Welcome back to this weekly meeting of the Health and Safety Committee with Denver City Council.

Coverage of the Health and Safety Committee starts now.

Good morning and welcome to the Health and Safety Committee for March 18th.

My name is Daryl Watson.

I'm honored to be the chair of the Health and Safety Committee as well as the City Council Member representing the following district nine.

Before we begin our meeting today, we have one action item.

And we had a briefing that was canceled.

So if you are here for the municipal sentencing uh policy briefing, that um briefing uh has been canceled and will be rescheduled for a later date.

Um we'll begin with uh introductions from city council members.

I just want to verify uh council members that are online.

Um is Councilmember Torres Online Jamie Torres, West Denver District Three.

President Protestant.

Good morning, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Councilmember Perry.

Yep, hi, Sarah Parity, one of your two council members at large.

Seeing and hearing none less introductions in the room.

We'll start on our right with Councilmember Flynn.

Uh thank you.

Uh good morning, Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver's District 2.

Good morning, Amanda.

Sorry, district five.

Good morning, Paul Cashman, South Tender District.

Good morning, Sedana Gonzalski Tedis, one of your other council member at large.

Good morning, Chantel Lewis District 8.

And good morning once again for the uh members of um the city that are here for the briefing for municipal sentencing.

I'll give a pause because I don't know if you want to sit around for the action item if you don't need to.

So if you are here for the municipal sentencing briefing, uh policy briefing, and you're here to answer questions.

You are free to leave, and I'll give uh teacher pause uh for you if you choose to leave.

We welcome you to stick around and listen to our wonderful dialogue and discussion, but I'll give you a moment if you choose to.

Hi, Reggie.

You did a slow walk, we're gonna keep walking.

So if you're wanting to go back and do your work, now's the time.

Thank you all for being here.

Thank you for being willing to participate in our process.

And with that, um, I'll turn it over to Mr.

Hoffman for our action item is 260246, the Denver Police Department Axon contract for automated license plate plate recognition system.

Uh Mr.

Hoffen, turn it over to you.

As council members know, we've had, I think, four briefings, dialogues, discussions on this.

Um, so Ms.

Hoffman, if you can provide a brief overview, there will not be a full presentation, and then the queue is now open.

Thank you, Committee Chair Tim Hoffman.

I'm in the mayor's office.

I serve as his director of policy.

I'll uh Commander Barnes introduce himself.

Good morning, Cliff Barnes, Commander of the DPD Cyber Bureau.

Uh and we are uh I'm hoping that Teresa Gura from Technology Services will also be able to join us.

Um but she is not here yet.

Uh we were obviously in committee last week uh talking to you about this 150,000 one-year contract.

Uh we requested a delay um of having this voted out of committee to the full council so that we could um keep our obligation to you all by providing you a draft contract um by uh last Friday.

We have done that.

Um happy to um there's obviously with a draft contract, we're doing everything we can to make sure that that contract is signed today and publicly posted.

Um, but given that it is still in draft form, um happy to have um some dialogue and discussion about it.

There will be certain things that um given that it is uh at this point still a draft contract, won't uh be able to talk about in this open setting.

Obviously, happy to have one-on-one briefings, emails, other things like that.

Um did want to um provide just a couple of updates um coming out of last week's briefing.

Um of the things that we heard from uh several council members last week is concern uh with our current vendor flock and whether or not um when those cameras are turned off and decommissioned if they're still able to collect data.

Um we have uh and uh the mayor uh has been involved in it as well.

Um, talked to Flock, and it sounds like in Commander Barnes can um provide additional details.

Um, but Flock will be able to uh come out and begin taking down those cameras sooner than the end of the contract, um, with the goal of by the time the contract term expires at the end of this month, all of the 111 flock cameras will have been physically removed from their locations to try to alleviate some of that concern.

Um there was also um some concern raised around whether or not this technology with our new vendor, Axon, can be used for facial recognition.

Um our technology services folks who again aren't here right now, but I'm hoping we'll um be able to provide a little bit more detail.

Um the system that we have set up with Axon right now and kind of the um the purchasing that we have done for the infrastructure.

Um we don't as a city use facial recognition um technology anyway.

Um but the technology, the infrastructure in the system the Axon has that we have purchased for the city and county of Denver, doesn't have the capability um of if they were to roll out some sort of facial recognition technology a year from now, we don't have the infrastructure or the ability to opt in in any form or fashion.

