Oakland Privacy Timeline | Oakland Privacy

2024

January/February. Many Artificial Intelligence regulation bills introduced in CA legislature. OP following all their developments, along with other privacy, surveillance, transparency and policing bills being filed in the CA legislature.
February 12th. Chicago announces that it will terminate its Shotspotter contract.
February 13th. Berkeley City Manager withdraws proposal to move City Council meetings from 6:00 PM to 10:00 AM after letter threatening legal action sent to City Attorney by Oakland Privacy and a impromptu publicity campaign.
March 4th. Durham, NC City Council votes 4-2 to end its Shotspotter contract.
March 5th. San Francisco votes to emasculate their Surveillance Ordinance, along with allowing more liberal police chases of cars, and more.
March & April. California Legislative committees cite/quote multiple letters from Oakland Privacy in their bill analyses.
April 4th. Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission votes to recommend the termination of Oakland’s Shotspotter contract, citing lack of data supporting its effectiveness.
April 15th. St. Louis passes a SERO becoming “the 24th city in the U.S. to pass legislation allowing the people – not the police – to decide if and how surveillance technologies are used in our communities.”
June 5th. OP and others kill bill in legislature that would have weakened the Brown Act, allowing committees to meet online without any physical location.
July 1. “Right to repair” law, which OP supported, takes effect in CA.
July 20th. OP member Mike Katz-Lacabe, a named plaintiff in a class-action privacy suit against Oracle, participates in a $115M settlement agreement.
September 22. Chicago actually terminates Shotspotter.
September various. A number of OP members write to the Chicago Federal court in objection to the proposed Clearview settlement.
Sept 25. OP efforts force reconsideration of bill allowing the impounding of cars at sideshows without arrests. Legislation is amended favorably.
Sept 30. Governor Newsom vetoes AI regulation bill.
October 1. Eureka City Council, partly on the basis of OP’s letter, tables installation of ALPRs.
October 15. Oakland City Council renews Shotspotter contract despite OP Commission’s negative recommendation.
October 22. Lawsuit against ALPR use (4th amendment violations) filed against Norfolk, VA.

2023

January. City of Oakland ransomware attack.
January 10th. ‘The Riders Come Out at Night’ about OPD and written by Darwin BondGraham and Ali Winston is released.
February. Berkeley begins process of pushing surveillance cameras through surveillance ordinance process. Police Advisory Board discusses and makes recommendations.
March. ALPR legislation introduced in CA State Legislature restricting retention to 30 days.
March. Oakland Privacy begins CA Fusion Center research project.
March 20th. Berkeley’s Public Safety Committee discussions surveillance camera and drone policies; dismisses PABs recommendations.
May 20th. Bad facial recognition regulation legislation dies in the California legislature.
May 25th. Oakland Privacy sponsored ALPR regulation legislation passed by California Assembly.
June 13th. Berkeley approves 10 street surveillance cameras.
June 14th. Work begins on having Berkeley approve up to 52 ALPR cameras.
July 6th. OPD announces at OPAC meeting that its ALPRs have been turned off since February because, paraphrased, “they cannot produce the required reports as specified by the use policy because the system is so old.”
June 17th. “OP’s position letters continue to get quoted at a startling rate in the legislative analyses.”
July. OP sponsored ALPR regulation legislation delayed in Senate committee after author SNAFU.
July 24th. Berkeley City Council approves up to 52 ALPR cameras.
September 7th. Google/Alphabet rolls out privacy-destroying “Privacy Sandbox” update for the Chrome browser.
September 18th. San Leandro City Council votes not to expand automated license plate reader program in the City.
October 1. San Francisco mayor London Breed announces the placement of Proposition E on the March 2024 ballot. Proposition E weakens the SF Police Commission, gets rid of the current vehicle pursuit policy and undermines SF’s surveillance transparency regulation.
October 5. Oakland Privacy grieves the loss of privacy lawyer Hammad Alam, an ally and partner in the fight against government surveillance. The AMEMSA Justice Collective, largely convened by Alam, resolves to carry on his work in this statewide coalition.
October 15th. CA Governor Gavin Newsom signs 20 bills supported by Oakland Privacy in the areas of privacy, surveillance, and governmental transparency and vetos a bill (at our request) to expand the focus areas for California’s fusion centers.
October 17th. SF Mayor London Breed announces intent to place a ballot measure before the voters to hamstring the SF Police Commission and gut the surveillance ordinance framework in effect in the City.
October 17th. Oakland City Council votes to deploy 300 stationary license plate readers in the city and incorporates a 30 day retention period for non-hit data.
October 20th. Newsom signing/veto period ends for California legislation. OP took positions on 65 bills. Newsom took the action we recommended on 20 and the opposite action on 4.
October 24th – City of Pasadena tables a proposed cell site simulator purchase after Oakland Privacy warns them they are violating state law.
October 25th – Oakland Privacy reveals that Kaiser Permanente is using Flock cameras in their medical center parking lots across the State without the state-required public use policy.
November 8th – Richmond City Council votes to massively expand their ALPR and other camera surveillance programs.
December 6th. New Rose Foundation grant to Oakland Privacy for a two-year fellowship approved.
December 7th – Ohio’s abortion rights constitutional amendment comes into effect.
December 9. ALCO Board of Supervisors agrees to end the use of scattershot munitions in the mental health housing unit at Santa Rita Jail. ALCO also agrees to re-establish drone video retention to 60 days unless entered into evidence, remove boilerplate authorization language inserted into the policy in 2021, and to add to the policy a blanket prohibition on the weaponization of drones.

