⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 6 findings
F1
The use of Smart Streetlights cameras as previously used prior to September 2020, enhances public safety. Fact: As previously used, the proposed usage of Smart Streetlight camera footage is as an investigative tool only.
F2
A resumption of utilization of Smart Streetlights would not create any valid privacy issues. Fact: Violent crime in the City of San Diego is on the rise.
F3
The recent dramatic rise in crime in the City of San Diego, approaching the level of exigent circumstances, dictates that in the interest of public safety there is an urgent need for San Diego Police to be able to use Smart Street lights.
F4
This exigent need requires one time accelerated legislative action to make needed contracts fiscal appropriations. Ibid. San Diego Police Department Slide Presentation, op. cit. Fact: In 2016, the City of San Diego bought Smart Streetlights Technology financed with a loan from General Electric (GE) in the amount of $30.23 million. Fact: Between 2016 and 2018, the City of San Diego installed some, but not all, of the Smart Streetlights. Fact: Although the cameras are no longer in use, the City of San Diego continues to make annual payments of $2.3 million to repay the GE loan.
F5
The City of San Diego’s continual annual loan repayments of $2.3 million for equipment that is still in the possession of the City but no longer in use, is fiscally irresponsible. Fact: Special interest groups, including law enforcement, are understandably concerned about an invasion of their privacy rights when the government uses new technology. Fact: Privacy Advisory Boards/Boards are good tools to help legislators understand the complexities of new technology. Fact: The April 5, 2022, legislation establishing a Privacy Advisory Board makes no provision for inclusion of representatives from law enforcement or Victims’ Rights Advisory Groups. Fact: Best practices documents state that “city council decisions are more likely to be seen as fair and considerate if all people having a stake in the outcome” are involved. Fact: The City Ordnance establishing the Privacy Advisory Board requires the Mayor to appoint 9 members subject to City Council approval.
F6
A fair, balanced, and unbiased Privacy Advisory Board should include culturally diverse representation from across the spectrum of professions, to include law enforcement, and victims’ rights advocates to ensure citizen’s rights are being protected while enabling law enforcement to continue providing for the public’s safety.
Recommendations 5
-
22-44Page 6Immediately consider issuing an executive order to rescind the previous
-
22-45Page 6Consider appointing members of law enforcement and victims' rights
-
22-46Page 6Consider, in the event the moratorium is lifted, enacting fiscal appropriations
-
22-47Page 7Recognize this immediate action is being taken because of exigent
-
22-48Page 7Approve a composition of the Privacy Advisory Board that includes law
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Diego
City