►
From YouTube: Committee on Government Operations on June 19, 2020
Description
Docket #0683 - WORKING SESSION: An ordinance banning facial recognition technology in Boston
A
A
Good
afternoon
I'm
city
councilor,
Lydia
Edwards
chair
the
Committee
on
government
operations.
It's
Friday,
June
19,
June
10th,
and
we
are
here
today
for
a
virtual
working
session
on
docket
O
683
ordinance
banning
facial
recognition
technology
in
Boston.
This
matter
was
sponsored
by
councilors,
whoo
and
ricotta.
Excuse
me
counselors,
whoo
and
yoyo,
and
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
May
6
2020.
A
The
committee
held
a
public
hearing
on
June
9th
and
heard
testimony
from
the
Boston
Police
Commissioner
William
bras
members
of
the
ACLU
Massachusetts,
the
student
immigrant
movement,
the
Boston
Teachers
Union
and
many
other
organizations
and
individuals.
At
the
hearing,
the
committee
learned
that
the
Boston
Police
Department
does
not
use
facial
recognition
technology
because
it
is
not
reliable
and
does
not
meet
the
standards
of
Boston
Police
Department.
A
The
committee
also
discussed
in
her
testimony
about
the
inaccuracies
of
facial
recognition,
technology
and
discriminatory
tendencies
in
accordance
with
the
government
with
Governor
Baker's
March
12
2020
executive
order,
we're
modifying
how
we're
going
to
meet
in
this
particular
working
session.
He
has
modified
the
open
meeting
law
which
allows
us
to
meet
via
zoom.
This
enables
the
City
Council
to
continue
its
responsibilities.
The
public
may
watch
this
meeting
via
livestream
at
WWE
and
gov
slash
City
Council
TV.
A
It
will
also
be
brought
casted
at
a
later
date
on
Comcast
8,
/
r,
CN
8
to
slash
Verizon
1
964
for
public
testimony.
Written
comments
may
be
sent
to
the
committee
email
at
CCA,
GEO
at
Boston
gov,
and
will
be
made
part
of
the
of
the
record
and
available
to
all
councillors.
If
enacted,
the
docket
would
oh
six
306
83
would
ban
the
use
of
facial
surveillance
by
the
city
of
Boston
or
any
official
in
the
city
of
Boston.
The
proposal
would
also
prohibit
entering
into
agreements
to
obtain
facial
surveillance
and
from
third
parties.
A
We've
been
joined
by
Kade
from
the
ACLU,
who
has
we'll
be
discussing
some
amendments
and
we've
also
been
joined
by
several
members
of
the
Boston
Police
Department,
who
will
be
discussing
amendments
or
representing
the
department's
reaction
to
amendments
I
assume
for
the
for
the
ordinance
and
also
expressing
support
or
not
so
what
I'd
like
to
do
now
is
turn
it
over
to
my
colleagues.
If
they
have
any
opening
remarks,
I
see
we've
been
joined
by
councillor
Janey
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
councillor.
Well,.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
really
want
to
thank
you
you're
working
session
on
the
fair
housing
ordinance,
and
so
this
is
really
in
an
effort
to
make
sure
that
everyone's
on
the
same
page
and
has
conversation
about
the
specific
language
before
heading
into
the
last
meeting
of
the
month
and
I'm
grateful
for
everyone's
time
and
efforts.
This
has
been
a
long
process
of
engaging
with
coalition
and
community
over
many
years.
D
I
know:
Commissioner
grass
was
then
serving
in
in
his
role
as
chief
of
police
when
we
first
started
talking
about
surveillance
at
the
City
Council
hearing
several
years
ago,
and
so
it's
been
nice
to
get
to
the
point
where
we're
talking
about
the
actual
legislative
language.
So
thank
you
to
everyone
involved.
I'm
I
know
we
just
have
a
few
small
technical
edits
that
have
been
submitted
to
the
chair
and
feeling
very
good
about
the
shape
of
the
language
overall
Thank
You.
A
Councillor
actually
I
have
a
letter
to
be
read
into
the
record
for
from
councillor
asabi
George
if
I
may
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
turn
to
that
letter
to
the
Committee
on
government
operations,
please
be
advised
that
I
will
be
absent
from
today's
working
session
on
docket
Oh
683.
Regarding
the
ordinance
banning
facial
recognition,
technology
I'm
traveling,
as
my
family
will
not
have
enough
service
to
reliably
tune
in
virtually
I
will
review
the
recording
of
the
working
session.
Despite
my
absence,
I
would
like
to
offer
my
continued
support
of
this
ordinance
from
our
last
hearing.
A
I'm
hopeful
that
this
session
will
strengthen
the
language
in
Section
B
2,
to
ensure
that
it
doesn't
include
vague
language
that
might
allow
surveillance,
faith,
surveillance
technology
to
be
directly
or
indirectly
utilized.
It
is
clear
that
this
technology
is
highly
biased
and
problematic.
Even
if
it
worked
allowing
this
technology
Boston
would
be
a
great
threat
to
democracy,
to
privacy
and
to
living
in
a
free
society.
Thank
you
and
he's
a
sabe
George
city
councilor
at
large
I'll
turn
it
over
then
to
councillor
Flynn.
E
F
Thank
You
councillor
Edwards
I'm
very
happy
to
be
here
to
listen
to
the
discussion.
I
think
this
is
a
huge
step
forward
and
I
command
all
the
advocates
and
and
thank
the
police
and
further
constructive
participation
in
this
process
and
I
look
forward
to
moving
this
forward.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
G
You,
madam
chair
I
too,
would
like
to
specifically
thank
you
for
for
your
quick
work
on
this,
but
most
specifically
the
lead
sponsors
councillors.
Wu
in
Arroyo
I
am
proud
to
support
this
ordinance.
It
is
needed.
It
is
an
important
step,
as
mentioned
this
morning,
as
we
talk
about
sort
of
the
way
that
we
approach
all
aspects
of
Public,
Safety
and
all
aspects
of
our
society.
This
is
an
important,
fair
ordinance
that
will
make
and
will
strengthen
Public,
Safety
and
Trust
in
the
City
of
Boston
so
proud
to
support
it.
