April 11th, 2017 by yawnbox
By Jan Bultmann and Christopher Sheats
Our city has committed to protecting immigrants, refugees, and the many thousands of other vulnerable populations. We argue that this is not possible without strong privacy oversight, safeguards, and enforcement. The local privacy community urges Seattle’s leadership to set aside for the moment the discussion of our Surveillance Ordinance and any amendments to it, and instead to develop an ordinance that holistically addresses the government’s role in data collection, retention, and sharing.
Why pause now? The ACLU of Washington has proposed a stronger version of the existing bill, which has been watered down by multiple revisions that remove the many critical elements including independent oversight, auditing, reporting, and enforcement requirements. But even with the ACLU’s original, stronger proposal, the foundation of the bill is inadequate.
We now live in a very different environment than when the Surveillance Ordinance was first crafted, although it has only been 3 years. This legislation was drafted in response to the public outcry that accompanied the Seattle Police Department’s acquisition of drones without public knowledge. Council chambers were repeatedly packed with demonstrators. After having wasted $82,000 dollars, the drones were ultimately decommissioned. The Surveillance Ordinance was successful to meet that immediate challenge.
Now we promise vulnerable people that we are a sanctuary city that will defend their human rights. We are literally in the crosshairs of a hostile federal government, one that has been shown to disregard local regulations and make backroom deals with city agencies. For example, putting cameras on City Light poles in direct violation of our existing surveillance law, putting nothing in writing, and further, evading any form of FOIA or PDR process.
“As a sanctuary city we have a greater obligation to protect private citizens.” — Kshama Sawant
We have autonomous cars coming, including wireless car to car technology, wireless car to infrastructure technology, and the lobbyists that come with them. We have facial recognition technologies coming and the lobbyists that come with them. We will be seeing the largest developments of these technologies within President Trump’s term.
Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative clearly states:
By 2017, the City of Seattle will work with community-based organizations to support the movement to end structural racism.
We can tell you that the City has not asked the Seattle Privacy Coalition for input on how we might accomplish this, and we are well into 2017. Further, CTAB-Privacy has not been asked for input on these amendments by the Council. How can Seattle’s Surveillance Ordinance go on to exempt technologies designed and purchased for surveillance? Do black lives really matter to Seattle when data collection, retention, and sharing technologies are historically and routinely purchased in the name of defense but used offensively?
If we do not hold ourselves accountable, a government for the people, how are we going to ethically govern the use of these technologies when they are funded, deployed, and managed by third parties? How is Seattle going to defend our human rights if we have a “surveillance ordinance” that is not adequate for the complexity of a major municipality? Common sense demands that we broaden the scope to include all forms of data collection, retention, and sharing. This would eliminate splitting hairs on terms that exclude any technology not specifically purchased to support law enforcement.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a legal digital rights organization that maintains an umbrella grassroots organization called Electronic Frontier Alliance. Last week we discussed surveillance ordinances under development in more than 11 municipalities across the United States. The Seattle Washington ordinance was cited as being “well-intended but weak” whereas the Oakland California legislation was cited as effective because their draft legislation includes provisions for independent oversight that are fundamental to all controls, auditing and reporting requirements, and enforcement options such as the public’s right to sue for privacy harms. We strongly advise that Council review the Oakland California ordinance.
The Seattle ordinance MUST include oversight, auditing, reporting, and enforcement, and it cannot be limited to a false notion of what is or it not for surveillance. Without these fundamental changes, we are a sanctuary city in name only. With federal access to municipal databases unmonitored, unchecked, and unreported, anyone who makes use of a city service is vulnerable. When privacy is by design and policies are made to support the most vulnerable in our city, we, in effect, defend everyone’s human rights.
As defined by Seattle’s Privacy Program, we have a Privacy Review Process (PDF) that we can leverage for all forms of data collection. All forms, because there cannot be a lack of transparency and accountability. This must be baked into a Data Collection, Retention and Sharing Ordinance. Every act by the City that takes in information should have a corresponding unique identifier that must be published so that anyone can learn more about the data being collected, what it is being used for, and who is responsible for it. This will build trust. In line with Councilmember Sawant’s wishes to pull down foreign cameras from City utility poles, people have the right to be informed about what their government is collecting about them and their community. We should have the ability to learn about and to respond to our government in constructive ways. With the City’s drive for increasing open data and community engagement, why haven’t we started doing this yet?
Please do not pass the watered-down Surveillance Ordinance rewrite into law because it will cause more harm than good. Instead, we urge the City Council to reach out to local community organizations such as the Seattle Privacy Coalition, Electronic Rights Rainier, and the body that the City Council assembled to advise them on technical issues, the Community Technology Advisory Board, to create a bill we can all be proud of.