So um not only is it against our policy anyway, um, but the system and the infrastructure we have with this um with Axon currently uh doesn't allow it, period.

So um just wanted to level set there um the intent, assuming that we can get the signed contract um today uh at this point would still be to skip uh the mayor council process.

So this would um be for uh full city council vote next Monday.

Um I believe that we've already secured a courtesy public hearing for that event.

Um but other than that, happy to open it up for questions and comments and discussion.

Um thank you, Mr.

Hoffman.

I just want to verify that Ben Rubke is online um from Axon and able to answer questions.

Uh promoter, can you verify that he's online if he is?

Can you please promote him?

Because we're moving to our QA process.

I will list the queue in a second, and then we will for thank you, producer.

In the queue we have Councilmember Parity, Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Gonzalez Gutierrez.

We'll start first with two questions per council members, and then we'll put folks back into the queue.

Councilmember Parady.

Sorry, searching for that old mute button.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and thanks, Tim, um and everyone who's here.

Um so I wanted to ask about, I think I'm just shuffling through these a little bit, trying to trying to rank my top two here.

Um first question I have is basically uh I'm noticing um this new um without getting into too much detail about the contract, a new addendum um coming from the city about sort of our internal um policies, um, and that Axon will comply with those.

That's positive and helpful.

Um, and if Tara from Tech Services is listening, I want to thank her for that because I suspect she put a lot of work into that.

Um but here's my concern about that.

There's a lot in here that that requires Axon to comply with our city policies.

Um but we don't have an update to DPD's policies.

So you know, they still refer to Flock as the vendor, um, and they still don't match some of what we've arrived at about um even just retention periods, things like that, or some of what has been under discussion, I should say.

Um so I think uh I I just first want to ask the question that I asked again last week, which is like what is the process for DPD to update their handbook um to match some of what we're what what we're asking the vendor so that for members of the public um they could be confident that um not just that we've gotten the vendor to agree to certain policies, but that we're actually internally um agreeing to those things and intending to enforce them, if that makes sense.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

So I know we had a little bit of a robust discussion last week about this as well.

Uh my intention is to work diligently with the city attorney's office to make sure that the the policy subbing out the previous vendor's name for um perhaps a more generic name just addressing AOPR.

So ALPR, the ALPR policy in existence today is very robust, and a lot of those safeguards and protections uh that I addressed last week will remain in place.

It's really just a naming change, so it's not a it's not a large material change at this point, but uh I will be working with the city attorney's office uh here in the in the very near future to make sure that all those changes are applied and it looks um it's strong in our and a robust policy.

So does our does DPD's internal policy right now, um, because I haven't looked at it like recently enough, so and I apologize for that.

Um does it doesn't say anything about um opting out of new features, right?

That's a no provision.

Go ahead, sorry.

Yeah, I was just gonna say that that control, if we want to call it a control, is is a policy control at this point.

Uh sorry, a contractual control, not in policy, if that makes sense.

Right.

So the contract says to act on that the city um keeps the authority to opt out of features, but we don't have any internal city policy of any kind that um that holds us to that internally, is what I'm getting at.

So we've gotten that from the vendor, but we haven't put that in writing for ourselves towards the public or bound ourselves to that.

Currently, no, currently no, but I'm happy to bring up that top in the office.

Okay.

Um I have a few examples of features like that, mostly in this new appendix D that talk about the city, the things that the city is asking Axon to sort of respect our right to be the decision maker about, but then we internally need to have bound ourselves to that as well.

Um that's one example, but there are a few others like that.

And so that is a concern that I have is um that we haven't done that internally yet, and I feel like for us to have confidence that um the mayor's administration and DPD will continue working with the public council, the task force on that.

Um, I feel like it's premature to vote the contract through without those corresponding protections on this side.

Um that probably counts as two questions, so I'll just stop there for now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Council Member Parity.

Flynn.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm gonna try to package uh all of my questions into two, or maybe get back in the queue.

It's just sort of a roll call of making sure that we all understand um what this contract encompasses and uh and how it's different.

So are all of these things true or are is any one of these things not true?

Um the axon system is a closed system available only to Denver.

And I only have two questions, so don't answer it right away.

I'm gonna hold you to it.

So better call list.

A multi-factor question today.

So uh it's a closed network.

It there is no outside access, and Axon does not have a national network like Flock does.