2022

February. IRS first announces, then renounces, use of facial recognition system by ID.ME for tax purposes.
February 3rd. OPAC fails to meet for a second time.
February 15th. Attempt to weaken San Francisco’s surveillance ordinance by Mayor Breed fails at the Board of Supervisors.
February 15th – Oakland Privacy sends framed copy of the text of AB 229, the chaptered 2021 bill that requires use of force training for private security guards to the family of Mario Martinez. Martinez died at Sacramento’s Golden Center after private security placed a knee on his neck and asphyxiated him for trespassing.
Feb 17th. State Senator Wieckowski introduces Biometric Information Privacy Act, similar to Illinois law.
Feb 21. San Leandro proposal to install 41 surveillance cameras around the city.
March: After 9 years, City of San Jose finally releases non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and Harris that went with 2013 purchase of a cell site simulator.
March 1. SF Mayor Breed formally withdraws proposed budget amendment to eviserate SF’s surveillance ordinance.
March 8. Vallejo City Council appoints members to its Privacy Advisory Board.
March 16th. Oakland Privacy’s lawyers win the James Madison Award for Advocacy, for our Public Records lawsuit against OPD.
April. OP’s lawyer files a cure-and-correct letter to City of Berkeley, which gives Berkeley 90 days to create a policy for city-wide street surveillance cameras.
April 19th. AB 2192, which would have explicitly legalized out of state and federal sharing of license plate scans by CA law enforcement agencies, is held in the Assembly Privacy committee, and dies. The bill was sponsored by the California Sheriffs Association.
June 3rd. Oakland Privacy launches campaign to demand that Google offer a global opt-out for third party cookies on Chrome, the world’s most-used browser.
July 15th. City of San Diego passes surveillance transparency ordinance but by a 5-4 vote exempts inter-agency task forces from civilian oversight.
July 20th. ADPPA passes out of House Energy and Commerce. The law as currently written would largely pre-empt California’s CCPA and CPRA.
July 28th. McArthur Justice Center sues the City of Chicago for civil rights violations in the use of Shotspotter gun detection microphones, including the false imprisonment of Michael Williams and asks for an injunction on the use of the technology.
July. City of Berkeley fails to respond to our cure-and-correct demand letter (see above). Creation of lawsuit filing over this begins.
August 15th. Almost all anti-privacy legislation in the CA Legislature dies, in part thanks to OP’s efforts. Legislation to allow GPS-trackable digital license plates is still alive, while a bill to un-encrypt police radio communications failed.
August 23rd. Berkeley lawsuit over street video cameras is filed.
August 24th. Digital license plate legislation is modified to prevent all GPS-tracking.
September 10th. Berkeley Police have Alameda County Sheriff Department’s drones surveil the Solano Stroll.
September 20th. Berkeley adopts an ALPR use policy with 14-day retention and very limited use by police.
October 18th. At the Police Accountability Board, in response to a complaint made by Oakland Privacy, Berkeley Police chief claims it was actually Albany Police who requested the ALCO Sheriff’s drone for Solano Stroll. OP starts to make inquries and public records requests to determine the truth.
October 25th. Oakland City Council adopts a compromise ALPR policy with 6-month retention and expanded civil liberties protections, catalyzed by an OPAC and OP member.
Nov 1. City of Berkeley decides surveillance cameras for city streets fall under surveillance ordinance, ask for end of OP’s lawsuit.
Nov 29th. SF Board of Supervisors approves policy allowing use of “killer robot” in certain circumstances.
Dec 6th. SF Board of Supervisors reconsiders its “killer robot” policy; sends it back to committee.

