After the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, many voices were raised in Syracuse and around the county advocating for transparency in policing and technology that is used by law enforcement and other government departments, among many other things. Syracuse Mayor Ben Walsh then continued his dialogue with residents and community groups regarding police reform and government transparency.
In December 2020, Mayor Wash signed an Executive Order directing all City Departments to follow the City’s new surveillance technology policy. The goal of this policy is for Syracuse’s “citizens through their representatives to have a say in technologies that surveil the city and ensure that those technologies are implemented in a safe and well-governed way”.
This post will build on our previous blog post that described this Executive Order and the process for reviewing departmental requests for new technology. In this post, we will offer an update on how this has begun to work in practice and go in-depth into the three technologies that have been put through the committee this year.
Responsibilities
The Executive Order set up the Surveillance Technology Working Group, which at the time of this writing, is a mix of nine City employees and six members of the community. These members were selected by the mayor, with recommendations from senior staff. This group meets every two weeks to review technologies that departments in the City of Syracuse are requesting to support their work.
The group first assesses the technology to help determine whether a proposed technology falls in the category of surveillance technology or not. The group is also given the responsibility to do an initial audit to define technologies currently used or owned by the City as surveillance or non-surveillance.
After the group reviews potential technologies, they provide recommendations to the mayor on whether the systems reviewed should be implemented. They are also responsible for keeping and maintaining a technology audit list. This audit list will track all technologies that go through the group.
Technology Review Process
The process to review a proposed technology starts when the leadership of a city department completes the Surveillance Technology Request Form. The information obtained from this form is brought to the group to help determine if this technology falls within the category of surveillance technology or not.
If it is determined not to be a form of surveillance technology, it proceeds to the typical procurement process. If it is determined to be a form of surveillance technology, a press release explaining this potential technology is drafted, and it is opened up for public comment for a period of at least two weeks.
The group also invites the requesting department, and occasionally the proposed software vendor, to a meeting to obtain information as necessary. The group researches what other cities have done regarding similar technology and tries to locate policies that other cities have put in place to help ensure maximum privacy.
After the public comment period has concluded, the group reviews the comments. The group forwards relevant questions to the requesting department to try to get more information. The group also analyzes the comments to help gauge whether the people that responded were generally favorable or not in favor of the technology.
After these steps, the group gathers to discuss the information that has been obtained so far and holds a vote. The group also determines if they feel that any stipulations should be put into place to provide additional privacy support for the proposed technology.
Members then vote either in favor, in favor with stipulations, vote against, or abstain from voting. After this vote, a letter of either recommendation or non-recommendation of the technology is drafted and sent to the mayor for his review in his decision on whether or not to pursue this technology. A quick recap of the technologies that the group has reviewed as well as the recommendations that were made are listed below.
Image courtesy of Flock Safety
Automatic License Plate Readers
The Syracuse Police Department (SPD) requested that they be able to use Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) to help capture still photos and also vehicle license plates to aid police with investigations and the apprehension of suspects after criminal activity has occurred. ALPRs are cameras designed to scan and identify license plate numbers of vehicles that pass by.
The SPD identified 27 locations where they would like the ALPRs to be placed. The public responses were divided just about in half, with 45 people that responded having positive comments about this technology, with 44 residents having negative comments.
The group focused a lot of their research and discussions on the areas of data sharing (who data can and cannot be shared with), permissible uses of ALPR technology, how long data can be stored, policies addressing technological limitations of accuracy, and requesting that the police report it’s ALPR policy online, and information regarding how the data being collected would be used.
The group reviewed the existing SPD Policy for the use of Vehicle Mounted License Plate Readers, a draft policy regarding ALPRs that SPD created with assistance from Lexipol (a technology company that focuses on first responders), as well as draft legislation of ALPRs provided by the NYCLU.
This technology was recommended to the mayor to be adopted with certain stipulations to protect privacy, which SPD will have to implement before they can use the technology.
Image Courtesy of Samsara
Video Camera’s Installed in Department of Public Works (DPW) Vehicles
The Department of Public Works (DPW) requested that cameras be installed in DPW vehicles to provide camera images along routes. DPW staff shared that this technology would assist the DPW in tracking their vehicles and ensuring safety and accountability for their crews. DPW staff also shared that the Samsara technology includes sensors that connect to the vehicle's computer which provides global positioning services (GPS) to be able to track where vehicles were, information about how much gas is in the vehicle, when the oil needs to be changed, the speed of the vehicle, and if the driver is wearing a seatbelt or not.
DPW staff shared that if a resident makes a complaint that sanitation workers did not pick up their garbage, this technology allows staff to review the camera footage to determine whether the garbage was set out at the time that the DPW truck drove by the address. DPW staff also shared that this technology helps the city investigate if the sanitation vehicle is involved in an accident or if a resident makes a complaint about their vehicle being damaged by a sanitation truck.
The group worked together to create a list of proposed guidelines to direct the use of this technology. This technology was recommended to the mayor to be adopted with stipulations formalizing who can access this footage.
Courtesy of Fotokite
Tethered Drones for use with Syracuse Police
Another technology that was requested by the Syracuse Police Department (SPD) and reviewed by the group was using Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to provide a different perspective during crisis response. This technology was requested to be used if looking for a missing or endangered person, at a crime scene, a car accident, and situational awareness at other large events.
The vendor that the SPD was considering using for this was Fotokite, a tethered drone company based in Syracuse, NY. Tethered drones are drones that are physically connected to an object, in this case, a vehicle. Tethered drones can only fly up and down and cannot move from side to side.
It was shared that Fotokite drones do not have facial recognition capabilities. The SPD shared that this technology would follow the current drone policy with a few minor changes. The group voted on this technology and unanimously approved its use.
Next steps
We look forward to continuing to work with our community to use technology that can help our local government be more efficient, but in a careful and ethical manner. In addition to reviewing new technology requests that are made by departments, the group will be doing an initial audit defining technologies currently used or owned by the City as surveillance or not.
If you would like to explore more information about the technology decisions that the group has made, view the public comment data, view meeting minutes, or see a list of current members, you can explore the group’s website here.