Video Surveillance

SF Police Sued Over Public/Private Camera Use To Surveil BLM Protests

by  •  • 1 Comment

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.

Read more →

Uncategorized

Oakland Public Safety Committee Debates JTTF Withdrawal

by  •  • 0 Comments

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.

Cell Site Simulators

Vallejo Stingray Use Policy Up for Public Comment at October 27 City Council Meeting

by  •  • 3 Comments

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 Action

Vallejo 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.

Read more →

Cell Site Simulators

What Can We Learn From Cell Site Simulator Logs

by  •  • 0 Comments

by Mike Katz-Lacabe

We recently obtained and reviewed cell site simulator (CSS) logs from a number of police departments to see what we could learn about how they are used. Cell site simulators, frequently referred to as stingrays, are devices used by law enforcement that impersonate cell phone towers and can be used to track the location of a specific cellular device, usually a cell phone.

Press Coverage: Gizomodo

Read more →

Data Privacy

Prop. 24 Actually Pokes Holes in Data Privacy Protections

by  •  • 0 Comments

In this op-ed in the San Diego Union Tribune, OP member Tracy Rosenberg breaks down all the loopholes and exemptions in Prop 24 and why Californians who care about privacy rights should vote NO.

Proposition 24 pretends it is making CCPA stronger, but it is really poking holes in privacy protections and making it much harder for average people to exercise their rights. A few nice-sounding changes don’t outweigh all the problems in Proposition 24. That’s why major consumer and privacy groups say vote no on Proposition 24 in November. It’s the wrong path forward.

Read the full op-ed here.

Facial Recognition

Portland, Oregon Passes Double Facial Recognition Ban

by  •  • 0 Comments

Our neighbors to the north have passed a facial recognition ban (13th in the country) and added a first in the nation twist – a ban on facial recognition use by private operators in open-to-the-public spaces, like shops. Congratulation to PDX Privacy, Smart City PDX and councilwoman Joanne Hardesty for their year long process and we hope it will inspire other cities going forward.

Ban on Government Use of Facial Recognition (Municipal)

Ban on Private Use of Facial Recognition in Public Spaces (Municipal)

Read more →