2021

January 11th. State Senator Weiner introduces SB 210, to severely restrict ALPR data storage and more.
January 19th. Oakland puts the breaks on Virtual Reality training technology for OPD, at the behest of Oakland Privacy peeps.
February 4th. Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission votes unanimously to recommend to Oakland City Council that OPD be banned from using ALPR for two years.
March 16th. Oakland Privacy and Mike Katz-Lacabe win a James Madison Freedom of Information Award.
April 7th. Judge rules that Oakland and OPD must produce past public records requests (at least those from Darwin BondGraham and Ali Winston) in a timely fashion and on a schedule. Our related lawsuit is pending.
April 27th. Berkeley passes MERO, the Militarized Equipment Regulation Ordinance, based on SERO, for all non-standard or military-grad police weaponry and tools. This is the first jurisdiction in the US to pass such a law.
May 11th. Oakland’s City Council Public Safety Committee reject5s OPAC’s suggestion to ban ALPR, throwing the issue back to OPAC.
May 18th. Benicia City Council approves massive ALPR installation.
May 25th. Detroit, MI and Dayton, OH become the 21st and 22nd jurisdictions to pass SERO ordinances.
June 8th. Oakland City Council Public Safety Committee unanimously approves MERO.
July 14th. Vallejo City Council agrees in principle to create a privacy advisory commission, but put off actually doing anything about until “later.”
August 5th. OPAC rejects Verkdata equipment for dumping site surveillance on the grounds that it contains facial recognition software. Also continues to debate ALPR issues but takes no action.
August 18th. OP members meet with Pasadena Privacy members, a fairly new group in Southern California.
August 30th. Berkeley proposal to fight crime using ALPRs comes to the Agenda Committee.
September. Vallejo City Council passes an ordinance creating a Privacy Commission. Amendments proposed by the ACLU and Oakland Privacy to come back to the Council in late October.
September. Secure Justice sues Oakland on behalf of the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission claiming OPD is not providing the commission with the information it needs to do its job.
September 24th. Proposal to use surveillance/security cameras to watch Berkeley streets, “the public right of way” appears on the Oct 12th, 2021 Council agenda on consent.
Late September. Governor Newsom signs a number of police regulatory bills, some of which OP advocated for.
Oct 4th. Berkeley ALPR proposal heard in Public Safety Committee.
October. A proposal for red-light cameras for Berkeley appears at the Agenda Cmte; routed to the Public Safety Cmte.
October. Oakland Privacy names Yadi Yonse as our Fellow as part of our Rose Foundation Grant.
November 2nd. Oakland City Council approves settlement of OP’s public records requests lawsuit against OPD.
November 11th. San Mateo Sheriff ends transfers of released prisoners to ICE.
December 17: Gizmodo features Mike Katz-Lacabe’s public records work.

2020

January 1. Statewide Consumer Privacy Act goes into effect. Sort of.
February. Work begins on Santa Cruz surveillance ordinance, facial recognition and predictive policing ban.
March. Oakland Privacy meetings go online due to COVID-19 pandemic.
May 26th. Berkeley forced to follow its surveillance ordinance regarding Cyclomedia contract.
June 1. Oakland Privacy files lawsuit against Vallejo regarding Stingray acquisition.
Early June. IBM, Microsoft and Amazon announce restrictions on sale of their facial recognition software.
June 18th. NYC passes POST act, requiring surveillance transparency by NYPD.
June 23rd. Santa Cruz City Council unanimously passes ban on facial recognition and predictive policing.
June 24. Boston, MA bans facial recogntion
June 25th. Oakland Police Commission approves a Militarized Equipment Regulation Ordinance regulating OPD, similar to the SERO. Approval is now in the hands of the City Council.
July 1. CA State Legislature removes PVE staffing from CA Office of Emergency Services 2021 budget.
August 3rd. Portland, ME bans facial recognition.
August 20th. Oakland Privacy, et al, file lawsuit against OPD for violating the Public Records Act repeatedly and incessantly.
Aug 31st. CA Legislature passes sheriff oversight legislation.
Sept 4th. OP et al PRR lawsuit and similar lawsuit by Ali Winston and Darwin BondGraham publicly announced. Courthouse News article.
Sept 9th. Portland, OR City Council passes ban on both government and commercial use of facial recognition technology.
Sept 9th. AC Transit passes a non-enforceable use policy for its cameras on its Oakland-San Leandro rapid transit line platforms.
Sept 30th. Governor Newsom signs sheriff oversight legislation, AB 1185.
Oct 1st. Vallejo concedes lawsuit re stingray policy, agrees to bring policy to City Council for public comment and vote before technology is employed further.
Oct 27th. Vallejo City Council passes Stingray Policy. Considering limiting amendments on Nov 10th.
Nov 4th. Portland, ME bans facial recognition.
Nov 4th. California’s faux online privacy ballot initiative passes.
Nov 10th. San Diego passes a SERO and establishes a surveillance oversight board,
Nov 10th. Berkeley City Council takes no action – effectively tabling for now – a proposal for a ring of surveillance cameras around the City.
Nov 30th. In Oakland Privacy v City of Vallejo Solano Superior Court issues writ of mandate supporting Oakland Privacy’s interpretation of the cell-site simulator policy law the Legislature enacted.
Dec 1. Madison, WI, bans city use of facial recognition.
Dec 15th. Oakland City Council approves purchase of OPD drones.
Dec 15th. Oakland City Council passes amendments to SERO forbidding use of predictive policing and biometrics.
Dec 17th. New Orleans becomes the first jurisdiction to ban cell-site simulator technology (Stingrays), along with a facial recognition ban.