In other words, a police agency in Texas or Michigan or somewhere else is not able to query our database.

So that that's one.

Those are true.

Okay.

Okay, right.

That guess that counts.

Um the uh if some other agency had a uh uh had a case where they bought maybe a car or a vehicle was suspect was in Denver, how would they query us?

Would they call Denver?

Would they uh how would that how would that happen?

They would call us or or reach out via email, they would be connected with one of our investigative teams and uh those in mess in that investigative unit would find out additional details about the case that's being investigated and um if it's appropriate in that circumstance to share information uh and and collaborate in that investigation, then they would.

The case they're pursuing is a legitimate case that is legal to pursue in Denver, correct?

And if it were not, we would not respond to that request.

Or we respond and say no.

Absolutely.

Right.

I'll get back in the queue.

You are great, council member Gonzalez Guterres.

Let me see if I can fit five questions in one.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so going back to the opt-out um provision, I I saw that in exhibit D, the opt-out language that you were referencing.

Is that that's what you were referencing as far as it's in the contract?

Um so I guess I have a question, and maybe this is for one of our attorneys um about that language, because isn't opt opt-out already give consent versus opt-in means we have to proactively agree to something, opt out as far as like I know in thinking in like school world or like consent world, it's usually you opt out if you don't sign something, so then or you have to sign something proactively to opt out of it, and that means you need to be aware of whatever the new thing is to be able to opt out of it versus opt-in, where they would have to proactively come to us and ask us do you want this new technology or do you want this additional feature?

And then we would have to agree to it.

So we would be notified of it versus opt-out.

I'm worried that we're not going to necessarily be notified, and similar to what happened with Flock, where we were it would have been an opt-out, right, with that toggle button to make sure that we were not sharing on the national network.

And regardless if it's sharing on a national network or or new type of um uh technology that's being implemented through through this tech, it still kind of worries me that it's an opt-out versus opt-in.

And so I don't know if if anyone has any thoughts on that.

I'm happy to take that uh question.

Thank you, councilman.

Uh so if you look at that exhibit D, there's an explicit provision in there that says that they have to give us a certain day's notice before any material system change, and then we list out what they would have to provide us in advance, and then at the end of that section, it explicitly says that they shall not bring any of these material changes online for Denver until they get that consent from us as the city.

Um so we do get the notice of the material changes, and we have they cannot roll anything out in the example that um you brought up without getting explicit authorization from the city.

So that was clearly that is clearly spelled out in the contract.

Okay, council member.

Did you want a legal input from our C CAO or this is satisfied?

No, that's fine.

I don't think I would think you would look at me and be like, no, that's not right.

I think he's fine.

Um and then the the my second question for now um is there's a couple places in the in the language.

Um one is in the the main contract in on page 15, the other is um under exhibit D under 411.

Um, and it talks about unless like requested from so if the request from federal state or local law enforcement agencies or other governmental entities accompanied by a subpoena warrant, court order, or other legal process.

And the other one says, or otherwise required by applicable law, um, when it talks about a subpoena judicial warrant or court order or otherwise required by applicable law.

I just want to know what is covered under these more like broad terms because that was that was an issue that came up during the almost a year ago in the flock contract that was concerning was that I'm glad that this additional language is here because it wasn't there before, it was just kind of more general in the sense of like whatever's required by law, and I'm glad that we're pointing to specific things like judicial warrants and and um subpoenas um and court orders, right?

But I am still worried about the blanket language of or anything else required by law, and and I think we all know why, right?

Because right now our federal government is trying to implement laws that maybe conflict with a lot of things, and so that's still a worry for me, and I'm curious what is covered under those blanket statements.

Yeah, so that subsection subsection four in exhibit D is specifically related to exigent circumstances and emergency situations.

So with any sort of protected information, um, and this is where I will absolutely get over my skis as a former uh not particularly good attorney.

Um but uh maybe we should ask it to um well I'll I'll give the general explanation and then um Jonathan um absolutely can can chime in.

Um so in that subsection four, there are essentially when it comes to either warrant requirements or other um such um circumstances, there are essentially constitutional carve outs if there are exigent circumstances or emergency circumstances, and so that section is specifically related to that.

Um that could encompass um you know any number of things that rise to the level of exigent circumstances.