H
B
B
The
barn
and
and
I
think
that
when
it
comes
to
a
democratic
society
and
a
society
built
on
trust,
making
sure
that
you
don't
default
to
kind
of
new
methods
of
surveillance,
just
because
they're
available
is
so
so
important
and
and
it's
we
can
have
more
than
a
sort
of
worse
quality
of
life.
If
we
miss
this
Bo
like
we
can,
we
can
really
erode
the
kind
of
community
that
we
live
in.
So
it's
very
important
to
me:
I'm,
a
strong
supporter
of
this
legislation
and
looking
forward
to
the
working
session.
Work
ahead
and
I'll.
B
I
Hey,
how
are
you
can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
okay,
great,
thank
you.
So
much
I
want
to
thank
everyone
as
well
for
the
work,
particularly
the
makers.
I've,
been
part
of
many
of
those
conversations
working
with
councilor
glue
and
councillor
Roy
o,
as
well
as
many
of
the
advocates
in
this
face.
I
think
this
is
really
important.
This
legislation
I
think
it
seems
that
we're
almost
at
the
finish
line
and
so
I'd
be
really
interested
in
understanding.
Just
what
these
final,
the
amended
language
is
because
I'm
hopeful
that
we
can
move
this
through
quickly.
I
A
A
This
is
a
working
session,
so
we
will
be
talking
specifically
about
the
language
what
I've,
encouraged
and
prior
working
sessions
that
we
just
had
is
for
as
we
go
through
the
sections
and
as
we
go
to
the
conversation,
if
you
have
a
comment
on
specific
language,
raise
your
hand
blue
hand
on
the
app
so
I
know
to
call
on
you
and
I.
Ask
that
you
direct
your
comments
to
this
section.
A
Expressions
of
support,
expressions
of
opposition
are
usually
reserved
for
the
hearing,
but
we're
here
to
get
a
lot
of
work
done
and
I'm
trying
to
keep
it
down
within
two
hours
to
get
the
work
done.
I
do
know,
we've
been
joined
and
I'm
okay
with
turning
there's
actually
two
two
sets
of
amendments
that
I
have
received
in
advance.
I
received
amendments
from
counselor
Ohio,
which
was
changing
the
title
and
also
moving
the
effective
date
to
a
different
section,
and
then
I
have
three
amendments
that
will
be
represented
by
Kade
from
the
ACLU
I.
A
A
C
F
C
Its
components
that
will
be
a
great
value
to
us,
but
we're
also
recognizing
the
problems
with
facial
recognition
and
my
understanding
is
the
license-
allows
us
to
turn
that
portion
off
and
I
just
want
to
go
over
briefly
of
two
of
the
components
we
found
valuable.
One
would
be
the
object,
recognition
portion
of
it
that
allows
our
detectives
to
flag
particular
vehicle
or
article
of
clothing
that
they
can
track
through
the
system.
Again,
that
would
not
we'd
not
be
using
the
facial
recognition
on
that.
The
component
of
that
another
one
would
be
the
video
summary.
C
That's
a
component,
don't
give
us
the
ability
detectives
to
minimize
the
lengths
of
the
video,
especially
a
racing
video
with
no
movement
that
would
exploit
the
process
and
save
both
time
and
money
for
the
city
of
Boston
the
department
as
an
example,
that
would
be
video
surveillance
behind
a
bank
instead
of
watching
eight
hours
of
surveillance,
video
where
seven
and
a
half
hours
of
it
are
dead,
they
could
condense
into
30
minutes
of
video
they
could
review.
But
again
we
would
not
be
using
a
facial
recognition
and
I
just
want
to
make
that
very
clear.
J
C
A
C
A
So
what
I
will
do
is
there's
three
then
components
for
amendments
that
we're
gonna
have
and
so
I
will
I
will
we
will
discuss
the
procedural
kind
of
amendments?
I
will
check
with
all
three
groups
my
counselors.
If
they
have
any
questions
about
it,
then
move
on
to
the
three
substantive
from
the
EFS,
represented
by
Kade
from
the
ACLU
and
then
we'll
go
on
to
the
amendments
from
the
BPD.
A
Those
are
the
two
I
think
it's
as
he's
the
as
he
and
counselor
who
are
the
lead.
Sponsors
I.
Don't
know
that
that
is
there
any
issue,
it
doesn't
change
substantively
the
actual
ordinance.
So
very
quick.
If
maybe
raise
your
hand
if
you
have
an
issue
with
that,
otherwise
we
can
move
on
to
substance.
Yet
it's
I
think
no
hands.
Then
let's
go
on
to
the
the
three
substantive
edits.
Hey.
Do
you
want
to
lead
that
conversation.
K
Yes,
Thank
You
counselor,
so
our
colleagues
at
the
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation
in
their
letter
to
the
committee,
suggested
three
specific
ways
that
the
committee
could
make
small
tweaks
to
strengthen
the
language,
to
be
sure
that
there
are
no
loopholes
and
the
ACLU
supports
all
of
those.
So
the
first
is
to
Section
B
to
a
the
addition
would
be
to
append
the
words
so
long
as
such
evidence
was
not
generated
by
or
at
the
request
of
Boston
or
any
Boston
official.
At
the
end
of
that
section,.
A
K
It
might
help
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
about
why
this
exemption
exists
in
the
first
place.
We,
as
many
of
you
know,
have
been
through
this
process
of
passing
a
surveillance
bands
and
v
Massachusetts
municipalities
and
our
work
in
Brookline
was
really
helpful
because
the
chief
of
police
there
was
very
engaged
in
the
process
and
suggested
a
number
of
changes
based
on
his
concerns
about
how
the
original
language
could
have
impeded
routine
police
work.
That
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
Brookline
Police
Department's
use
of
this
technology.
K
One
of
those
is
addressed
in
that
section
in
that
exemption
that
first
exemption,
and
essentially
it
boils
down
to
things
like
wanted
posters,
so,
for
example,
the
FBI
or
another
agency
in
another
state
or
somewhere
else
in
Massachusetts,
may
send
a
wanted
poster
or
a
be
on
the
lookout
alert
to
a
law
enforcement
official
in
Boston.
