 to strengthen and help rebuild trust between the community. Thank you so much for considering this again, and I urge you again to push this forward. Thank you for your comments. Thanks for being with us today. Shahid Boutar, am I even closer? You're not too far off. Shahid Boutar. I appreciate you asking. Thank you. My name is Shahid Boutar. I'm the Director of Grassroots Advocacy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. And I'm here both to thank you for your leadership and I urge you to forward the proposal to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable recommendation. There are a few points I'd like to make. The first is that around the country, law enforcement agencies have sought forgiveness presuming permission to deploy essentially military tools in communities without prior approval from local legislators like yourselves. And without particularly the post-deployment assessment and oversight necessary to ensure compliance with constitutional limits. In that context, legislating affirmative requirements for acquiring, using, or beginning the procurement process for new surveillance technology is imperative to protect the rights of your constituents. And there are three particular points I'd like to make here. The first, with respect to the device neutrality of the proposed ordinance, that is to say future-proofing it, it is important to require forgiveness, permission rather than forgiveness because the pattern and practice of law enforcement agencies around the country is precisely to acquire first, use, and then ask questions later. It's worth noting that SB 34 and 741, two of the measures that the Sheriff's Office cited as potential concerns for preemption, this ordinance does nothing more than ensure the going forward effect of those state measures, which were pegged particularly to two pieces of technology, automatic license plate readers, and sting rate devices, which have been used by law enforcement agencies in the state for nearly and in some cases over a decade. What the California State Legislature did last year was try to close the barn doors 10 years after the horses had left. Future-proofing this ordinance is critical to make sure that does not recur and there certainly are not preemption issues at stake here. We do have some ideas with respect to the definitions, both to tighten them, specifically adding communications and biometric to the list of proposed definitions and some ideas that might narrow them to address some of the undue burden concerns. Thanks for considering this. Thank you. And again, we have any written information can go either to our clerk or to my staff and we would appreciate it. And before we take the next speaker, in the baffling category, I know we had a card from somebody with the investigators association and somehow it is not still in the pile. So if you would just fill out a card again and hand it to me, I apologize for making you fill out the card twice. Welcome, sir. Hi. My name is Michael O'Brien and I'm a resident of Santa Clara County and also a ACLU board member with the Mid-Ponential Chapter. And I'm just here to stand in support of the ordinance and to urge you to push forward and to a vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for being with us. Next speaker. My name is Gary Schwartz. I'm a resident of Palo Alto and a volunteer with the ACLU. And I've been here several times for previous hearings on this ordinance. And I am very pleased that it has gotten this far and I would not object to its going forward. But if it does go forward, I will repeat a comment I had, I believe at the last meeting, which is it's not clear what happens, what the requirements are with regard to transfer of data to third parties. And I'm in particular concerned with ALPRs, where it seems to be widely available. There was an article in the R's Technica website three or four months ago in which they had obtained every record from Oakland. And I believe they got it from Vigilant, but I don't actually remember how they got it, but they got every ALPR record from Oakland. And it seems to me if that would be possible for Oakland, it might be possible for Santa Clara County. And somehow that has to be covered in a use policy. And it's not clear to me that the current state of the ordinance requires that. It doesn't exclude it, but it doesn't seem to require it. So I want to thank Supervisor Summiting for all your efforts in this area. It has been very impressive, and in particular your efforts with regard to the shallows long ago. How many months now? Six? Request to request. Thank you, Mr. Forrest. Tracy Rosenberg to be followed by Michael Winnington. Ms. Winnington, as soon as you handed in your second card, I, of course, front the first one. And then to be followed by Paul Donahue, and then by Isan Noor. And I believe that is all of our speakers. Welcome. Hello. One more time. I've been down here several times to talk to you about the ordinance. Tracy Rosenberg from the Oakland Privacy Working Group and for Media Alliance. I'd like to address three points fairly briefly. The first is the Request to State Bills 741 and SP34. And I bring those up specifically because I travel to Sacramento on several occasions to testify on behalf of those bills. And what I want to clarify in this space is that those bills were transparency equipment ordinances. They were very specifically set out requirements for usage policies and usage audits. Exactly the same process that we are seeing in this ordinance that we are considering today. So the idea that they would preempt or contradict or in any way were not congruent with each other is not an accurate statement. And it's important because we are walking in the path of several trends both statewide and nationally that have been going on in terms of how do we provide oversight for the use of this equipment. So we are not jumping out into someplace where no one else has ever gone. We are in fact