Archive Page 2

If We Care For Survivors, Surveillance Technologies Must Be Heavily Regulated

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.

Letter to Council re Surveillance Ordinance CB 118930

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.

Sawant is a privacy badass; some hope for Dems

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

Tell City Council that Feds Must Follow Seattle Law

Call for action: Demand transparency related to federal government surveillance in Seattle

tl,dr

Email the city and insist that city employees document cooperation with federal requests for surveillance cameras.

Details

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
transparency.

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.

Membership meeting 1/30; meet Seattle CTO

Hey Seattle friends of privacy!

It’s all true: The New York Times reports that President Obama admin today permitted NSA to give raw (that is, unminimized to protect privacy) 12333 surveillance to FBI/CIA/DEA/etc., and here’s the buried lede: “…if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department…”.

Furthermore, Rudy Guliani is going to be our nation’s CyberCyber!

Only seven days remain until a junta takes over the surveillance state.

This calls for action. Take a first step by meeting the Chief Technical Officer of the city of Seattle: a good person to talk to about how we can make our own city a refuge.

Please join us at our first general membership meeting of 2017!

When: Monday, Jan 30 545pm – 745pm
Where: Greenwood Library ( 8016 Greenwood Ave N, Seattle, WA 98103)

We will be in the main library meeting room, right as you come in the front door on the right. Free parking is available underneath the building until library close at 8pm; the #5 Metro bus stops directly outside the library going northbound.

Our special guest this month is Michael Mattmiller, the CTO for the City of Seattle.

Like all general Seattle Privacy meetings, the public is most welcome.

Meeting agenda:

– Open meeting with welcome (545pm)

– Intro Michael Mattmiller, CTO for the City of Seattle

10-15 min on role of city CTO generally, background of Mr Mattmiller prior to this position

30-45 min on current City activities as regards privacy (incl some limited Q&A):

– status of Seattle Privacy Initiative
– Seattle City Light programs of late,
– status of SPD mesh network downtown (still hopefully off, but?)
– SDOT networks downtown – what do they do, where are they?

Second Hour: – An open discussion on a day in the life of a Seattleite: the privacy perspective
– daily tasks/activities from privacy perspective for ‘avg’ Seattle resident
– areas of risk
– usual tradeoffs (and why choose one or another)
– mitigation strategies

– wrap up, meeting adjourn