On to Flock in this second thread for the meeting devoted strictly to the Flock item

There's 139 speakers on Flock, per the clerk.

Lt Gabrielle Urquiza is presenting on the "Community Safety Camera Systems [OPD's appelation]"

Urquiza is going through the history of Flock, contract currently is with CHP, about 290 ALPR cams. OPD has an MOU with both Flock and CHP, OPD owns data. In second year, OPD is supposed to take over the contract, but the MOU for CHP is for three years.

Urquiza says they want to integrate additional camera systems "we did look at other vendors...and determined there was only one other vendor at scale...but there would be significant funding required to replace system, with brand new service"

This explains the ALPR, but not the other camera systems.

Urquiza describing how different the current system is from the previous machines. Data retention is for 30 days, retained past that if its needed for an investigation

Flock is not designed to capture photos of people, [but it does capture them along with license plates if people are in the way ]

Urquiza: "the genesis of this is that there's significant surveillance infrastructure in downtown, chinatown, etc..." he says that OPD wants additional cameras for those areas that lack as many private cams.

We'll see if they go into the real-time video data

Again live access...and the use policy does not address the fact that OPD may allow other agencies to view the images and once seen can't be unseen.

On Tier 1 access..."live camera data related to crimes in progress..."

OPD's data analysis is heavy on data, but not analysis

Most of this information seems designed to undermine any argument that surveillance harms non white residents, because its never related back to Flock's capacities. Almost all of this information is available to the public.

Urquiza: "we don't think that Flock is the only thing impacting homicides, but it's a cohesive approach, not just from OPD, but from our partners in the community"

Flock does not claim to be effective at reducing homicides directly.

OPD has already been budgeted for the amount. It won't require "additional funding", it was budgeted to OPD, which had an increased budget this year over last year.

Urquiza: notes that OPD's contract has barred collection of machine learning data and sharing data without consent is considered a breach of contract

I would be worried, were I a committee member, that OPD thinks what they just presented is data analysis related to Flock. This is an emotional argument for Flock, not analysis.

The urgency is that the downward trend of last two years could reverse. That's it, that's the urgency

Nowhere in the presentation was there any linkage of data to use of Flock.

Wang is reading in amendments: "and CAO shall include following provisions: Flock shall not enable a national look up feature; noting that Flock is a profit-seeking entity, I am introducing a financial penalty, providing for liquidated damages, up to 200K per incident"

Wang: 2nd amendment for CS Cameras, CS data shall not be shared for immigration, abortion [all of these are against CA law, so it's superfluous]

Reem Sulleiman, former PAC commissioner

PAC Commissioner Katz

They said there was 129 speakers, so even at one minute each, we are going to be here a while. It's pretty clear that the turn out here is overwhelmingly against Flock, but who knows may be among Zoom speakers.

The Committee lost quorum; Houston on zoom can't count toward quorum, and a CM was excused briefly, and will be back

To be clear, the committee will be back, momentary recess

Committee is back

Former Council Candidate Kanitha Mathoury was jeered for cutting in line. She claims that her store has been broken into and thus needs to speak now.

Mathoury spoke over a minute, as well.

Speaker is from EFF

Jennifer Tran, President of Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, was the fourth person tonight to speak in favor of Flock.

Statement from the Bikery

Former and foundational Police Commissioner Jose Dorado

Chris Moore, the fifth person in favor of Flock to speak tonight, arguing that the overwhelming opposition to Flock is a minority

The first two zoom speakers have been in support of Flock, one was a member of EBRHA, however.

Lots of claims that opponents are spreading misinformation, and not one person has addressed any misinformatory statement

That was it for public speakers.

Now on to deliberation.

Wang asks why OPD bypassed the procurement process [one of the actions in the lawsuit]. Urquiza says that the system was already in place, and looking at others they couldn't have done it. But this doesn't explain why they didn't put it out to bid to prove that.

Wang asks how many cameras, its 290. Urquiza says they aren't asking for any additional ALPR, they are asking for 40 real time pan/tilt cams

Wang asks about the contractual requirement for judicial warrant handing over of data, to City Attorney.

OCA rep, Amidis Sotelo: "we don't know unless we get the subpoena, so it depends on what the subpoena asks for and basis, city would have to evaluate and how we respond..." Sotelo says that there's a provision in the contract to notify Oakland w/in 24 hrs.