I will stop with the legal explanation there and allow an actual attorney to answer, and then the only other thing I'll note because this is something that uh the surveillance technology task force brought up and had concerns about as well.

So we reached out to Flock and said and asked them, hey, in the two plus years that we have had you as our vendor for license plate reader technology.

Have you ever in that two uh two-plus year period received a subpoena, a legal demand or a quest under exigent or emergency circumstances for Denver data?

And their answer was no.

Um, and so I I say that by way of saying um it's called out explicitly in this contract because it's something that should be spelled out and um should be discussed.

Um, but I think the circumstances where this comes into play are exceedingly rare.

Um, not to say that it's not important, but I just want to provide that additional context.

So that's under exhibit D, but then in the main contract language on page 15, it talks about the contractor shall not share transfer grant access to or otherwise make available any city databases.

It goes on and on, and um, and it says under this agreement to the United States Department of Homeland Security or its immigration enforcement partners, except pursuant to a subpoena judicial warrant, court order, or otherwise required by applicable law.

So that's another kind of blank.

I see it as like a blanket, and I'm just curious what what would be applicable law.

Like I'm not a lawyer, right?

So that's why I'm asking these questions.

And we got the contract on Friday afternoon, and so I haven't been able to have any other remote robust conversations about the contract until today.

So that is that is the question.

It's like what is covered under that.

Yeah, I'm happy to circle up with um our city attorney's office and um connect with Axon as well and try to get a little get that fleshed out a little bit more for you.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you so much.

Uh Councilmember Cashman.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Um Thanks uh for the update, Tim.

Um along the lines of what uh Councilwoman Gonzalez Guterres was talking about is exactly where I was going.

Uh I think it's uh a dream to think that we can protect our information.

We can provide a few hoops uh that they've got to jump through, whether it be warrants, subpoenas, uh, or any other legal uh uh procedure, but if they want if they want data that we collect, they're gonna get data that we collect.

So um I I don't have a question unless it's you want to tell me that that I'm wrong in that.

Uh so I don't think that there's any data system in the world that is 100% secure and or impervious to either breaches or um you know other extraordinary circumstances, right?

Um so I I I'm not gonna tell you that um I I'm not gonna disagree with that.

Um I do know that when you look at Axon as a vendor that we've worked with for over a decade now, they have stored our body worn camera every single day for over a decade, right?

Um license plate reader information is personally identifiable information that is sensitive.

Um I think that there is any number of other things that are stored on city databases, or certainly body worn camera that are depicting um some of the kind of most intense moments of a person's life, and there's thousands of hours that are captured every single day across the city.

Um to my knowledge, and Commander Barnes, let me know if uh if you disagree.

But in the over decade that that has um been in place with evidence.com, there hasn't been a breach or another leak of that really, really sensitive information.

Um and so I know that there's kind of hypotheticals, right, where the federal government seizes a data center and sorts like there's any number of roads that you can go down, but I think what we've tried to do with this contract is address everything that is within our power and control to address, um, both with the really really high data security that they have, and then making sure that um the circumstances where they would turn over that data, um, we've closed off a lot of those avenues and then spelled out the process by which um if they receive a subpoena that they um have to bring the city in and we become a party to that case, all those kind of things.

Um so I think we have done um an extraordinary an extraordinary amount to close off a lot of those avenues, um, and that's where the focus has been.

I think uh and I I know you and I have had this discussion before about you know certain circumstances where um the the federal government or another entity goes further than where they've gone now.

Um, and those are ones that I think we they they're good flags, and I think um one of the reasons we tried to or that we did reduce our retention policy and bring it down from 30 days to 21 days is to kind of think through um in those very very extraordinary and rare circumstances that were to happen in the future that we're doing everything we can to limit the amount of data that is available at any given time.

Um but uh um so I I know that's not like a full answer to your question, but I just want to address it.

It's a perfect answer to my question, and I do believe you all have done uh uh a very good job in improving this contract.

Um I'm just uh living in the same world you are, where we're very rapidly seeing uh behaviors coming out of the federal government that we've never seen before, and we're we're barely halfway in into this particular uh administration, and so I don't sit here with a great deal of comfort level uh that uh uh what's happened in the past will will continue.

Um but that that's all I had.

Thank you, Tim.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Cashman.

I just want to remind uh colleagues that um Mr.

Rudke from Axon is online, and if Mr.

Rodke wants to um interject at any time, um please raise your hand and the producer will promote you.