That
has
a
picture
and
a
name
of
someone
the
police
are
looking
for.
K
Efs
amendment
is
meant
to
ensure
that
that
exemption
does
not
create
a
giant
loophole.
That
would
enable
the
Boston
Police
Department
to
use
facial
surveillance
technology
itself.
So
it
merely
adds
a
clause
that
says
as
long
as
as
essentially
the
BPD
didn't
ask
somebody
to
provide
that
information
based
on
face
recognition
surveillance.
So
we
think
that's
an
important
amendment.
Okay,.
C
K
So
the
second
issue
is
just
clarity.
On
enforcement.
The
ordinance
as
it
stands
provides
that
a
violation
of
the
ordinance
constitutes
an
injury
and
that
any
person
may
institute
proceeding
proceedings
for
injunctive
relief
de
Klerk
declaratory
relief
or
a
writ
of
mandate
in
any
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
to
enforce
the
ordinance.
That's
fancy
lawyers
speak
for
saying
you
can
initiate
a
civil
action.
You
can
sue
if
your
rights
are
violated.
The
FF
suggested
that
we
add
a
sentence
to
the
end
of
that
line.
K
That
says,
a
court
shall
award
costs
and
reasonable
attorneys
fees
to
a
plaintiff.
Who
is
the
prevailing
party
in
such
proceedings?
That's
important
because
it
ensures
that
organizations
like
the
ACLU
that
have
money
and
lawyers
are
not
the
only
parties
that
can
enforce
their
rights
so
that
ordinary
Bostonians
or
visitors
to
the
city,
who
don't
have
money
to
hire.
Lawyers
can
enforce
their
rights
as
well.
A
K
Thank
you
counselor,
so
the
third
amendment
is
basically
meant
to
address.
First
Amendment
concerns,
so
the
language
in
Section,
B,
1
C,
is
meant
to
prohibit
Boston
from
essentially
granting
a
permit
to
a
private
entity
to
perform
face.
Surveillance
on
city
property
and
EF
F
suggest
that
we
add
a
few
words
on
behalf
of
Boston
or
any
Boston
official
to
ensure
that
this
ordinance
doesn't
run
up
against
someone's
First
Amendment
rights
to
use
the
technology.
Independent
of
you
know
the
city's
request.
So
we
support
that
as
well.
K
Sort
of
so
the
idea,
the
the
impetus
for
this
it
may
be
helpful
to
give
a
little
bit
of
a
historical
backstory
here.
The
impetus
for
this
piece
of
the
ordinance
is
something
very
troubling
that
happened
a
number
of
years
back
when
the
Boston
Police
Department
entered
into
a
secret
agreement
with
IBM
the
computer
corporation,
the
software
corporation,
to
authorize
IBM
to
conduct
a
face
surveillance
experiment.
Basically,
on
attendees
of
the
Boston
calling
concert
on
governments
in
their
plaza.
K
This
was
disclosed
by
some
journalists
at
I,
believe
it
was
the
dig
at
the
time
who
reported
this,
and
so
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
nothing
in
the
ordinance
allowed
the
city
of
Boston
essentially
to
join
forces
with
a
private
entity
to
perform
faith
surveillance
in
public.
And
so
that's
what
the
the
section
is
meant
to
address,
and
we
are
comfortable
with
the
FF
suggestion
suggestion
that
we
limit
that
section
to
basically
areas
where
the
Boston
Police,
Department
or
other
city
agencies
are
involved
in
those
those
operations.
A
So
what
it
would
do,
essentially,
is
prevent
maybe
BHA
housing
authority
from
using
it
as
well
as
BPD,
and
anybody
who
works
or
is
doing
it
on
the
behalf
of
the
city
of
Boston.
What
it
wouldn't
prevent
is
lydia
edwards
as
a
assume,
I'm
not
a
public
official
entering
into
an
agreement
with
IBM
my
own
property
and
having.
A
K
Right,
yes,
so
that
is
what
this
ordinance
is
meant
to
address.
The
ACLU
and
our
partners
have
very
serious
concerns
about
commercial
use
of
biometric
surveillance
technologies
as
well,
which
is
why
we
are
supportive
of
laws
like
Illinois's
biometric
information,
Privacy
Act,
which
require
that
any
commercial
entity
must
obtain
your
written
consent.
So
that
is
not
scrolling
down
the
Terms
of
Service
and
clicking
I
agree
to
access
Facebook.
It
is
actually
writing
down
on
a
piece
of
paper,
physically
I
consent
to
Facebook,
taking
my
biometric
data.
K
L
Manners
like
if
I
might
speak
up
for
a
moment.
Sorry
this
is
david
caravan
from
boston
police
department.
This
is
the
first
time
that
any
of
us
have
had
an
opportunity
to
view
these
amendments.
Is
this
a
typical
course
that
that
a
project
like
this
would
take
where
we're
going
to
agree
to
amendments
that
have
been
put
in
front
of
us
for
the
first
time
right
this
moment,
or
should
we
have
an
opportunity
to
review
them,
digest
them
before
accepting
them
into
the
record?
So.
A
The
typical
course
of
how
we
pass
ordinances
is
that
one
we
have
a
hearing
which
we
did
and
we
discuss
all
concerns
opposition
thoughts,
suggestions,
everything
at
that
time.
This
was
presented.
It
was
presented
to
the
committee,
these
suggested
amendments,
and
they
were
also
test.
Folks
testified
about
them.
Specifically,
we
asked
lots
of
questions
about
them.
What
they
would
do,
what
they
wouldn't
do.
The
lead
sponsors
specifically
go
back
and
forth
as
well.
A
We
had
that
hearing
I
want
to
say
it
was
I,
took
us
three,
eight
three
and
a
half
hours
ish
and
then
I
had
to
catch
a
plane
and
then
councillor
Wu
drove
it
home,
and
so
we
had
that
robust
here
and
it's
more
than
a
hundred
people.
