Week Eight Takeaways

26 February 2018

Blog Post Discussion:

• Quaid’s Conclusions - the use of body cameras is generally beneficial and will increase “transparency in police-public interactions”, but to work properly they need “strong regulation”.
• Can protect police from false accusations
• Generally good because they help ascertain the truth - Ivana reminds that video is not absolute and is still subject to interpretation
• Shooting of Abdullahi Omar Mohamed - Fight over whether SLCPD had used excessive force or not.
• Dispute between police and news about release of body cam footage - DA refused to release because of ongoing investigation and privacy concerns (for the officers). ACLU sued and tapes were subsequently released by the DA ~ 1 year after the court proceedings. 
• Footage+Article, More Raw Footage
• This shooting is a good instance of protection of the police through the use of body cameras; after body cam footage was released, debate about excessive force quieted down because people could see it was justified, if not warranted. 

Groups recorded through the use of body cameras:

• Perpetrators/suspects
• Victims
• Bystanders/non-suspects
• Police officers

Privacy Questions:

• Should the camera include video, audio, or both? 
• Although in certain cases audio/video may be invasive of privacy, in general it seems that the need for transparency and the increased efficacy of both audio and video supersedes individual privacy concerns. 
• When should the camera be activated? 
• On every time they interact with the public vs. on every time they put on the uniform/always on. Always on could record private interactions (e.g. in the home, using the restroom) and prevents additional privacy concerns. 
• Once activated, when should the camera be deactivated? 
• At the end of the interaction/2-3 minutes after interaction ends vs. at the end of their shifts 
• Should advance notice of activation be required? 
• Yes, but no consent required. Alternatively, notice should be encouraged, but because circumstances may make it impractical, notice should not be required. 
• What happens when someone objects to the use of body cameras? 
• Have a way to censor the identity of the person objecting 
• Consent to their request, but only if the perpetrator has been arrested or otherwise handled 
• Should there be special rules when an officer wearing a body camera 
• interacts with certain types of persons? Or 
• No, it should be dealt with later. However, the footage should be taken regardless of privacy concerns. A type of person could include minors, and the footage would be censored for private content prior to release. 
• operates the body cam in certain spaces? 
• Possibly have them off in private places (AA, churches, homes, restrooms). In the case of a perpetrator being in their home, getting a warrant for access would also include provisions for recording within the home. In other words, home should be excluded unless the officer wouldn’t ordinarily need a warrant or the warrant itself provisions the use. 
• May the body camera be used surreptitiously ? 
• Yes, but only in undercover operations. Otherwise, should be used in easily visible locations 
• How should the video be stored? How long? 
• Encrypted storage with a five year maximum 
• It depends on the circumstances. If it’s a traffic citation, maybe 24 hours to a couple of weeks 
• Who should have access to the camera footage, and when? 
• Public records request required - sensitive information (e.g. minors) may be censored to protect privacy of individuals 
• Should camera footage that is released to the public be redacted or blurred to obscure the identities of certain individuals? 
• Should body cameras be equipped with FRT? 
• It would be helpful, but it would also have grounds for serious abuse. It removes the time/human resources required that make police forces evaluate the need to identify an individual - with FRT, they can do it in an instant. 
• This also leads to the possibility of tracking and removes the need for permission. 
• Use of FRT would identify others who would ordinarily not be identified, e.g. passengers in a car pulled over for speeding.

SLCPD Policy (HB 300): (their answers to the above questions)

• Both audio and video required. 
• Anytime there is an encounter with the public
• Activated until the encounter is over
• Advance notice is not required, unless they are entering a private residence. Notice can be audible or visual (e.g. in a clearly visible position with a red indicator light showing that it is recording). 
• If it involves a victim/witness reporting or discussing a crime and they request that the officer turn off the camera, and that the officer believes they will not obtain the information otherwise and the information outweighs the use of the body camera, the officer has discretion and may/may not turn off the camera. 
• Body cameras never used when talking with/interviewing CONFIDENTIAL informants, or with another undercover officer. 
• Also, body cameras should not be activated when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, the gym, etc.)
• SLCPD has no ruling on surreptitious use of body cameras. 
• Store footage in online encrypted database. Data retained for 6 months minimum, to three years with chance of extension. Any shooting is required to be stored for 2 years minimum.
• Public records request required to obtain footage - however, they are classified as public records. Footage required to be released in a minimum of 10 days in cases involving shootings/violence.
• Violation of any policies could lead to discipline. 