Um we have Councilmember Torres and then Council President Sandoval, and for council members that are online, can you please uh also raise your hand or I am me and I'll add you to the queue.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just want um to get back to the live stream conversation and if you could share uh specific timing around uh with the ops policy, excuse me, will be updated.

Um, and what the compatibility to the language under Halo is to axon live stream as it relates to ops medule um language that would be like built or desired.

Absolutely, I can address some of that.

So I I mentioned earlier uh I'm currently working with the city attorney's office to to make sure that the policy with the vendor um is is dialed in and addresses all of the concerns.

Um, in addition, I will be discussing the um the relationship between the live stream capabilities and the existing um policy controls regarding the Halo system, which should cover all of those and provide the safeguards for for the live streaming capabilities.

So those will be uh addressed before the new system goes live.

Okay.

Um the other one that came up in a second briefing that I had recently with Axon, they referenced um two things an intended use policy and a shared data policy.

Are these things um things that we have to develop still or are they in place already?

Currently in place.

We we do have a robust ALPR policy that has numerous allowed uses and numerous prohibited uses, those will remain in place.

Um and I'm sorry, what was the other uh aspect intended use?

Your share data policy and that yes, so the current policy addresses those concerns.

Um I will be uh really the the point of focus is going to be the live stream capabilities for me and making sure that we we remove the flock vendor name from the existing policy and dial in those aspects.

But I know when we discussed last week, we're really not outside of those aspects, we're not expecting any uh material uh changes to the to the way that the policy currently works.

Okay, thank you for that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Torres, Council President Sandoval.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you all.

I also haven't had a lot of time to read the contract, so I'm just um I'll have to digest some of this.

But one part of the contract that I have concern about is um the security breach under 12.3.1.

It says upon becoming aware or reasonably suspecting that a security breach has occurred, the contractor shall provide initial notification to the city within 48 hours.

48 hours is a long time to have not be notified.

Why did we pick two days?

I if you have a security breach again, your bank, you're immediately notified.

Um a lot could happen within two days, and then it says following by a detailed written report within 72 hours.

So my question is A, why two days, 48 hours?

B, does the 72 hours start after the 48 hours?

So that five days that we would get a written report.

I'll have to defer to the city attorney's office and and technology services on that one.

I know a lot of the the contractual components in that regard are bet our best practices and and come from other technology contract language as well, so I can't speak to the specifics on that.

Um I don't know if anybody else here can.

Do we have anyone from technology services online?

Um I know Ms.

Doffman, you were seeking the uh representative from technology services.

Yeah, I I'm I'm not I'm not sure uh if uh Mr.

Guru was able to make it uh council president.

I'm happy to circle back with you on um I I I do know that with a couple of those time time frames, there are kind of industry industry strand standards and um federal kind of guidelines for what best practices are and um our contracts really I think usually mirror those those.

Um so um if I can just get a little bit more time to circle for the city attorney and respond on that.

So my concern is if you have 48 hours that there's been a breach within 48 hours, they can take all of our data.

So within tech companies, how fast they're moving, I would hope that they notify us much quicker than 48 hours, and then I need to make sure I don't want to make sure that the 48 hours start and then the 72 hours, so that's five days if I'm adding that all up.

Um a lot can happen within five days.

A lot can happen within 24 hours.

So I don't feel comfortable with the 48 hours.

And then um it talks about the remediation and what the remediation and to implement and maintain a comprehensive program for managing and actually sort of like it doesn't really get into the details of what the remediation would be.

My concern is once that in for once something's been there's been a breach, we can't get that data back.

And I'll just give a different example.

There was a breach at my bank, and somebody has my social security number, someone has my address, and someone has my bank number.

I can't undo that.

What I've had to do is I've had to go out and like call all the protection agencies and have five years of this fraud nonsense that's happening.

And so it was a it's a huge breach.

But once they have that information, they have that information.

So what how do we get what remediation happens?

Do we shut down the system?

Because all it says is that we get a report, but it doesn't really talk about it says take immediate steps to contain and mitigate, but it like if we get a report, like does it stop?

Like does the system just shut down?

How talk to me about that?

I think it would be uh depend upon the circumstances.

Uh obviously uh the DPD Cyber Bureau work hand in hand with technology services to understand the scope of the breach and the nature of it, and then we would also be working with the vendor, city attorney's office uh very quickly.