We
actually
almost
broke
the
zoom
with
the
amount
of
people
who
are
interested
in
the
conversation
at
that
point
after
you
had
the
conversation.
A
A
hearing
typical
process
then
moves
to
a
working
session,
which
is
what
we're
having
now
and
as
that
is
it's
limited,
the
yay
or
nay
s
and
really
getting
down
to
the
conversation.
Unless
the
nays
are
specifically
talking
about
language,
I
tend
to
really
want
to
get
down
into
the
soup
into
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
of
the
ordinance.
And
then
we
again
further
discuss
get
down
ask
for
amendments.
My
account.
My
colleagues
and
I
ask
plenty
of
questions.
We
go
through
all
of
the
concerns.
A
That's
what
we're
doing
now
and
then
I
see
you
counselor
here
and
then,
after
that
we
can
either
continue
to
the
working
another
working
session
or,
if
there's
agreement
on
the
final
language,
its
presented
in
front
of
the
City
Council
and
then
there's
a
final
vote
up
or
down
so
we're
in
the
middle
of
Isis,
recall
counselor
and
freedom
commissioner
cross
asking
for
a
working
session
and
that's
what
I'm
doing
counselor
Mejia
did
you
want
to
respond
to
I?
Don't.
H
Want
to
I
wanted
to
just
ask
I
just
ask
a
question
or
make
a
recommendation
about
the
amendment
yeah
yeah,
so
I'm
just
really
curious,
and
maybe
just
probably
three
amendments
ago,
but
I
want
to
really
just
make
sure
that
we're
putting
in
some
factors
around
accountability
and
how
we're
gonna
hold
ourselves
accountable
to
this
ordinance.
I'm
just
curious
about
what
that
looks
like
and
I
want
to
just
continue
to
uplift.
H
Our
point:
it
is
to
expand
this
I
know
that
where
this
is
specifically
around
the
Boston
Police
Department
in
Boston
City,
but
I'm,
just
curious
again
what
opportunities
exist
if
any,
to
ensure
that
we're
not
there
was
protecting
residents,
no
matter
where
they
end
up,
because
I
worry
about
folks
who
are
undocumented.
There's
some
issues,
I'm
just
just
really
curious
about.
If
we
are
able
to
utilize
this
time
to
really
hash
that
out.
K
H
H
So
I'm,
just
thinking
about
what
that
would
look
like
I
understand
that
we
have
to
be
really
super
careful
about.
Other
businesses
is
potentially
using
it
because
we
can't
regulate.
We
only
regulate
the
City
of
Boston,
but
I'm.
Just
curious,
like
let's
say,
for
instance,
if
I
have
a
salon
has
facial
recognition
and
in
there
you
know
business
people
walking
by
is
there.
Is
there
I,
don't
know
how
this
technology
works
and
I
don't
know
how
how
much
they
can
capture
but
I'm
just
worried
about
it.
K
You're
right
to
be
concerned,
we
share
those
concerns.
This
ordinance
does
not
address
those
concerns.
Just
to
be
clear,
we
are
limiting
it
again
to
government
conduct
because
a
hair
salon,
while
it
can
spy
on
you
at
one
location
in
the
city,
does
not
have
the
capacity
as
the
Boston
Police
Department.
K
K
Can
you
hear
me
okay,
sorry
about
that,
so
I'm
not
sure
where
I
dropped
off,
but
I'll
say
that
there
are.
There
are
two
primary
reasons
why
we
at
the
ACLU
believe
it's
important
to
start
with
government
conduct
with
this
ordinance.
The
first
is
that,
while
a
hair
salon
or
a
gas
station
could
indeed
use
this
technology
at
its
place
of
business-
or
you
know,
a
private
citizen
could
use
it
at
their
home.
K
They
can't
track
people
throughout
the
city,
so
the
Boston
Police
Department,
the
Boston
Public
Schools,
the
Boston
Housing
Authority.
They
have
networks
of
surveillance
cameras
that
enable,
for
example,
the
police
to
track
someone
from
my
neighborhood
and
there's
a
camera
not
very
far
away
from
my
house,
all
the
way
downtown
and
then,
frankly,
all
the
way,
even
into
Quincy
and
into
Revere
and
into
Brookline,
because
there's
actually
a
region
work
of
surveillance
that
is
maintained.
K
K
F
B
M
K
Off
my
video
okay
Oh
guys
that
is,
that
better,
okay
I'm,
so
sorry
so
I'm
not
sure
where
he
lost
me,
but
essentially
there's
a
network
of
surveillance
cameras
not
just
in
Boston
but
actually
around
the
metropolitan
region
in
Quincy,
in
Revere,
in
Winthrop,
in
in
Somerville
in
Brooklyn.
That
could
enable
this
software
being
used
to
track
people
not
only
as
they
move
throughout
the
city
of
Boston
on
that
network
of
surveillance
cameras,
but
actually
throughout
the
entire
metropolitan
region.
K
So
that
is
a
very
serious
concern
that
is
not
raised
by
one
hair
salon
using
the
technology
at
one
location
in
the
city.
The
second
reason
why
we
were
starting
with
taking
on
government
surveillance
here
is
is
very
simple.
You
know
the
Boston
Public
Schools
are
a
place
that
students
are
required
to
go.
You
have
to
go
to
school,
you
have
no
choice
for
young
people
right
and
the
Boston
Police
Department
has
the
unique
power
in
the
city
to
deprive
people
of
their
liberty
and
actually
even
to
use
force
to
use
violence
against
people.
K
So
as
a
result
of
that
government
conduct
in
the
ACL
u--'s
view
rises
to
a
level
that
requires
immediately
dealing
with
this
surveillance
technology.
Like
I
said,
though
you
know,
we
would
welcome
the
opportunity
to
in
a
subsequent
ordinance
look
at
regulating
commercial
use
of
this
technology
in
the
city
as
well,
and.
H
A
N
Yeah,
thank
you
ma'am
chair,
so
first
I
just
want
to
apologize
for
being
that
I
had
a
family
issue
that
I
did
not
foresee
happening
happening
today.
