> THAT IS NOT AN ORDINANCE
DEFINED PROCESS, SO IT HAS NOT
BEEN REQUESTED OR PART OF --
CALL IT THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS.
IT WAS NOT A FUNCTION THAT I
HAVE HEARD BE REQUESTED ABOUT.
SO IT HASN'T BEEN PART OF THE
STEPS.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>> OR IN THIS CASE I AM HEARING
THAT SPD WAS INVITED TO A
PRESENTATION.
SO I DON'T THINK EVERY NUANCE
OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES
NEEDS TO BE CODIFIED IN
ORDINANCING, AND WE MIGHT
DECIDE COLLECTIVELY THAT IT'S A
GOOD IDEA TO DO SO THIS SUBJECT
MATTER EXPERTISE ISN'T JUST
HELD BY CITY STAFF WORKING IN
THE DEPARTMENTS SEEKING THE
TECHNOLOGY BUT THAT IS SHARED
WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
HAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF
COMMENTING ON THE TECHNOLOGY.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND I HEARD THAT INTEREST FROM
YOU, COUNCILMEMBER, AS WELL AS
SPD.
I THINK AS WE STRUCTURE AND
EVOLVE THE WORKING GROUP
PROCESS THROUGH THIS JOURNEY,
YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE THOSE
INTO CONSIDERATION AND GET IN
INFORMATION OUT FOR CONSUMPTION
BY THE RESEMBLE AND
REPRESENTATIVES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP?
>> I WON'T BELABOR THIS, BUT
ABSOLUTELY WE WILL WELCOME THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
I SUSPECT WE WERE INVITED BUT
WE DID NOT HAVE THE INTERNAL
MECHANISMS TO WHAT HAPPENED WE
WERE INVITED TO AND ENGAGE, AND
A MORE DIRECT, CLEARER, PLEASE
TELL US ABOUT YOUR TECHNOLOGIES
AND ENGAGE YOUR CASE, WE ARE
HAPPY ON THAT.
AND I AM NOT TRYING TO PASS THE
BEAK BUCK ON
THIS.
WE ARE HAPPY TO ENGAGE, AND I
HEARD FROM THE COMMENTERS THAT
THEY WANT ENGAGEMENT AND
ANSWERS FROM THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AND I THINK WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY IN A POSSESSION TO
PROVIDE THOSE, SO, THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF
GETTING ON A CALL.
IT'S NOT JUST YOU EXPLAINING
THE TECHNOLOGY.
IT'S PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO ASK
QUESTIONS,
AND THAT COULD MAYBE STREAM
LINE THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
AND WE ARE GOING TO END AT
11:00.
BUT I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.
AND IN A PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE MEETING, I THINK IT
WAS -- I CAN'T REMEMBER.
I THINK IT WAS TWO TIMES AGO WE
HEARD PRESENTATIONS ON TASK
FORCES.
IS THIS THE SORT OF TECHNOLOGY
THAT IS USED IN THE TASK FORCES
THAT WE ARE MOSTLY LOOKING AT?
IS THAT JUST SORT OF WORK THAT
WE ARE DEPLOYING NEW TECHNOLOGY
IS FOR WITH THE TASK FORCES?
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT THE
AGENCIES THEMSELVES USE BUT
WITHIN SPD, THIS IS USED BY THE
GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND
HOMICIDE UNIT AND IT COULD BE
USED BY SPENCER A█ND HIS
COUNTERPART BY A DETECTIVE
WRKING WITH THE GUN VIOLENCE
TASK FORCE.
IF THEY HAVE INFORMATION THAT
THEY CAN BRING IN AND ADDED TO
AN ANALYSIS CHART, THEY WOULD
BRING IT IN.
THAT IS HOW IT COULD BE USED
BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR PRESENTATIONS.
WE WILL TAKE THIS UP AGAIN AT
THE MAY 11 COMMITTEE MEETING
AND THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENT
OR QUESTIONS I WILL ADJOURN
THIS MEETING.
LOOKING AROUND.
OKAY.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU ALL.
BYE-BYE.
>> THANK YOU.