Today from Joe DeVries, the City staffer shepherding our work to the Public Safety Committee:
Hello DAC Ad Hoc Privacy Committee Members and Subscribers,
Please find attached the final report, policy, and resolution that is going to the City Council Public Safety Committee on February 10th at 6pm. As you read the Staff Report you will note that there are three minor additions/modifications to the Policy that are explained in the report. Two of the modifications were for clarification purposes in regard to where the DAC is located to not confuse the reader to believe the DAC is located at the Port of Oakland. The third modification was the insertion of a paragraph by the City Attorney in the Policy Purpose section that they felt was necessary to clarify the City’s obligation to State and Federal Law. Please read the report in its entirety as I believe it is thorough in articulating the Committee’s recommendations. (I will also note that there is a typo we caught late last night in the inserted paragraph, roman numeral VII was used where we meant to use roman numeral VIII. I will be submitting a supplemental report to the committee explaining this error.
This is the committee’s work plus two changes by the Port executive and one change by the City Attorney’s office.
- DAC Privacy and Data Retention Policy 012915 Final
- DAC Privacy and Data Retention Poilcy Reso FINAL 1 29 15
- Final DAC Council Report 012815
Full text below the fold for Joe DeVries report to John Flores, City Administrator, explaining everything, for the proposal itself, and for the resolution that will send this to the City Council for approval:
While it’s not on Oakland’s Legistar yet, our proposal from the Oakland City Council’s Ad Hoc Advisory Committee for the Domain Awareness Center Privacy and Data Retention Policy will be heard at the third meeting of the newly formed Public Safety Committee, Tuesday 10 February. Be there to speak your mind.
DAC Privacy and Data Retention Policy DRAFT 011515 (pdf) is the last contribution by the ad hoc advisory committee. This document will be cleaned up by staff this week for spelling and punctuation, consistent numbering, and formatting. That version will be sent to the City Attorney’s office. The CA will draft recommended changes and those changes and this draft will be queued to the Oakland City Council’s Public Safety Committee for review, public comment, and incorporation of changes based on those inputs.
- Proofing. If you have very light copyedits (spelling, punctuation, missing/extra words, etc.), send them to Joe Devries now.
- Changes. If you want substantive changes to the language or the ideas, draft a memo explaining your proposal to the Public Safety Committee and its members.
- Speak. Speak at the next Public Safety Committee meeting. Critique the policy, its good points, its weak points. Remind them why it’s important to you and your city.
We’re responding to comments and recommended edits from the City Attorney’s office on Thursday, 8 January 2015.
From there, our recommendations and those of the City Attorney will go the Public Safety Committee. They will make their own edits, incorporate some or all of the CA’s edits, and listen to public comment and perhaps incorporate more changes from them. They’ll send a their flavor of the policy on to the full City Council.
So this Thursday may be the last meeting of the committee.
Action: If you want anything changed or explained, I need them before Sunday 4 January at noon (pwolff at gmail or @evanwolf) so I can get them to Joe in time for official distribution on Monday before Thursday’s meeting (public notice rules).
Action: Please point out the most confusing parts.
Action: Please point out any factual errors.
Thanks. – Phil
Even When Police Do Wear Cameras, Don’t Count on Seeing the Footage – CityLab. A review of San Diego’s policy governing shoulder-cam disclosure.
…the department claims the footage, which is captured by devices financed by city taxpayers and worn by officers on the public payroll, aren’t public records. Our newsroom’s request for footage from the shootings under the California Public Records Act was denied.
Once footage becomes part of an investigation, the department says it doesn’t have to release them. SDPD also said during the pilot phase of the camera program that it doesn’t even have to release footage from the cameras after an investigation wraps.
Hearing Room 4. It helps if you read up on the working papers. And we always leave time near the end for public discussion and comment.
These were handed out at last night’s meeting of the Oakland City Council’s Ad Hoc Advisory Domain Awareness Center’s Privacy and Data Retention Policy Committee.