📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

A Delicate Balance: Privacy Vs. Protection Issue | Summary | Methodology | Glossary | Background | Discussion |

Published: February 09, 2017 135 pages Consolidated Report

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 5 findings

The County of Santa Clara passed an ordinance in 2016 requiring agencies to adopt policies related to any surveillance technology before such technology is acquired or activated. The ordinance also requires agencies to issue annual reports explaining how the technologies are used and what they discovered.

The County and cities in San Mateo County have not enacted any ordinances governing their acquisition and use of surveillance technology, or the accessibility, management, or retention of the information acquired.

The County and cities in San Mateo County do inform residents about the use of some surveillance tools (Automated License Plate Readers and Body Worn Cameras) at public forums and city council meetings: • City or Town Council meeting or staff reports posted on website: Atherton, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco • Public meeting or Town Halls: East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, Sheriff’s Office • The City of Menlo Park mentioned also having used social media for this purpose.

With the exception of Burlingame, which borrowed ALPR technology, the cities and the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office have complied with the law requiring ALPR users to “conspicuously” post a link to the ALPR usage and privacy policy on their websites.

With the exception of the City of San Mateo, the generic ALPR policies posted by cities and the Sheriff’s Office do not provide specific information that helpful to residents.

Recommendations 4

R1

In addition to providing a conspicuous link to usage and privacy policies on operator websites (as required by law for ALPRs), all law enforcement agencies in the County should create an easily accessible and simply written information webpage by December 31, 2017, which lists the types of surveillance tools (such as ALPRs) and investigative tools (such as ShotSpotter and body worn cameras) utilized by the agency. At a minimum, such a webpage shall include these details about each tool: • What is the use and purpose of the technology, such as assisting in ongoing criminal investigations, locating missing children, or locating stolen vehicles • Who is authorized to collect or access the data collected • How the system is monitored to ensure that the data are secure • Who owns the surveillance technology • What measures were taken to ensure the accuracy of the data • How long the data will be retained
R2

All law enforcement agencies in the County shall increase the number and types of opportunities for community members to voice support for or opposition to any proposed addition of new surveillance technologies including, but not limited to: • Surveying residents to better understand their concerns about law enforcement’s use of surveillance tools and address those concerns in public meetings, Town Halls, Neighborhood Watch sessions and other local gatherings. • Using social media platforms such as Nextdoor© to keep residents engaged and informed about surveillance technologies and its uses in your community.
R3

Staff shall bring to the city or town council (in the case of a police department or police bureau) or the Board of Supervisors (in the case of the Sheriff’s Office) a policy or ordinance for consideration at a public meeting by December 31, 2017. Such ordinances or policies should require, at a minimum: • Plans to acquire new surveillance technology be announced at public meetings and other forums to ensure that the community is aware and engaged when new technology is under consideration. • Any “use policies” related to surveillance technology be readily available and easy to access on the city or County websites. • Oversight and accountability be supported by posting periodic reports on the effectiveness of the surveillance tools used in the community.
R4

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable with an explanation therefore. Cityof Menlo Park 701 Laurel si., Menlo Park. CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.rnenlopark.orq