following state and national trends. We're just trying to do so in a global way so we don't have to pass seven different ordinances for seven different kinds of surveillance equipment this year and then next year pass seven more ordinances for what develops in 2017 because your time is too valuable for that. I would encourage you to take a look at the letter in your packet from my colleague, Brian Hofer, who is heading the ad hoc Privacy Commission in Oakland. I've gone through a process where they have created several privacy policies that are again ordinance specific and there are some helpful comments in there I think just one more second about the correct definition of burdensome and if you look at the issue of pre-clearing things in advance and if you look at the issue of knowing with certainty what permitted uses are and aren't then I think you can maybe redefine the word burdensome into not having to guess and lowering the opportunity for the kinds of mistakes and abuses that happen, that have happened. Thank you at this point. And that we've seen happen. So thank you. Thank you again. All right, Mr. Whittington, thank you. Welcome. Thank you. I was actually going to give her one of my minutes. There you go. Thank you. My name is Michael Whittington from the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Investigators Association. I will not take much of your time. I'm just here to say that I'm currently opposed to this measure as it's currently written from a labor standpoint. For my investigators, it is very important to me that their future, whether there's something intentional or accidental in the process of doing their job, does not force them into a misdemeanor court violation or something where they are facing, basically losing their jobs. And I know this is a very long-written document and a lot of analysis is going into it by us, but at this current measure from a labor standpoint we are opposed. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Whittington, I just want to underscore for you the fact that the language involving a misdemeanor is very clear about the fact that it has to be, it can only be a misdemeanor to intentionally use county-owned surveillance technology for a purpose or in a manner that is specifically prohibited in a board-approved use policy or without complying with the terms. And I just want to underscore for you the concern that we had in drafting to say that means that if you were charged, anyone were charged by the district attorney, they'd have to prove that there was an intentional misuse and that there was an intentional misuse in a manner that was specifically prohibited. So a pretty high bar for a misdemeanor. And I don't expect you to change your mind. I just want to make sure people understand that that consideration was taken into the drafting of the document. Yes, sir. And I noticed a lot of that. However, I did notice that a lot of the verbiage, almost anything can now be considered surveillance from a Google Earth to a Twitter to a Facebook. All these things are changing every single day. And I am not here to say that we are not for oversight. We are not for accountability, far from it. We are all for that because in our association, the ultimate accountability is in court for us. So we don't want to violate those things. But by having a vague or broad topic where there could be some type of thing that could trip us up, that could cause tremendous issues later down the road in a criminal prosecution, as well as on the labor side as far as how our investigators do work. So simply put, at this current state, we're opposed. And I just want to say thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. Next speaker is Paul Donahue, to be followed by Asan Noor. Hello there, Paul Donahue. I want to thank you again for looking into this ordinance. And I'm glad that this ordinance, as you said earlier, doesn't hamper the appropriate use of surveillance technology because there are appropriate uses. It just really makes the decision on what's appropriate and what's not a public decision where people can give feedback and take part in the debate. One concern that I have is on Section 9, as you've probably heard a million times. But I'm concerned about perpetual exigencies because, for instance, terrorism is kind of an ongoing concern and that involves a danger of death or serious physical injury. And I'm just concerned that rather than making the report required after the beginning of the exigencies, it's after the end of the exigencies. And if it never ends, no report would ever be required. So that is one area that I would suggest improvements. But overall, I really do think this is a great ordinance and I hope that you recommend it to the board. Thanks. Thank you very much for your comments. And I believe our last speaker is Asan Noor. Welcome. I'm Asan Noorbach, resident of San Jose. I wanted to support... Can I ask you to speak right into that microphone? There you go. So I'm a resident of San Jose. I wanted to support the ordinance. And it increases the public's trust and not only the purchases of surveillance equipment, but also how they're actually used for that. I'm very thankful. The opposition by the District Attorney's Office regarding the great burden caused is honestly a cause for alarm by itself because if the county is considering using so many surveillance equipment that just bookkeeping is not feasible, then we already might have a problem. So thank you. Thank you for your comments. And again, thank you for being here. Let me just make sure before I bring the matter back to our full board, excuse me, to our full committee that we have all of the cards. The clerk has no more cards. Anybody else from the public who wants to speak? Gentlemen, any additional comments either of you would like to make? Mr. Walsh? No. Okay. Supervisor Chavez, comments, questions, thoughts? Thank you. I would like to ask just a couple of questions.