Sotelo: "you can't really answer that unless we were to get a subpoena, so its too broad a question

Sotelo says that there could be situations where an image is a public record...in Ca law there is a balance in public interest...it depends on the nature of the specific document asked for...it depends on situation

Fife: "I have not seen a connection with causation from this technology being able to solve issues that make people feel unsafe...I am struggling with a maybe correlation with cameras and a very real possibility of our data falling into the hands of bad actors w/track record"

Fife says that Latino people are being targeted by Trump because w/in 20 years white people will be a minority, "so that scares the crap out of billionaires...we see this from this President who is taking money from these investors in this technology"

Fife: "And I would like the city to do its due diligence and put this out to a competitive bid, so we're not giving a sole source contract to an organization that's been rejected by 27 cities across the country."

Fife says there's nearly two dozen other potential contractors to take on the bid and we should "not support this billionaire that's moving us towards a fascist state"

Brown: "this item is incredibly controversial...I have been listening to every issue, and I definitely hear you, and at the same time I'm listening to the feedback of the voices of the people that didn't make it into the room"

Brown: "as a result of some of this technology we have been able to solve some of the crime...I lost my parents at an early age, and if there had been a technology that could solve the crime..."

Brown is sort of dismissing the reality of 130 speakers, here, saying there's a lot of people who did not know about it and/or could not make it.

Brown asks Urquiza to walk the Council through the claims of the misuse of the data

Urquiza says that he's not concerned about the issues, he says LA has Flock and doesn't have any issues and ICE hasn't appeared again in requests. An easier thing to say here is that no agency has to be honest about why they are searching.

Brown asks how the technology will be specifically used...Urquiza says that the data will be used to solve robberies.

Urquiza noticed its a focused approach, arguing that with the private cameras there are too many barriers to immediate use, saying they lost a robbery suspect because of how much time it took.

Brown: "are there loopholes when it comes to keyword searches"

Urquiza: if a state agency doesn't follow state law, there'd be consequences...he says that they are proactively not accepting sharing requests from the agencies that the PAC said had violated the law [but that obviates what he just said, since there were no legal consequences]

Wang: "which agencies did you stop sharing agreement with..." Urquiza says there's 20...

Brown asks about report backs, Urquiza says there's a lot of information to audit..."we're trying to figure out the best way to audit that information". OPD does not have a process to audit the sharing requests.

Brown: "one thing I would be interested in is a semi annual report about the agencies that have accessed the data and key word searches"

Houston: "the issue that I have what I heard tonight is just the total opposite what I've heard you tell me in the meetings..."

Houston: "is this something that the police department really needs to combat crime?"

I honestly believe one person incorrectly stated that Flock uses facial recognition, but the CMs have really gone to the well on that one over and over again, perhaps because they know its easily refuted

Urquiza says that the community camera system isn't shared, and private cameras aren't stored unless needed for evidence

Houston: "I'll move this item, I'm good"

Wang asked about cyber security/hacking and Urquiza introduced Flock's representative Trevor Chandler, to laughter from audience

Chandler says they are certified under ISO 27701..."we are FBI CGIS certified, that's the Criminal Justice Information Services... certified to handle highly sensitive information"

Urquiza says that they would take the units down if compromised "what happened in Evanston is they chose to end their contract...there was a disagreement about cause..." he seems to be saying it was a miscommunication, tech took it down before resolution

Fife: "I think we can move to action...I want to reiterate that there were 30 billion dollars allocated to immigration and customs enforcement to increase their detentions"

Fife put a motion to put the contract out for bid.

Houston is now asking Urquiza for a "success story" for Flock.

Urquiza says that there was one in San Leandro..."there have been many". Someone from crowd yelled out, "how many"

Wang says that the City Attorney's office reviewed her amendments, Brown asks if the damages part of it will be approved by Flock. Chandler says they've agreed to similar agreements in other cities.

None of the CMs have mentioned today's lawsuit, nor any of the content

Wang's amendments are pretty ancillary, mostly covered by state law and/or already in contract

Wang says "it's our job to hash it out in committee"...[but Wang is on the record for asking that this go straight to council and avoid committee at Rules]

Fife reminds that there is a substitute motion, which is to send the RFP be done. City Attorney says that this contract would have to fail today, then it could come back with RFP

They are voting on whether they are going to forward the contract to Councilk: Brown no; Fife, no; Houston, yes, Wang, yes. The motion fails with two nos, and two ayes.

A total surprise to me, but the Flock contract failed at Committee.