April 11th, 2017 by yawnbox
By Christopher Sheats
In Seattle tomorrow, City Council will be discussing Surveillance Ordinance amendments originally proposed by ACLU of Washington and watered down by the council. The Surveillance Ordinance would be incredibly deficient if we passed these amendments. Of primary concern, there are multiple exemptions that are *crazy* if you were to juxtapose a United Nations privacy report.
Surveillance technology does not include:
(a) technology used to collect data from individuals who knowingly and voluntarily consent to provide, or who do not avail themselves of an opportunity to opt out of providing, such data for use by a City department;
(b) social media sites or news monitoring and news alert services;
(c) a body-worn camera;
(d) a camera installed in or on a police vehicle;
(e) a camera installed in or on any vehicle or along a public right-of-way used to record traffic patterns or traffic violations or to otherwise operate the transportation system safely and efficiently, including in any public right-of-way;
(f) a camera installed on City property for security purposes;
(g) a camera installed solely to protect the physical integrity of City infrastructure, such as Seattle Public Utilities reservoirs; and
(h) routine patches, firmware and software updates, and hardware lifecycle replacements.
In February, I spoke along side ACLU of Washington lawyers, University of Washington lawyers, and a domestic violence survivor at a public hearing in our state capitol to support an ACLU bill limiting Automatic Licence Plate Readers. Domestic violence survivors’ privacy, specifically their physical location privacy, is paramount to them and their families. Further, many survivors are victims to police men and women, making this under-served population a critical voice in discussions concerning surveillance technologies. At the hearing, A women with incredible courage showed up to educate the committee about her and the other 5,000+ Address Confidentiality Program participants. With permission, below is her testimony.
As content on our website is licensed using Creative Commons, please feel free to use share her testimony to further privacy rights.
Madame Chair, and members of the committee,
I am here today to discuss a part of my life so terrifying that, at times, I have actually contemplated writing a horror movie script.
Please forgive me, but by the end, it will make sense to today’s hearing.
I am here as a participant in the Washington State Address Confidentiality Program, ACP for short.
You will never understand, nor will I ever be able to convey the fear and torment that one individual can deliver. His words are still etched in my mind: “No woman is going to tell me, a man, what to do.” When trying to end a relationship, what I got in return was physical abuse and psychological terror. I would see him outside my home, my work, at my children’s school or stalking me in my rear-view mirror.
At times, he would convey to me each and every way or place he could have killed me that day.
I discovered that he had made duplicate keys of both my home and my car. Changing door locks didn’t matter. He still got inside. He was letting me know that he was in control.
My oldest son and I would eventually bobby trap our doors when we left, to more easily determine if he might be inside when we returned.
And though time, our much-loved pet cats disappeared one by one.
I lived through death and kidnapping threats to my children’s lives. I feared for my own life.
And in utter, desperate fear one night, I called a helpline, told them of my situation, and was advised to leave the state immediately. I did. On their advice, I gave my house keys to a friend, told nobody where I was going, put my kids and some clothes in my car, and drove to a state where I was offered protection.
I thank you so very much WA for the ACP. I no longer have to be afraid. It took me months but I no longer have to fear looking in my rear-view mirror.
This is hopefully the end of my desperate story.
But now, I want you to clearly understand one implication of unrestricted ALPR technology
I am here representing a vulnerable part of society, those who live in domestic violence situations. My ex-boyfriend kept telling me that he had connections to the police department, that there was no place to hide.
What if that was true? What if someone like me, couldn’t hide ever?
With unrestricted and retained ALPR data that becomes a real possibility.
I want you to consider the lives of spouses of law enforcement who might be in a domestic violence situation. My tale of torture existed because my stalker knew where I lived. Please protect your citizens, all your citizens, from potential location abuse. Please put restrictions on ALPR data.
April 10th, 2017 by Jan Bultmann
Today I sent the following email to the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans Committee of Seattle City Council, speaking only for myself as an individual, not for the Seattle Privacy Coalition or board.
(The board is currently discussing possibilities for a unified position on this legislation that we could endorse as a group.)
I strongly encourage anyone interested in privacy to contact the committee with your own thoughts on this issue.
Dear Councilmembers Gonzales, Burgess, and Bagshaw,
I’m a 30-year resident of Seattle; I live in Councilmember Bagshaw’s district, and I work for Google in the cloud computing division. Previously I have worked for both Microsoft and Amazon on documenting online privacy and security issues.
I am the Chair of the Board of the Seattle Privacy Coalition, and I am a former LA to Councilmember Bagshaw and former Councilmember Sally J. Clark.