So
I
had
to
deal
with
that,
but
I'm
here
and
everything's
good
now,
I
just
want
to
say
you
guys
mean
who's
been
on
here.
My
policy
director
and
so
I've
gotten
updates,
as
this
has
gone
on
so
I
feel
kind
of
caught
up
in
up
to
speed.
But
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
to
everybody
here
for
working
through
this
I
see.
N
My
colleagues
here,
I
want
to
thank
councillor,
Michelle
wolf
for
for
being
here
as
well
and
I.
Understand
that
we're
now
at
the
part
of
the
program
with
ACLU
amendments,
correct
all
right,
perfect!
Thank
you.
So
that's,
basically
all
I
want
to
say
I
just
appreciate
everybody's
support
and
work
on
this
and
I'm
just
here
to
make
sure
that
I
don't
derail
or
make
this
any
more
than
has
to
be
so.
Thank
you,
everybody
and
thank
you,
council.
That
was
thank.
A
You
and
we
were
also
responding
I,
think
there
was
a
question
about
process
and
notice
and
having
access
to
these
documents,
so
I
forgot
to
mention
once
they're
part
of
the
official
record
they're
sent
out
in
advance
and
they
should
have
been
sent
out
and
I
believe
I
could
confirm
with
Christine.
Who
is
our
the
committee
attorney
that
they
were
sent
out
to
the
administration,
which
then
subsequently
would
be
responsible
for
making
sure
any
suggested
amendments?
Any
documents
were
also
passed
on
to
the
BPD.
G
A
A
A
C
C
We're
also
consider-
and
we
think
would
very
beneficial
to
us-
would
be
this
video
summary
portion
of
it,
which
can
essentially
cut
down
large
portions
of
unused
video
surveillance
video
we
use.
So
if
it's
an
eight-hour
video,
we
can
knock
it
down
to
ten
minutes.
That
would
say
it
would
be
much
more
effective.
Our
time
and
our
money
again.
J
D
C
No
ma'am
we're
just
trying
to
clarify
is
that
something
you
have
a
problem
with?
We
understand
the
facial-recognition
proportion
of
it
and
you
know
we
want
to
have
this
healthy
conversation
about
it,
but
we're
just.
We
want
to
be
clear,
as
are
you,
okay,
with
the
object
recognition
in
the
video
summary,
so
the
software's
encompasses
a
lot
I.
A
A
C
I
believe
Sean
Romanowski
Zondra
could
speak
more
about
the
software
and
the
availability
of
others,
but
we're
just
with
this
software
itself,
which
is
the
license,
would
enable
us
to
turn
off
that
portion.
But,
like
I,
said
Sean
woman
else,
you
can
probably
speak
further
on
that
than
I.
Could
madam.
D
J
So
yes,
the
within
the
what
we
call
you
know
the
and
that
we've
been
expressing.
There
are
many
features,
and
we
understand
that
the
primary
concern
here
is
facial
recognition.
Facial
recognition
is
an
add-on
module
which
needs
a
separate
license
and
word
operate.
So
what
we're
requesting
is
that
the
that
we
get
to
that?
We
continue
to
operate
briefca
more.
We
don't
even
call,
however,
what
we're
concerned
with
is
that,
by
attaching
facial
recognition
to
read
game,
we
may
inadvertently.
J
We
move
some
very
key.
The
department
is
taking
advantage
of
such
as
their
removes
everything
from
the
background
from
repeating,
and
it
shortens
the
video
to
minutes
from
hours
because
of
the
volume
of
video
that
an
individual
death.you
is
going
through.
The
video
where
this
will
take
an
hour's
worth
of
video,
typically
cut
it
down
to
you,
know
four
or
six
minutes
and
some
instances,
if
it's
a
night
time
that
you
can
cut
it
down
to
seconds.
So
we
want
to
remove
the
discussion
of
facial
recognition
from
the
rest
of
the.
A
Understand
if
I
understand
correctly,
councillor
Wu's
comments
is
that
the
license
or
the
software
to
be
introduced
includes
any
different
options.
There
is
a
facial
recognition
component
of
that
or
face
of
aliens
component
of
the
brief
cam
license,
and
this
I
understand
you
counselor
will
correctly.
This
ordinance
would
ban
the
entire
brief
cam
license.
D
Then
it
feels
then
that
would
not
be
allowed
by
the
ordinance,
but
it
doesn't
feel
that
the
disagreement
or
even
the
the
conversation
that
we're
having
now
is
really
about
questioning
anything
with
the
ordinances
language.
More
just
operationalizing
it
so,
but
I
think
would
be
helpful.
Just
rest
understand
because
you
know
we
want
to
get
past
the
ordinance
to
making
sure
it's.
It's
actually
implemented
what
wait
turn
off
means
and
how
that
will
you
know
if
the
PPD
is
not
is
upgrading?
J
J
D
C
A
M
Just
a
future
consideration,
it's
abundantly
clear.
We
don't
use
facial
recognition,
but
for
future
use,
I
think
it
should
be
considered
a
possibility
that
facial
recognition
can
be
very
beneficial
to
things
that
on
victim
focused
a
missing
person,
an
endangered
person,
someone
who,
like
a
couple
of
cases
that
I
was
personally
involved
in
where
girls
were
missing.
We
know
who
they
were.
We
know
what
they
looked
like,
but
we
had
little
else
to
go
on.
We
were
able
to
use
facial
recognition
down
the
road
when
it
becomes
a
more
reliable
source.
M
K
Thank
You
counselor
yeah
another
concern
that
was
we'll
start
with
the
technology,
the
ordinance
as
written
and
as
amended
as
you
know,
with
the
amendments
that
we've
been
discussing,
prohibits
the
Boston
Police
Department,
every
other
City
agency
and
official
from
possess
facial
surveillance
technology.
So
I'm
very
happy
to
hear
from
the
BPD
that
it
is
possible
to
continue
to
use
brief
cam
without
using
a
license
that
provides
face
surveillance
capabilities
because
that's
required
in
order
to
comply
with
this
ordinance.
On
the
question
of
missing
persons,
I'll
say
two
things
about
that.
