The citizens of San Diego have taken control of surveillance technology away from the police

San Diego is joining a growing list of cities taking official action against the uncontrolled use of surveillance technologies.

Community-led efforts to address potential violations of civil liberties may also result from engagement 3,000 police cameras The San Diego City Council voted Friday to stop police from making unilateral decisions about future surveillance.

Under the new law, the city will convene a privacy advisory board next year that includes community leaders and technology experts. The board reviews future technology proposals as well as existing products and policies to determine their impact on San Diegans’ civil liberties. Under the new measure, the City Council will have the final say on any technologies going forward and will review their use annually.

The regulation is supported by the TRUST SD consortium, More than 30 organizations In the year In 2016, they came together to fight the mysterious use of “smart street lights” discovered by the city. San Diego has approved beacons — incidentally equipped with cameras and other sensors that can be accessed by police — in an initiative designed to lower the city’s energy bills. .

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Falconer ordered the cameras turned off in September 2020 amid a wave of activist attention as new privacy protections were being considered.

Lily Irani, a UC San Diego professor and member of the TRUST SD coalition, told Gizmodo that the privacy groups have studied systems in other cities like Seattle and Oakland to design a broader regulatory framework that includes community approval.

The city council first approved the protections in December 2020 in two separate votesOne to establish a privacy advisory board and the other to make the final decision on the adoption of surveillance technology. Before a mandatory second vote on both measures, TRUST SD spent much of the next year educating local leaders on the consequences of unlimited surveillance and data collection.

The ordinance creating the privacy board received final approval in April. Friday’s vote strengthened the House’s new regulatory authority and gave the Privacy Board a key role in reviewing technologies before they are approved in the future.

The ordinance will take effect after a one-year grace period, which city departments will use to review surveillance tools and programs already in place.

Another TRUST SD member, Genevieve Jones-Wright, told a local newspaper Friday that San Diego was the second city in the U.S. to pass a surveillance ordinance that included a civilian oversight board. Oakland established the Privacy Advisory Commission in 2011. It is called The “golden standard” for social control.

San Diego’s law isn’t a total doom for privacy advocates, Irani said. The San Diego Police Department received two amendments in June that were rejected by community organizers. One is an exemption that covers city employees working on behalf of federal agencies like the FBI. The other holds lawyers Fees in cases filed against the city for violations against citizens.

Police can cite “exciting circumstances” to deploy the yet-to-be-approved technology. In policing, this typically refers to situations where there is a reasonable belief that someone is going to be hurt or killed, or where evidence of a crime is about to be lost. According to the statute, the definition is somewhat broader, including “damage to property.”

Irani’s claims by police that the Third Amendment exempts any warrant-authorized surveillance equipment appear to be a non-starter with city leaders. Trust SD opposed the amendment, saying judges were “ill-equipped to make real-time decisions about the effects of these technologies”.

The consequences of data collection can be far-reaching, she says, adding that tech companies often distribute and sell personal data in undisclosed ways.

“Regulation and transparency are tools for community input,” Irani told The San Diegans, adding that the goal is not just to give subject matter experts a chance to understand. “That’s how I see it. Rather than having experts advise the council, it is a tool to organize and implement democracy through technology.

Irani said the support of Council President Pro Tem Monica Montgomery Steppe, who represents District 4, was especially critical to ensuring the coalition’s victory.

“This whole issue is when the next technology comes down the pike and members of the community talk about it — or know that one is happening — even if some private funder or donor is paying for it,” she said. “If they really don’t want this thing, they’ll really push those they choose.”

The US Congress is currently passing its own comprehensive Privacy Act, the US Data Privacy and Protection ActIf passed, it would override many state and local privacy laws. The most recent draft, however, contains an exemption for local laws intended to regulate electronic surveillance, including facial recognition software.