28 February 2018

Recent Privacy Developments:

• US v Microsoft - US requested access to records stored on a server in Ireland. Microsoft refused to help, and told the US to get assistance through Ireland (which would have been possible; US and Ireland have MLAT) to avoid violating Irish law. US argues that because Microsoft is a US based company and has access to the content on the servers from the US, the privacy is accessible through US warrants.

Drones and Privacy:

• Drones themselves are not inherently invasive of privacy, but they can be equipped with technology to make them invasive of privacy (e.g. thermal imaging, ALPR, video cameras, night vision, FRT, etc.)
• What are ways drones could be used to invade privacy by the gov. or by private citizens?
• Recording private moments (spying)
• Follow/surveil an individual - commercial/private drones already have tracking and object avoidance technology
• Stalking & harassment
• Drones have become more of a privacy concern because cost has decreased significantly and will likely continue to do so.
• Drone regulations by FAA DO NOT address issues of privacy

Addressing Drone Privacy Concerns:

• Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) sued FAA for failing to implement privacy issues in their drone regulations. Suit still pending. 
• NTIA adopted voluntary “best practices” for both commercial and private use of drones. Most organizations have adopted these “best practices” but they are not backed by law.
• Give notice of use of drones which collect information
• Do not collect data where operator knows a person has a expectation of privacy
• Avoid persistent or prolonged surveillance
• Make reasonable efforts to minimize flying over private property
• Retain information collected for as short a period of time as possible
• Do not use any information collected for employment, credit, or health care purposes
• Establish a process for people to complain and request deletion
• Limit sharing of information collected with third-parties
• Take reasonable steps to de-identify any information released to public
• Comply with all federal, state, and local laws

Legal sources for redress of possible privacy violations by drones:

• Civil and criminal statutory privacy protections
• Common law privacy protections
• Constitutional privacy protections

State Regulation: 32 states have decided the existing legal sources for redress do not adequately cover the privacy concerns of drone use, and have banned or regulated the use of drones. 

• Idaho - no surveillance, no flying over another person’s private property. Also, no drone use for hunting. 
• Kansas - drones for stalking/harassment = violation
• Louisiana - illegal to use drone w/ video on any school premises or prisons

Drone No Fly Zones: areas where drones are completely prohibited. Similar to firearm prohibitions in cities. Could be for the entire city, or for specific buildings (e.g. hospitals, churches, schools).

Utah Law:

• SB167/HB296 - Use of drones by law enforcement. Law enforcement is prohibited from using drones w/o warrants, places limits on data storage, and prohibits the use of privately collected data. It also authorizes police to shoot down drones, and from using drones within 5 miles of wildfires.
• SB0111

Open Legal Issues:

• Property defense by shooting down drones - ongoing issue, but generally destroying drones flying over one's property is not acceptable
• Right to anonymity - drones with facial recognition technology remove right to anonymity in a way that other technologies (surveillance cameras, body cameras) do not

QoW Discussion:

• Niccolo (No, regulation not required) - comparison to California v. Ciraolo, “drones are not significantly different than airplanes . . . [so the case] should hold true for drones”.
• Drones more readily available, cost less, more mobile, can hover, are significantly smaller, quieter, etc. There’s a difference in technology and ease of use. 
• Court will likely determine that courts are different than airplanes 
• Andrew (Yes, regulation is required) - different technology applied to drones can lead to in-home surveillance