K
So
we
are
working
at
the
state
level
right
now
at
Beacon
Hill,
to
try
to
pass
a
statewide
moratorium
on
government
use
that
would
prompt,
we
hope,
bringing
law
enforcement
officials,
civil
rights
advocates
and
others
to
the
table
to
discuss
what,
if
any
possible
regulations
ought
to
look
like
for
the
future,
but
certainly
the
Boston,
Police
Department
and
every
other
agency
should
not
be
using
this
technology.
If
it's
not
regulated
it's
too
dangerous.
K
The
second
issue
is
is
a
little
bit
more
philosophical,
and
that
is
that
in
the
United
States
since
the
founding,
or
shortly
thereafter
when
the
Bill
of
Rights
was
established,
we
have
decided
collectively
that
there
are
certain
things
that
the
government
can't
do,
even
if
it
would
make
solving
crimes
easier.
Certainly,
it
would
be
easier
for
the
Boston
Police
Department
to
solve
crimes
if
they
didn't
have
to
get
a
warrant
before
searching
someone's
home.
K
Finally,
I'll
just
say
that,
yes,
when
we
engaged
in
this
process
in
Brookline,
the
chief
of
police,
there
raised
the
National
Child
search,
assistance,
Act
and
some
concerns
that
the
the
Brookline
Police
Department
would
not
be
able
to
comply
with
that.
If
we
did
not
add
an
exemption
allowing
them
to
comply
with
that
specific
federal
law.
And
that's
why
that
final
exemption
is
included
in
the
package
before
you.
A
M
Circumstance
is
something
that
would
require
immediate
use
of
this
technology
in
the
future
that
wouldn't
be
practical
to
go
through
a
normal
process.
You
know,
an
edges
in
circumstance
would
be
something
very
out
of
the
ordinary,
but
something
that
was
needed
in
the
advance
of
public
safety.
Is
there
something
in
there
that
that
would
allow
the
police
department
in
the
future
to
utilize
this
technology
without
the
process
for
a
specific
stated
purpose.
A
Our
answer,
and
then
I
see
create,
has
a
question
to
also
answer.
So
this
ordinance
is
not
no,
it
doesn't
provide
a
future
one
day
exemption
to
be
considered.
It
is
a
present
day.
The
technology
is
not
here
they
and
therefore,
and
no
one,
including
the
BPD
is,
you
is
excuse
me
BPD
just
had
a
long
working
session
with
the
BPD
I,
the
Boston
Police
Department
is
not
using
it.
K
Thanks
counselor
I
was
going
to
say
something
very
similar.
I
will
just
add
that,
as
multiple
experts
testified
to
machine
learning,
experts,
experts
who
have
audited
facial
analysis,
algorithms,
looking
for
racial
and
gender
bias,
this
technology
is
not
ready
for
primetime
and
that
won't
change.
If
there's
exigent
circumstances,
it
is
also
not
regulated,
and
that
will
not
change
until
the
state
legislature
or
Congress
acts.
K
The
other
issue
I,
think
that
needs
to
be
raised
in
response
to
that
question
is
that
federal
agencies,
including
the
FBI
DHS,
are
not
bound
by
this
ordinance,
and
so
I've
heard
some
concerns
voiced
from
members
of
the
Boston
Police
Department,
like
the
one
that
we
just
heard
from
the
deputy
superintendent
about
you
know:
one-off
horrific
events,
for
example
the
Boston
Marathon
bombing
sword
ins,
does
not
tie
the
hands
of
any
federal
law
enforcement
does
not
tie
the
hands
of
the
State.
Police
is
merely
restricting
Boston
agency
use
of
this
technology.
A
If
again,
if
I'm
clear,
this
ordinance
would
ban
facial
recognition
but
doesn't
actually
prevent
this,
the
BPD
from
getting
or
accessing
the
two
things
that
they
just
mentioned,
object,
recognition
and
time
speeding
up
the
time
or
what
is
it?
Video
summary
excuse
me
and
because
they
simply
do
not
need
to
opt
in
for
the
license
for
facial
recognition.
So
you
can
have
and
continue
the
brief
cam
contract
and
get
those
two
things
and
not
in
turn
to
a
contract
with
brief
cam
or
the
facial
recognition.
A
J
You
know
where
we
can
certainly
do
that.
We
certainly
can
eliminate
the
facial
recognition
portion
of
that.
The
one
thing
that
was
said
is
several
times:
I've
heard
it's
a
possibility
to
open
it
up
when
he
gets
good
enough.
The
one
thing
that
I
want
to
bring
up
is
that,
even
though
I
just
don't
want
anyone
to
ever
believe
that
the
Boston
Police
single
piece
of
information
to
do
any
form
of
action,
because
the
the
facial
recognition
is
typically
only
one
tiny
tool
in
a
case
so
use
many
types
of
technologies.
J
You
know
even
a
witness
statement,
we
would
never
say
never,
but
that
is
only
one
piece
in
building
a
case.
So
the
original
I
think
purpose
of
the
brief
cam
was
only
to
give
an
additional.
That's
not
something
that
we
would.
You
know
we
don't
arrest
people,
because
the
license-plate
recognition
system
there's
a
number
on
it,
but
that
number
has
to
be
verified
because
the
number
could
be
used
in
all
50
states.
So
for
this
license
plate
one
two
three
before
any
action
is
taken.
J
We
have
to
verify
many
one
piece
of
information
and
that's
why
I
don't
want
anyone
to
think
that
it
would
have
to
be
a
talk
on
accuracy.
You
know
we
would
make
action
right
now.
The
intent
across
most
law-enforcement
agencies
is
only
one
small
piece
of
information
big
and
it
sometimes
gives
you
you
know
a
lead
or
a
place
to
look
so
I.
When
I
hear
that
in
the
future
we
may
be
able
to
request
access
to
that,
such
as
it
just
don't
want
anyone.
J
You
know
to
hold
the
standard
that
this
technology
must
be
100
percent
accurate
because,
as
we
all
know,
if
you
cover
up
one
eye
of
an
individual
devil,
significantly
change
it
by
putting
on
certain
makeup.
