Oakland Considers a Privacy Policy for its Domain Awareness (Surveillance) Center

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/oakland-considers-privacy-policy-its-domain-awareness-center


The Bad


This policy isn’t perfect, and the bad pieces deserve attention as well.
First, in the policy ultimately presented to the City, the City Attorney added some language to the “policy purpose” to soften it up. The language isn’t necessary, and it appears to exist only to emphasize that the policy is limited.


Throughout the process of working on the privacy policy, EFF critiqued aspects of it that we were concerned would affect free speech. Since the DAC can only be used during the list of "allowable uses" defined by Section VIII of the policy, that list became critical. For a while, the working draft included “riot.” This might sound reasonable, until you learn that the California definition of riot is simply 2 or more people working together to disturb the public peace. Fortunately, that was removed. However, the policy continues to include “Supply Chain Disruption” and
 “Street Racing/Side Show” in the list.


The former is particularly concerning because the Port of Oakland is no stranger to demonstrations. In fact, the Oakland Police Department’s response to a 2003 Port of Oakland demonstration was the basis for the lawsuit that ultimately required OPD to follow a court-monitored crowd-control policy. These demonstrations could ostensibly be treated as “supply chain disruptions,” which would mean the DAC would be active and used to monitor the demonstrations.


Furthermore, the policy does not (and really, could not) fully address information sharing. To do so would require a full understanding of the relationship between Oakland and other agencies and every possible avenue of information-sharing. Oakland hasn’t made this easy, by claiming exemptions to California’s Public Records Act when people make requests for information about the relationships, such as contracts and training manuals.1


Nonetheless, as we noted in our March 4, 2014 letter, we do know that Oakland participates in a Joint Terrorism Task Force with the FBI and “participates in the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), a Department of Homeland Security program.” That’s why the idea that DAC has no relationship to fusion centers isn’t particularly realistic. UASI is one of the primary funders for the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), the regional Bay Area fusion center.”


What’s more, the Oakland Police Department in the past, and the Oakland Fire Department currently [PDF] staff the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center. We're concerned that these relationships will undermine the policy—but we hope that the reporting requirements will help show whether or not information-sharing is actually happening.


Similarly, the policy didn’t directly address the problems with racial profiling outlined by Black, Arab, and Muslim Oakland residents at last year’s city council meetings—partly because the issue is so big that one policy about one piece of law enforcement technology could hardly begin to do so. Ultimately, though, the limitations on the DAC in the policy will hopefully restrain the ability of OPD to use it for racial profiling.


That being said, the Privacy Policy Committee recognized some of the shortfalls, and made further recommendations to the City Council.

• Amend the city’s whistleblower ordinance so that anyone, not just employees, can report abuse, and increase the ways whistleblowers can report.
• Pass a new surveillance equipment ordinance, that would require “Informed public debate about any surveillance technology proposal prior to acquisition or pursuing funding,” something EFF and ACLU strongly recommend as law enforcement use of surveillance technology continues to spread.  
• Create a standing “Privacy Committee” that would draft a citywide privacy policy  and look at proposed changes to the DAC before the council. 

Oakland’s Public Safety Committee will consider the policy tonight. From there, it will go to the entire city council for approval. If you support it, especially the pieces that require a city ordinance to be enacted to be effective, contacting the Committee, and the ultimately the entire Oakland City Council, is a good idea. We'll also provide an update of what happens at the Public Safety Committee tonight.


__________________




Port (DAC) is an extension of rights erosion.  I believe it to be preparation for civil unrest/revolution/economic devastation/disaster/extreme peril.  In their policy draft, some of these negatives are included/referred to as, "Major Emergency." (https://oakdac.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/final-draft-of-oakand-dac-privacy-and-data-retention-policy-oakmtg/).


Is it really just another form of population control being employed in a rapidly changing city/area?