2019

Jan 14th. The final ‘working’ meeting of the AlCo Urban Shield Task Force yields a strong set of recommendations to reconstitute Urban Shield. A final ‘pro forma’ meeting to send the final report to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is needed.
Jan 29th. SERO and facial recognition ban ordinance introduced in San Francisco.
Jan 29th. For the fourth time, Berkeley City Council punts on an ICE contracting ordinance.
Feb 8th. State District Court in Martinez rules that new police records transparency legislation does apply to records prior to Jan 1, 2019.
Feb 26th. Berkeley blows off ICE contracting ordinance for the fifth time.
Feb 26th. In a stunning victory, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously accepts its Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations on completely transforming Urban Shield.
March 12th. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors spurns the Sheriff, reaffirming their support for its Ad Hoc Committee’s recommendations on completely transforming Urban Shield by a vote of 3-2 (Valle, Carson, Chan).
March 14th. Bay Area UASI refuses to allocate money to Alameda County for Urban Shield. Urban Shield, at least for 2019, will not happen.
April 15th. San Francisco SERO and facial recognition ban comes before the SF Board of Supervisors for the first time, at Rule Cmte. Postponed for a week but a good amount of public testimony.
May 2nd. OPAC “rejects” JTTF report from OPD.
May 2nd. OPAC proposes an amendment to Oakland’s SERO banning facial recognition technologies.
May 6th. Proposed San Francisco SERO ordinance and facial recognition ban passes Rules Committee 3-0. Full BoS vote scheduled for May 14th.
May 7th. Oakland City Council postpones discussion on new BearCat (Armored Personnel Carrier) for a couple of weeks.
May 14th. San Francisco passes SERO ordinance 8-1. Ordinance contains the first-ever prohibition of the use of facial recognition data and technology in the US.
June 25th. Oakland City Council Public Safety Committee unanimously passes SERO amendment to ban facial recognition.
June 25th. Richmond City Council votes to terminate Vigilant ALPR contract in accord with their ICE contracting ordinance they passed last year.
June. Evidence that Berkeley’s San Pablo Park surveillance cameras have facial recognition and other analytics capabilities surfaces.
September 12. Oakland Privacy receives the EFF’s Barlow award.
October 3rd. OPAC approves Shotspotter Use Policy.
October 15th. Berkeley City Council passes 1st reading of Facial Recognition ban unanimously.
November. Oakland Police Commission begins consideration of a SERO-like ordinance for militarized police equipment.
November 19th. Berkeley City Council considers for the first time SERO use policies submitted by the City Manager – a year late. Decisions are pushed off until December and then again until January 2020.
Dec 3rd. Berkeley City Council passes 1st reading of an ordinance requiring certain commercial establishments to accept cash.
Dec 10th. Berkeley City Council passes 2nd reading of the ordinance, making it law.