So
we're
fully
aware
that
makeup
face
mask
glasses,
covered
eye.
All
of
these
things
will
negatively
impact
the
accuracy
of
that
respect.
A
So
I
guess
I
want
to
make
be
very
clear
if
the
ordinance
passes
with
the
suggested
amendments,
I'm,
counselor,
oh
yo,
and
from
counselor
excuse
me
from
EF
FF
and
the
ACLU
if
it
passes
and
therefore
the
ban
is
implemented,
you
can
enter
into
your
contract
with
brief
cam
and
just
not
have
a
license
for
facial
recognition.
Yes,.
A
J
J
My
concern
is
if
something
significant
were
to
happen
and
that
if
we
would
have
that
technology
locked
up
in
a
you
know
in
a
cabinet,
you
know
that
need
signatures
or
what-have-you
I
think
it
could
be
a
very
useful
tool
in
detecting
the
you
know,
the
citizens
up
large
and
that's
the
one
thing
and
I'm
a
technology,
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
part
of
the
policy.
So
from
my
perspective,
we
can
make
those
things
happen
where
we
meet
all
of
the
requirements
or
these.
J
J
You
have
to
build
it.
You
have
to
build
more,
buy
licenses,
get
the
data
data
and
so,
from
my
perspective,
even
if
there
was
only
one
in
the
entire
city.
One
unit
in
the
entire
city
that
had
this
capability
present
circumstances,
I
think
that
it's
a
cool
that
we
all
recognize
that
it
and
it's
not
100,
but
it's
that
one
in
a
hundred
one
in
a
thousand
cases
where
it
may
be
pieces
of
information
to
that
puzzle.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
so
I
it
is
a
working
session.
I
do
know
some
folks
who
are
weren't.
Formal
panelists
may
have
some
thoughts
and
may
have
some
suggestions
as
well.
I
didn't
know
if
they
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
offer
suggestions,
concerns
or
thoughts.
Looking
at
Sabrina,
Emiliano
I
also
know
that
there's
a
Jennifer
and
other
members
of
the
BPD
who
also
haven't
spoken
today.
O
Hi
everyone.
Thank
you
so
much.
My
name
is
Sabrina
Barroso
I'm,
the
lead
organizer
for
the
student
immigrant
movement
I,
want
to
say
thank
you
to
everyone
for
everyone's
contribution
to
this
conversation.
This
is
a
very
important
matter.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
some
perspective
that
I'm
coming
with
and
like
the
story
of
the
people
that
I
work
with.
So
you
know,
I
I,
hear
all
the
words
from
the
folks
at
the
BPD.
O
Thank
you
so
much
for
also
joining
this
conversation
today
and
you
know,
I
I
really
respect
these
concerns
and
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
would
like
to
raise
just
as
a
community
member
is
the
fact
that
you
know
friend
documented
folks.
They
are.
They
are
being
looked
for
right
now,
right
there
Isis
out,
looking
in
particular
for
people
who
are
undocumented.
O
So
when
we
think
about
surveillance,
you
know,
of
course,
we
are
concerned
about
being
able
to
address
these
concerns
in
our
communities
in
regards
to
crimes
and
being
able
to
support
folks
who
are
victims
of
crimes.
However,
I
think
it's
important
to
raise
the
note
that,
as
you
said
right,
you
know,
even
perhaps,
if
one
unit
is
put
in
a
part
of
the
city,
its
capturing
everyone-
and
you
know,
that's
the
sort
of
thing
that
does
really
worry-
undocumented
folks
in
our
communities
and
immigrants
at
large
and
activists.
O
Right
because
you
know
it
is
actually
it
does
actually
happen
to
undocumented
folks.
They
are
targeted
and
we
already
know
right
from
incidences
that
we
have
already
been
able
to
experience
without
facial
recognition
right.
That
information
will
be
shared
about
undocumented
folks.
And
so,
when
you
know
the
community
doesn't
have
access-
and
this
was
a
question
that
we
were
actually
able
to
hear
and
actually
talk
about
was
like
you
know
this
video
footage
or
this
type
of
technology
is
really
only
hands
of
law
enforcement
right.
O
O
J
You
brought
up
something
that
I
want
to.
Thank
you
for
I,
completely
miss
something
in
this
whole
discussion.
What
you're
referencing
is
called
an
active
system.
The
Boston
Police
is
has
never
even
discussed
an
active
system.
You're
discussing
is
a
camera
system
assistant
that
it's
online,
that
use
every
camera
and
then
makes
analysis
on
that.
We
use
it
in
a
very
in
an
inactive
situation.
What
how
it
works
for
us
is.
Every
camera
doesn't
get
put
into
it.
If
we're
looking
or
what
happens,
is
you
grab
a
piece
of
video
footage?
J
So
I
say
it's
from
a
key
and
what
we
do
is
we
put
that
video
in
because
we're
looking
for
something
very
specific,
some
event,
you
know
9:01
call
police
reporter
something
happened
to
make
us
look
once
we
look,
we
then
say:
does
anyone
have
imagery,
for
example,
that's
when
we
would
take
if
believe
that
it
was
a
piece
of
video,
but
then
it
was
in
the
possession
of
the
Boston
Police
Department
or
if
it
was
at
a
store.
We'd
have
a
unit
go
out
and
get
this
video
from.
J
You
then
bring
that
in
and
then
that
is
the
only
video
that
goes
into
facial
recognition.
We
would
be
a
so
the
the
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
hours
of
recorded
video
99
great
much
greater
than
99%
of
it,
goes
in
the
trash
and
is
never
viewed
and
even
a
smaller,
a
much
much
much
smaller
oversight
that
would
ever
be
run
through
an
active
system.
So
this
would
be
an
event
that
made
us
look,
would
be
the
only
time
official
recognition.
J
K
K
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
address
what
Sean
just
said,
I'm
happy
to
hear
that,
but
there's
no
active
use
of
brief
cam
across
the
camera
network.
That's
news
to
me.
That
said,
the
purpose
of
this
democratic
process
is
to
enshrine
in
the
law.
