<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Approval for citywide surveillance now scheduled for July 30.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><strong style="color: rgb(128, 0, 0); font-size: large; font-family: Arial; ">The Domain Awareness
Center began as a federal grant for port security, but has expanded to include
more of Oakland. </strong></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><font id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2" face="Arial">
<div class="subtext-area">
<p><a href="http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/07/a-proposed-citywide-surveillance-center-in-oakland-is-delayed-as-opposition-builds/">http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/07/a-proposed-citywide-surveillance-center-in-oakland-is-delayed-as-opposition-builds/</a></p>
<p>The approval of $2 million in federal funding for a citywide surveillance
center in Oakland was postponed to July 30 as opposition to the controversial
proposal slowly gains public awareness and criticism.</p>
<p>The agenda item first presented in an Oakland City Council Public Safety
Committee received little vetting by the some council members when it was heard
July 9. It also attracted no public comment that night. However, in the
past week the issue has gathered energy as some city advocates question the
proposal, they say, may further infringe on their privacy, in addition, to it
lacking any guidelines for its use and possible expansion.</p>
<p>At Tuesday’s Oakland City Council meeting, the director of the city’s
emergency services, Renee Domingo, said no standard operating procedures
currently exist for how the system known as the Domain Awareness Center (DAC)
will be employed, if approved by the council. In addition, the city and port are
in the process of studying various public records and data retention
requirements in relation to the DAC, said Domingo. Later, she added there
is doubt whether the DAC will function as a center for data storage since the
feeds it will pull in already come from sources with their own
retention rules.</p>
<p>The DAC was first approved by the City Council in July 2010 following the
allocation of federal stimulus dollars for security at the Port of Oakland. The
$2 million outlay before the council this month represents phase two of the
program which, according to a city staff report, has ballooned from covering the
port to other parts of the city, including street cameras and various other
locations, including schools and the Coliseum. Approval would also allow the
city and port to seek out other agencies to provide additional video feeds to
the DAC, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Caltrans,
among others. During the Public Safety Committee meeting last week, staff also
indicated plans to partner with other statewide and federal authorities for
inclusion in Oakland’s DAC.</p>
<p>Privacy advocates say the DAC’s ability to become a clearinghouse for
numerous video feeds from a panoply of government agencies, along with a torrent
of data sources, including information and statistics from law enforcement, sets
a dangerous precedent in a city beset with a police department, which in the
past, has routinely infringed on citizen rights and has paid millions in
settlements for their actions.</p>
<p>“[There are] huge opportunities for abuse here, too,” Oakland resident Joshua
Daniels said Tuesday night. “We’re talking about giving a surveillance system
for the entire city over to, perhaps, the most abusive police force in the
country.”</p>
<p>Gwen Winter, another Oakland resident speaking during public comment said,
“This has nothing to do with crime. This has nothing to do with terrorism. What
you want to do is watch what all the people are doing so they won’t
organize.”</p>
<p>Following revelations brought on by Edward Snowden over the federal
government’s ability to spy on Americans, Sandy Sanders urged for the council to
maintain a delineation between the city’s data and other agencies. “Our data is
our data and your data is your data and those should be separate. Do your job in
government and protect us.”</p>
<p>A few public speakers took fault with Councilman Dan Kalb’s comments in
committee last week when he concluded his statements on the DAC by saying,
“sounds good to me.” In response to the public outcry Tuesday night, Kalb said,
“This is not a fault or a criticism, but I’ll only say, I wish all the people
who were here today were at the public safety committee a week ago. It would
have been more helpful.”</p>
<p>The City Council may have been caught flat-footed by the amount of criticism
against the DAC Tuesday night. Councilman Larry Reid moved to delay the item to
July 30. Councilmember Lynette Gibson McElhaney, who sits on the Public
Safety Committee, agreed. Reid asked staff for additional research on the
proposal before adding, “Given that we can’t even get our freaking phones
working for our police officer…and now we want to add this additional technology
when there’s only two to three years for maintenance?” He also criticized the
public safety committee for not properly vetting the item.</p>
<p>Councilmember Desley Brooks said the item should have never been placed on
Tuesday’s consent calendar. “It was only supposed to go on the consent calendar
if it wasn’t controversial and clearly there are people who have a different
opinion.</p>
<p><br></p></div></font></blockquote></body></html>