2018

January 4th. The Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission hears testimony from and asks questions from the director of NCRIC.
January 9. Oakland Public Safety Committee unanimously endorses Brooks/Kaplan/Gallo legislation and asks staff to prepare an ordinance permanently ending all OPD cooperation with HSI/ICE.
January 16. Oakland City Council passes Kaplan/Brooks/Gallo resolution unanimously
January 16. 18 signers to the Internal Affairs complaint against Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick for untruthful statements about the August 16 West Oakland ICE raid ask the Police Review Board to remove the investigator for asking questions about the targets of the raid instead of the actions and statements of OPD and Chief Kirkpatrick.
February 7 City of Alameda rejects planned expansion of ALPR system with Vigilant, one week after Vigilant’s contract with ICE for LPR database access is announced by The Verge.
March 5th. Oakland Privacy public records request specialist Mike Lacabe-Katz obtains pictures of last year’s Urban Shield which show ICE agents participating.
March 13. After 20 months of work, and last minute negotiations, Berkeley City Council passes the first reading of its Surveillance Equipment Regulation Ordinance.
March 19. City of San Pablo postpones $2.9 million expansion of license plate reader dragnet and switch to Vigilant equipment pending more community input.
March 20. City of Davis unanimously adopts surveillance transparency ordinance on first reading.
March 27th. Alameda County Board of Supervisors votes to stop funding Urban Shield “as it is currently constituted” beyond the 2018 exercises. An Ad Hoc Committee is created to make recommendations.
April 17 – CA State Senate Judiciary committee moves Senate Bill 1186 for statewide surveillance transparency and rules that Sheriffs and DA’s are not exempt from legislative oversight in the use of surveillance equipment and technologies.
April 17 – The City of Alameda refers the first Deport ICE sanctuary city ordinance on a 4-1 vote
May 1 – City of Oakland unanimously adopts surveillance transparency ordinance on 1st of two votes.
May 1 – City of Berkeley unanimously refers Deport ICE contracting law for review and recommendation by Peace and Justice Commission
May 1 – City of Richmond unanimously refers Deport ICE contracting and investment law to staff for return as a proposed ordinance
May 15 – City of Oakland unanimously adopts surveillance transparency ordinance. It becomes law upon the 2nd reading.
May 15 – City of Richmond votes 6-1 in favor of the DeportICE contracting and investment prohibition ordinance. A second reading is necessary for it to become law.
May 25 – Statewide surveillance ordinance moves forward in legislature but gets watered down to remove reporting requirements.
June 4 – Berkeley’s Ad Hoc City Council Subcommittee on Urban Shield and NCRIC votes 3-1 to recommend withdrawal from Urban Shield’s tactical scenarios and expo.
Mid-June – Oakland Privacy’s #DeportICE campaign takes on new meaning as publicity about Homeland Security and ICE ripping refugee children from their parents becomes a national fervor.
June 18 – Berkeley’s Mayor Arreguin, at end of Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting, supports assertion that, despite having worked on the issue for a year, the Berkeley City Council has no authority to prohibit Berkeley’s police from participating in Urban Shield. No one quite knows what happens next.
July 10th – Contra Costa County Sheriff announces that he is cancelling his contract with ICE to hold immigration detainees at the West County jail facility in Richmond, CA
July 23 – Berkeley City Council vote to withdraw Berkeley’s police from Urban Shield loses 4-5, when Arreguin switches his intended vote at the last minute.
Aug 6th – BART Police announce plan for massive, system-wide DAC-like surveillance system including facial recognition technology.
Aug 9th – BART Board postpones action on DAC-like surveillance system, in large part due to efforts of Oakland Privacy getting people to the Board meeting at 9:00 AM. Nearly unanimous testimony against proposals.
September 10 – City of Palo Alto enacts SERO ordinance, the 5th in the Bay Area and 9th nationwide.
Sept 13 – BART Board unanimously passes SERO.
Sept 21 – First meeting of the AlCo task force on redefining Urban Shield.
Sept 27 – BART Board unanimously passes 2nd reading of SERO ordinance, putting it into effect. BART is the first transit agency in the country to adopt a SERO ordinance and the 10th body in the nation.
September 30. SB 1421 and SB 748 are signed into law, imposing significant new transparency requirements on CA law enforcement agencies. SB 244 is signed into law protecting DMV paperwork from 3rd party access.
October 4 – Berkeley City Council removes security cameras from new “smart city” kiosks to be set up in the Downtown area.
October 11 – Oakland Police Commission rejects by a 5-1 vote CPRA investigator Anthony Finnell’s closure of the untruthfulness complaint against Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick. A month later, the Commission fires Finnell.
October 27 – Oakland Privacy receives an award for Protecting Civil Rights from the Bay Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
December 5 – Researchers Mike Katz-Lacabe and Dave Maas at EFF release PRA documentation that drones were used to surveil protests in Berkeley and Richmond CA by the county sheriffs in 2017 and 2018.
Dec 10. Cambridge, MA passes a SERO.
Dec 14. The “last” meeting of the AlCo Urban Shield Task Force results instead of a set of recommendation in another meeting on January 10th, 2019.