I’m writing to call on your committee to discuss and vote for the strongest possible version of the ACLU’s amendments to CB 118930, the Seattle Surveillance Ordinance, and to follow that by tackling the issue of strengthening protections from data-gathering software or hardware that is purchased for reasons other than surveillance.
I am absolutely opposed to council passing any version of this bill that fails to mandate oversight, reporting, auditing, and enforcement (enforcement through such mechanisms as the right to sue for privacy harms).
Finally, please be aware that even the strongest version of the amendments to the ordinance submitted by the ACLU address only a small subset of data-gathering technologies. The world of data-gathering is moving so quickly that technologies not purchased for the use of surveillance can easily become surveillance technology, particularly when information from multiple technologies is combined and shared.
This is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed, since we are now literally being pressured by the federal government to provide information on people for use in deporting them, while at the same time promising those same people that we will protect them as a sanctuary city.
The city must vigorously enforce its privacy program and hire an effective and committed Chief Privacy Officer as soon as possible.
I participated in an Electronic Frontier Foundation call last week in which grassroots activists from around the country discussed surveillance ordinances they are working to enact on municipal, county, and state levels. Seattle’s was cited as “well-intended, but weak.”
Please, help change how people talk about the hard work you do to protect Seattlites, so that they call this legislation “a brilliant model for other municipalities to follow,” instead.
January 29th, 2017 by Jan Bultmann
With a few very notable exceptions (Mike O’Brien), it has been a huge uphill battle to get Dems at any level of government to acknowledge need for privacy protections or oversight of big data use and sharing, or protection from federal overreach. (Indeed, we had some city council staff openly laughing at us before the Snowden revelations.)
(Councilmember Kshama Sawant deserves special mention for having been on top of this problematic issue since her first day in office, but of course she is not a Dem.)
I have high hopes of the new party leadership in Washington state however, Tina Podlodowski and Joe Pakootas, and now that Mayor Ed Murray is taking a very unambiguous stand on our sanctuary status, hopes that we might get some enforcement teeth in our municipal surveillance ordinance and start setting some precedents. (Such as the right to sue over privacy harms.)
Surveillance most harms vulnerable populations such as immigrants, survivors of domestic violence, and people of color — the people we offer sanctuary.
Here’s a round up of coverage on Sawant’s committee meeting that started investigating federal cameras on SCL poles last week:
Video of the committee meeting
Sawant Blasts Secret Federal Surveillance Cameras on Seattle Utility Poles
Fearing Trump administration’s reach, Seattle City Council fights FBIand SPD’s ‘warrantless surveillance cameras’
Sawant wants to strengthen Seattle’s laws against warrantless surveillance
Surveillance on Seattle’s mind in light of Trump presidency
Sawant moves to curb federal surveillance
Seattle City councilmember wants federal surveillance cameras removed
New push to restrict law enforcement surveillance cameras on City Lightpoles
Court Says Location Of FBI’s Utility Pole-Piggybacking Surveillance Cameras Can Remain Secret
January 23rd, 2017 by David Robinson
Call for action: Demand transparency related to federal government surveillance in Seattle
Email the city and insist that city employees document cooperation with federal requests for surveillance cameras.
What: Meeting of Seattle City Council Committee on Energy and Environment. Agenda: https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx…
When: Tuesday, January 24, at 2 pm
Where: Council Chambers at Seattle City Hall (601 5th Avenue, at Cherry)
Why: Of interest in the agenda is item #2:
Warrantless Surveillance Cameras in Seattle: How to protect
the privacy of Seattleites and reverse the proliferation of
surveillance cameras installed by the Seattle Police
Department and Federal law enforcement agencies on SCL
polls in public space without democratic authorization or
As many of you will know, Seattle currently has legislation about surveillance equipment on the books. Currently, however, federal agencies ignore it (because it doesn’t apply to them) and use city resources to put up their own cameras. Seattle Privacy has documented several cases where the ATF or FBI entered into informal, off-the-record, verbal agreements Seattle City Light employees allowing the placement of cameras on utility poles.
We support the committee’s study of this issue call on the committee members to back corrective legislation.
What you can do
Attend the meeting if you can, and speak out during the public comment period.
If you can’t attend, you can submit a public comment by emailing the committee members:
For example, you might feel that…
- Any agreements between federal and city agencies regarding surveillance equipment should be written down and FOIA-able.
- The public should know who makes the call to allow ATF cameras.
- The lack of transparency in the city’s dealings with the federal government is at odds with our status as a sanctuary city.
We’ll be at the meeting, and hope to see you there.