After a 2 year long process, AB 1185, which allows either a county board of supervisors (by vote) or county residents (by referendum) to set up a sheriff oversight board with subpoena power, is a law.
On the last day of the 2020 legislative session, AB 1185 author Kevin McCarty filed a letter to the journal specifying that the intent of the legislation was to grant supervisory authority to the County Board of Supervisors over all county officers, including the Sheriff.
You can read it below.
The decision has been added to the Westlaw database. Oakland Privacy v. City of Vallejo, No. FCS054805, 2020 WL 8019580, at *1 (Cal.Super. Nov. 23, 2020).
A study of implicit bias in consumer surveillance device use in San Francisco
Noting the rapid spread of Ring/Law Enforcement collaborative agreements in Northern California, Oakland Privacy embarked on a study of the content that device owners in San Francisco post to the Ring smartphone application “Neighbors”.
Working with a sample set of 131 videos drawn from the city of San Francisco and scraped by researchers at MIT, our volunteers reviewed the videos (several times) and accompanying post content.
Update 1/27/2020: On January 26, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to a) disclose annually to the City any donations received in excess of $100 and not accept donations that are anonymous b) b) shall not use any surveillance technology without receiving pre-approval from the Board of Supervisors for the intended use and purpose.
Three San Francisco residents who participated in protests that followed the death of George Floyd, have sued the San Francisco Police Department for use of the camera network of the Union Square Business Improvement District to monitor those protests.
Hope Williams, Nathan Sheard and Nestor Reyes, represented by attorneys at the ACLU of Northern California and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed Williams vs San Francisco under San Francisco’s May 2019 surveillance oversight ordinance.
Update: Oakland terminated its MOU with the JTTF task force on 10-20-20.
On October 13 at 2:3opm, Oakland’s Public Safety committee will debate a measure from City Council chair Rebecca Kaplan to withdraw the Oakland Police Department from the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). The City of San Francisco withdrew in 2017, and Portland, Oregon withdrew in 2019.
If the committee (members are Kaplan, Nikki Fortunato Bas, Noel Gallo and Loren Taylor), advances it, the measure will move on to the full City Council.
Update: 11-17-2020 The Vallejo City Council incorporated changes requested by Oakland Privacy, ACLU and EFF to strengthen the use policy, including restrictions on First Amendment use, datasharing with federal immigration, publishing a quarterly log, and returning to Council for any software or hardware additions to the unit. The new stronger policy was unanimously adopted by the City Council. The first quarterly log is expected to be published in early December.
Update 10-23-20 After getting hundreds of emails, the Vallejo City Council agreed to stick to the originally announced date of 10-27 for the stingray policy hearing.
Update 10-9-2020: Afer informing us the stingray policy was agendized for public comment at the 10-27 meeting, the City of Vallejo reversed themselves and suddenly announced the discussion would be added to the October 13 agenda instead. We’re pretty sure the sudden change was intended to minimize public comment, so it’s up to us to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Take a second and use this easy online action to tell the Vallejo City Council to stick to the original date.
Take ActionVallejo residents Solange Echeverria and Daniel Rubins, along with advocacy group Oakland Privacy, filed a lawsuit against the City of Vallejo after the purchase of a cell site simulator {stingray} was not accompanied by a privacy policy for public input from city residents and a vote of approval by the City Council. The plaintiffs alleged the process was not compliant with Section 53166 of state law, which became effective on January 1, 2016 as Senate Bill 741 (Hill), after being signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown.
On August 28, Solano Superior Court judge Bradley Nelson granted our request for an alternative writ of mandate and ordered the City to show cause why he should not prohibit it from using this invasive technology without a proper privacy policy that was approved by the City Council. On October 1, after issuing a tentative ruling suggesting that he agrees with the Plaintiffs and then hearing argument, Judge Nelson took the matter under submission.
The City of Vallejo has since indicated that the privacy and use policy would be placed back on the City Council agenda for the October 27th meeting. This meeting will provide an opportunity for Vallejo residents to read, review and comment upon the policy prior to adoption by the City.