2017

Jan 5th – After months of working on the language, OPAC passes SERO unanimously for consideration by the City Council after a public hearing.
Feb 7th – Oakland City Council passes the Stingray use and privacy policy. “The Gold Standard” of cell site simulator policies, according to Brian Hofer.
March – Richmond becomes interested in having a SERO and a privacy commission.
March – Work on modifying proposed statewide SERO by Senator Hill to make it stronger, or opposing it if not.
April – Statewide SERO modified sufficiently for the ACLU and Oakland Privacy to endorse.
April – Oakland Privacy endorses the ACLU bail reform legislation before the Legislature
May 2nd – Email, social media and press campaigns begin to pass the Oakland SERO through the Public Safety Committee, meeting on May 9th.
May 9th. SERO passes the Oakland City Council Public Safety Committee unanimously.
May 16th. Mass showing at Berkeley City Council against Urban Shield. Vote postponed.
May 25. SB-21 (Statewide Surveillance Ordinance) passes out of Senate Appropriations in Sacto after extensive amendments to make it robust.
May. Oakland Privacy’s first newsletter sent out.
May. Oakland Privacy advises Suzy Struble of Piedmont on dealing with the Piedmont Council’s proclivity to put surveillance everywhere in the City, to little avail.
May 26th. California Shotspotter subsidy bill (AB-1559) effectively dies.
May 31st – SB-21 (Statewide Surveillance Ordinance) passes the CA State Senate
June 1st – Oakland Privacy Commission (OPAC) recommends termination of the memorandum of understanding between Oakland Police Department (OPD) and Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE).
June 20th: Berkeley fails to withdraw from Urban Shield, or from NCRIC.
July 11. Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously convenes work group to develop surveillance transparency ordinance for the County. DA Nancy O’Malley supports the process.
July 11. Oakland’s Public Safety Committee unanimously endorses the termination of the memorandum of understanding between Oakland Police Department (OPD) and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and adoption of civil rights ordinance to place all other federal agreements under city policy and Privacy Commission oversight.
July 18th. Oakland City Council nixes memorandum of understanding between Oakland and ICE, generating lots of publicity, along with adoption of civil rights ordinance to place all other federal agreements under city policy and Privacy Commission oversight.
July 26th. The Berkeley Police Review Commission unanimously passes Berkeley’s version of the SERO, forwarding it to the Berkeley City Council for consideration.
August 1. Alameda Board of Supes rejects Urban Shield vendor contract for racial stereotyping
August 16th. Despite nixing of MOU between Oakland and ICE, OPD assists ICE’s HSI division in raid in West Oakland.
August 23rd. Oakland Privacy’s second newsletter sent out.
August 29th. Ben Bartlett, Berkeley City Council, announces that he is once again in favor of getting Berkeley out of Urban Shield. Also, he announces his candidacy for the State Assembly.
Sept.1. SB 21 (Statewide Surveillance Equipment Regulation Legislation), a bill Oakland Privacy put a lot of time and effort into, fails in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Oct 3rd. The ” Transparency and Accountability for City Participation in Federal Surveillance Operations” ordinance becomes law in Oakland. No secret or unscrutinized agreements with federal enforcement agencies any more.
Oct 5th. Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission Chair and OP member Brian Hofer publishes documents establishing that Oakland’s Chief of Police has provided false information to Oakland concerning the Aug. 16th ICE/HSI raid mentioned above.
October. Mike Katz-Lacabe reveals that Freedom of Information Act information he has obtained shows that Alameda County’s hospital, Highland Hospital, has been sending ALPR data of cars visiting the emergency room to NCRIC, the Federal Fusion Center for Northern California, which makes it available to all Federal agencies including ICE.
October. Katz-Lacabe also notes that other information from NCRIC shows that BART has been sending ALPR information to NCRIC, despite having promised to not do so until such time as it is approved by the BART Board. It is later suggested by the BART Police Chief that in the transition to the new Chief the camera at MacArthur station was “forgotten about” and continued to transmit information.
Nov 1. Brian Hofer presents at a conference in NYU Law on ‘Privacy Localism,’ where the hot topic is community involvement with Oakland and Seattle held up as examples of what to do.
Nov 7th. Internal Affairs complaint filed by 8 people against OPD Chief Anne Kirkpatrick for making false statements to the public and the City Council about the August 16 West Oakland ICE Raid. OP members Brian Hofer and Tracy Rosenberg are two of the complainants, joined by attorney Margaret Cunningham, Wellstone Politics Chair Pamela Drake, BBBON cofounder Sharon Rose, Activist Linda Olvera, Rev J. Alfred Smith Jr and Prof. Judith Stacey.
Nov 14th. After a scheduled hearing on the ICE raid at an Oakland City Council Public Safety Cmte meeting was cancelled by the Council’s Rules Cmte, Oakland Privacy and 90 of its friends showed up anyway in an impressive demonstration of the community’s resolve to #DeportICE.
Nov 16th. The ICE hearing is rescheduled to Dec. 5th by the Rules Committee.
Nov 17th. In a power play move, a hearing on the ICE Raid (actually an informational report by the Chief of Police on the ICE Raid) is scheduled using a parliamentary manuever to the next City Council meeting on Nov 28th.
Nov 21st. Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf announced that she would support the Kaplan/Brooks proposal to end all OPD cooperation with HSI and ICE.
Nov 28th. Oakland City Council hears report from Chief Kirpatrick about the ICE Raid. A large number of speakers, including OP members, speak against further cooperation with ICE. Legislation by Kaplan, Brooks and Gallo introduced to prohibit any and all cooperation with ICE.