You
know
in
a
legal
protection
and
assurance
that
no
city
agency
will
use
this
technology,
whether
it's
inactive
or
active.
K
A
O
Much
yes,
briefly,
I
just
wanted
to
like
say
that,
yes
and
I
think
that
you
know
this
comes
even
down
to
transparency
right,
like
a
lot
of
the
reports
that
I've
seen
are
not
clear
on
exactly
like
what
people
are
looking
for
right.
The
observations
I've
seen
are
about
like
really
minor
and
things
that
should
not
be
looked
for,
and
so
I'm
speaking
to
like
the
reports
that
I've
seen
that
end
up
in
the
hands
of
ice
right
and
so
like.
O
If
that's
what
we
referred
to
as
like
you
know,
I
see
something
or
how
that
applies
right,
like
I'm.
Just
asking
that
there's
a
trend
like
there's:
no
transparency
on
that
even
right,
so
we
we
actually
wouldn't
know.
So
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
say
that
this
effort
is
to
put
that
in
the
hands
of
the
community.
A
So
at
this
point
we
have
from
what
I
understand:
Ricardo
Rios
amendment,
which
is
more
technical
and
changing
the
name
of
which
I
didn't
hear
much
or
any
opposition.
We
have
three
clarifying
narrowing
amendments
from
PFF
represented
and
the
ACLU
of
which
I
did
not
hear
much
or
any
opposition
or
concern,
and
then
we
have
two
particular
technological
resources
that
the
BPD
a
said
that
they
BPD
Boston
Police
Department,
so
that
they
need
which
include
the
object,
recognition
and
the
video
summary
and
per
just
you
know,
working
session.
A
A
Think
I'm
happy
to
work
on
language,
but
I
think
that's
the
the
how
the
ordinance
works.
We
wouldn't
talk
about
any
contract.
First
of
all,
private
contract
that
you
can
enter
because
brief
can
can
become.
Johnny
can
can
become
Lydia
kam
can
because
so
so
we
wouldn't
name
anybody
privately
and
so
and
I.
If
you
want
specific
language,
it
says
the
BPD
may
enter
into
a
license.
M
M
A
M
A
C
L
D
I'm
I
am
I
mean,
is
it
possible?
We
I,
don't
know
if
you
all
can
access
the
chat
box
since
you're
on
your
phone
or
anything
but
I
assume
that
Neil
Dougherty
might
have
your
email
addresses
or
some
way
to
get
you
the
amendment
language
that
he
already
has.
Would
it
be
possible
just
to
quickly
send
over
that
email
now,
so
we
can
just
clarify
what
we've
already
been
talking
about
throughout
this
session.
C
K
C
K
Thanks
counselor,
so
I
just
have
a
quick
process.
Question
and
I
also
wanted
to
raise
a
concern
about
adding
any
language
authorizing
the
use
of
surveillance
into
this
ordinance.
The
ACLU
would
would
have
a
problem
with
that.
There's
nothing
in
the
ordinance
that
prevents
the
BPD
from
using
brute
Kam's
object
recognition,
so
it
seems
superfluous
and
I'm
confused
about
why
it
would
be
necessary
and
then
on
the
process
question.
K
My
understanding
is
that
if
the
Boston
Police
Department
requests
amendments
or
opposes
the
amendments
that
AFF
and
the
ACLU
have
suggested,
or
that
councilor
Oreo
has
suggested
that
we
would
be
required
to
have
another
working
session
and
I
just
want
to
get
clear
on
that
and
and
I
also
just
want
to
be
clear
on
the
fact
that
these
amendments
have
been
public
and
accessible
to
the
BPD
for
at
least
48
hours.
Is
that
correct.
A
K
C
C
F
D
A
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I've
been
listening
in
I've,
been
here
all
the
time.
I
switched
off
my
camera
because
it
was
interfering
with
reception,
but
this
has
been
a
very
productive
conversation
and
I
appreciate
the
amendments,
thoughtful
and
considerate
amendments.
So
I
look
forward
to
seeing
the
final
document
next
week.
Thank.
F
N
I'm
here
and
I
have
not
been
here
the
whole
time.
I'm
sorry
I
showed
up
so
I'll
watch
the
video
to
make
sure
that
I've
picked
up
everything
that
I,
missed.
I
did
have
staff
watching
and
updating
me
and
so
I
have
a
general
gist
of
where
we're
at
and
similar
to
counselor
woo.
If,
if
BPD
sends
over
an
email,
I'll
keep
an
eye
open
for
it,
I'll
take
a
look
at
it.
N
I
can
try
it
so
sorry,
it
sounds
like
by
noon
on
Monday,
so
I'll
try
and
pay
attention
around
then
and
see
what's
going
on.
Otherwise,
I
just
want
to
thank
everybody
for
being
here
the
whole
time,
because
otherwise
this
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
move.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
y'all
for
the
work
that
you're
doing
and
advancing
this
and
I
look
forward
to
seeing
the
final
product
on
the
floor.
A
Thank
You,
counselor,
whoo
I
think
we're
gonna
address
the
same
thing:
okay,
all
right,
then
yeah
so
to
our
to
the
to
the
Boston
Police
Department,
just
based
off
of
the
way
our
timing
is
and
how
we
file
our
reports.
If
you
can
actually
get
it
to
us
by
Monday
at
nine
o'clock,
your
suggestions
and
get
that
actually
then
becomes
formally
part
of
the
whole
record
and
conversation
and
then
it's
it's
part
of
the
whole
package
that
can
be
delivered
to
the
council
if
that
that
would
actually
significantly
help
the
process.
A
You
counselor
whoo
today
is
that
the
that's
all
you
got
it
okay!
Well,
thank
you
all
for
spending
your
Friday
afternoon
with
us,
and
we
appreciate
the
back
and
forth
and
I
would
honor
I
honestly,
say:
I
appreciate
the
respectful
back
and
forth
and
going
and
being
able
to
discuss
a
controversial
and
an
intense
amendment.
Our
ordinance
in
such
a
respectful,
directed
focused
way
and
I
want
to
thank
all
parties
for
that.