2016

Jan. Legislation actually creating the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission is finally passed into law. Appointments for the positions begin to be accepted.
March. OPWG presents at RightsCon in San Francisco.
April. It is revealed that BART is planning to install or has already installed Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) at MacArthur Bart as a pilot program. OPWG takes the lead in making a stink about this, testifying before the Board and getting them to halt implementation until a privacy policy and more generally a Surveillance Equipment Regulation Ordinance (SERO) is created and approved.
April 28th. First BART hearing on ALPRs. OPWG members testify against proposed pilot program.
May 21. OPWG presents at Left Forum in New York City.
June 7th. Santa Clara County becomes the first jurisdiction in the nation to pass a Surveillance Equipment Regulation Ordinance
Jun 21st. Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission (OPAC) appointees approved by City Council.
July. The first meeting of the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission happens. Brian Hofer is elected as chair.
July. OPWG presents at the HOPE conference in New York City.
July. Members vote to change the name of OPWG to simply “Oakland Privacy” and to adopt a somewhat revised logo, replacing the “Eye of Sauron” with a digitized eye.
July. Meetings begin with Oakland Privacy, ACLU and BART officials and BART police to draft a SERO.
July. Oakland Privacy discovers that CALIBRE Press will be training police in “shoot first” tactics in the Bay Area, and makes a stink, with much press being generated. The Santa Clara sheriff, which was to sponsor the event, withdraws support.
August. The CALIBRE training takes place at a private location in San Jose.
Sept. Oakland Privacy begins working in Berkeley to pass a Surveillance Equipment Regulation Ordinance.
Nov. OPAC passes Stingray (Cellphone Tower simulator) use and privacy policy unanimously.

2015

Jan. OPWG members take part in organizing and protests against San Leandro acquiring an armored vehicle, to no avail.
Jan. Meridith Sward of OPWG creates a Stingray video.
Feb. Santa Clara Board of Supervisors approves purchase of a “Stingray.” This will later be rescinded.
March. Ad Hoc Privacy Committee presents privacy policy to the City Council.
March. FLIR becomes an issue (Infrared sensor on a helicopter) in Oakland.
April. SB 34 (ALPR regulation for California) begins to move through the legislature.
May. Oakland City Council approves privacy policy, technically bringing DAC online despite the Port of Oakland stating that they have no interest in providing funding for it. The City Council also approves the creation of an Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission, whose first task is to be to create a Surveillance Equipment Regulation Ordinance
May. OPWG begins meeting at the OMNI. It had been meeting at the Impact Hub, and before that, at the Sudo room.
June. PredPol (Predictive Policing) becomes an issue in Oakland. Council allocates $150K to purchase software.
Sept. OPWG begins working with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, the ACLU and others to create and pass a Surveillance Equipment Regulation Ordinance in Santa Clara County.
Sept. OPWG begins working with Alameda County Supervisors and the ACLU on an ordinance regulating the use of Stingrays and similar (cellphone intercept technology) by County law enforcement.
Oct. OPWG members testify at Berkeley City Council against Tasers.
Oct. OPWG members testify against Urban Shield participation by Berkeley to the Police Review Commission, to no avail.
Oct. OPWG members testify at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors as to the nature of Stingrays and in favor of strict regulation.
Nov 3rd. OPWG members testify against appropriating money to give OPD 121 additional shotguns to no avail.
Nov 17th. Alameda County Board of Supervisors passes a Stingray regulation ordinance, allowing deployment only with a warrant and with other, significant restrictions.
Dec 16th. Berkeley City Council votes not to enact a moratorium on Urban Shield participation by BPD. OPWG members testified in favor, created blown up photos (e.g. “Black Rifles Matter”) and created a video that was shown.

2014

Jan 3rd. OPWG has a booth at First Friday, one of a few over the course of the battle against the DAC.
Jan. Santana chooses Schneider Electric as the Phase II contractor.
Jan. DAC opposition grows. OPWG meetings, held weekly at the Sudo room, start to have dozens of people show. Brian Hofer joins the group.
Jan. OPWG creates an online petition against the DAC. Ultimately it is signed by more than 5000 people!
Jan 24th. A “cease and desist” letter threatening a lawsuit on the basis of irregularities in awarding the Phase 2 contract is created by OPWG and others and ultimately delivered to the Council.
Jan 28th. Schneider proposal comes before the City Council Public Safety Committee, where it is approved 3-0-1.
Feb. Rally and march against the DAC, with giant rat puppet and posters, organized by OPWG. Cat Brooks, Mollie Costello, and Dan Siegel speak at rally.
Feb. Negotiations amongst City Council members, the ACLU, the EFF and OPWG are held
Feb 18th. More than 50 people testify in unanimous opposition to the DAC, including a number from the Lighthouse Mosque. City Council discusses scaling back the system to only handle Port Security and emergencies, then votes 6-0-2 to postpone a decision for two weeks.
March 4th. After unanimous public opposition, the Council voted 5-4, Mayor Quan breaking the tie, in favor of a Port-restricted DAC. Had Quan voted against, or had Mayor-to-be Libby Schaaf abstained instead of voting ‘no,’ the DAC would have been killed outright.
March. Stingray (cellphone surveillance) and ALPR (license plate reading technology) are raised as potential issues for OPWG.
May. Ad Hoc Privacy Committee is formed, chaired by Brian Hofer, to write a privacy policy for the Port-restricted DAC. DAC remains offline.
July OPWG officially endorses the Berkeley ‘no-tasers’ campaign.
Sept. OPWG helps protest Urban Shield, resulting in a decision not to hold the militarized police training in Oakland in subsequent years.
Oct. OPWG members help organize and run “Inside Urban Shield,” a report-back from reporters and others who attended the Urban Shield trainings and “weapons for sale” convention.
Dec. OPWG members lead the charge to fund and acquire an “FOIA Document Scanner.” Josh Smith acquires the scanner.

2013

February. Emails exchanged between SAIC and City officials discussing problems with Oakland’s Nuclear Free Ordinance (see below).
April. SAIC completes Phase I, which “included the Design/build that would include equipment, services and the key City systems’ integration.”
May. The Port of Oakland approves transferring “Port Security Grant” monies to fund Phase II of the DAC.
June. Edward Snowden reveals documents describing how the Federal Government and the NSA have been spying on Americans (and everyone else) without regard to privacy and the 4th amendment.
July 9th. Phase 2 funding for the Domain Awareness Center (DAC) passed the Public Safety Committee on July 9, 2013 and needs to pass full council to receive funding.
July. Current and former Occupy Oakland members become aware of the DAC. A more detailed timeline is here.
July 17th. Ali Winston, investigative reporter, writes an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle about the DAC: “Oakland Surveillance Center Raises Concerns” http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-surveillance-center-raises-concerns-4671708.php
July 26th. A call on the Occupy Oakland calendar “to organize against the DAC” at the Sudo room is listed.
July. The Oakland City Council approves receiving the Port Security Grant funds (some $2M) and gives a sole source, non-bid contract to SAIC to implement Phase II. OOPG members testify against the DAC at City Council. The vote includes a provision that the DAC will not become operational until a “privacy policy” is in place.
August. City staff “discover” (reveal) that SAIC is involved or affiliated with nuclear weapons technology research or support, in violation of Oakland’s Nuclear Free Ordinance.
August 15th. Second meeting to “organize against the DAC.”
August 29th. Third meeting. The group is now called the “Occupy Oakland Privacy Working Group.”
Sept. OOPG changes its name to the Oakland Privacy Working Group (OPWG).
Oct. Oakland City Manager Deanna Santana decides to ask the Council to grant her permission to choose a new Phase II contractor from the set of four Phase I contractors whom they had rejected in favor of SAIC last year.
Oct. OPWG begins to raise opposition to the DAC.
Oct. 13th. New York Times article about surveillance “Privacy Fears Grow as Cities Increase Surveillance” in Oakland and the DAC.
Nov 19th. City Council votes 6-1 (McElhaney objecting) to approve Santana’s request.
Nov 27th. Darwin BondGraham and Ali Winston publish “Oakland Surveillance Contractor Lied On Official Documents” documenting the SAIC Nuclear Free Ordinance coverup. http://tinyurl.com/po4frc9_
December. ACLU publishes CCOPS (Community Control of Police Surveillance), a template ordinance for Surveillance Equipment legislation.
December. First DAC FAQ is created and printed.
Dec. 30th: Al Jazeera published an article about the DAC and the opposition to it.

2012

January. Final grant documents signed.
October. A Request for Proposal to Implement Phase I of the DAC is sent out by the City of Oakland.
November. Contract is given to SAIC.

2011

October 10th. Occupy Oakland forms
October 25th. Occupy Oakland raided and ousted from Oscar Grant Plaza
November 2nd. 30,000 occupy the Port of Oakland

2010

July. Oakland City Council approves the $2.9M grant noted above.

2009

June. City of Oakland representatives signed a document to “Explore the Development of a Joint Port-OPD-OFD-OES Domain Awareness Coordination Center …”
Sept. The Federal government tentatively approved a grant to the Port of Oakland for $2.9M to implement the Joint City/Port DAC.

2008

DAC began with a grant from the Dept. of Homeland Security in 2008 to the Port of Oakland to secure port facilities “from terrorists.”

1999

March. Urban Warrior. A military force “invades” Oakland as a training exercise. A precursor to “Urban Shield.”