I know the CIST uh uh the city has an existing um uh kind of uh framework for how to respond to those kind of cyber incidents.

So uh a lot of it would depend upon the nature and scope of the breach, and we would have to address it at that time.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair, if you'll add me back to the queue.

Yes, I will.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you.

Um Tim, I had a follow-up question for you.

Um in committee last um time you were here, Councilwoman Gonzalez Cutiers asked you all about the um your drones, and your response was that um I think it was I think it was you to maybe not.

Is that the drones were backlogged for FLOC?

And I just wanted to clarify their black backlog, but you all would still be putting those into play once they're no longer backlogged.

And the second part of that question is that Flock drones, or would those be axon drones?

Uh councilwoman, I'm honored that you confused me with Commander Barnes.

I'll take that as a compliment.

No, I'll I'll defer to Commander Barnes on that one.

There is an existing uh there is an ex an existing contract for Flock Aerodome services.

So Flock, uh, I think in November of last year purchased uh aerodome, which was a DFR drone, you know, uh drone as a first responder vendor.

So we have been unable to to get the hardware for that at this time.

Um I don't have any update in that regard, but uh technically that contract will remain in place.

We also are are flying SkyDio drones, and I know there was some uh concern brought up during the last council meeting that that Axon has acquired SkyDio.

We did my team did follow up with Axon uh during the course of last week, and and Axon is telling me that that is incorrect.

So I just wanted to to make sure that we share that context as well.

So they would I just want to make sure I understand they would still be flock drones or they would be so we have two different essentially we have two different contracts currently for DFR services uh for those drones.

One is with SkyDio.

We currently do have SkyDio drones in service.

The other one is for Flock Aerodome, and we we haven't been able to un been unable to deploy any of or receive or deploy any of that hardware.

Um and yeah.

But but the contract would still in place.

So in the event that the um the that you all were able to receive the hardware, then those would then be in place.

Theoretically, yes.

Yep.

Do you have a timeline for that?

No, and unfortunately we don't.

Yeah, it's uh we've been kind of um stagnated on that front for now.

Okay, thank you.

Um the second was just a follow-up request, and you may have sent this to me, Tim.

This for you for sure I remember this.

Um the map of where the current cameras are and then what the map is going to look like with the reduction to the 50, um, and the criteria that you all are just utilizing to determine um where the placement is.

Yeah, and happy to send that.

Um I can tell you the criteria we're basing it on three things, and then there's one additional criteria that we've included.

Um it's gonna be based on uh violent crime, it's gonna be based on motor vehicle theft, and it's gonna be based on uh serious uh auto crashes.

Um and then there's going to be uh presumption towards not uh having these cameras on neighborhood streets, sort of focus on arterial or main streets.

Um, but happy to follow up with the actual specifics.

And just the second part of that, if you can follow up on how you all define serious crashes.

Thanks.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, and and as always, um that should be sent to all council members.

Um just want to verify if if there's anyone online um that was not in the first round to make sure I provide that opportunity uh for them to interject.

I'll do a quick pause.

Um, I have one question before we go to our second round.

Um back up here.

We got too many screens.

Uh so commander Barnes on the policy updates.

Um, do you have a sense?

And I think it's going to be very helpful as this um if this um action item makes it to the floor, it goes through our regular voting process for there to be clarity on the policy before there's a vote on floor.

My question to you is what is your ideal timeline?

Um what are your your your thoughts?

Because this is important with a policy steps to be updated, um, to be clear before um a final vote on this contract.

What are your thoughts on that timeline?

Absolutely.

Um I I'll I'll work as as expeditiously as possible with the city attorney's office.

Um, obviously with the with the concerns that have been raised.

Uh would love to get that draft policy in the hands of of everybody here.

So I will commit to to working on that as as quickly as possible, ideally by having it before the floor vote.

What was it, the final?

Before the before the vote for sure.

Yeah.

All right.

I'm seeing no one online jumping in.

So let me cue up the second round.

We'll start first with council member parity and councilmember Gonzalez Kateras.

Yeah, thank you so much.

I I first just want to say to Councilmember Cashman's point that like this is really where the um I guess in the final analysis for me, what I'm worried about is that we're creating data that we don't have to create, it's optional, right?

And I know the uses to which DPD has put it, and we've had that debate for the last you know year.

But at the end of the day, we're creating data that allows anybody to be tracked around the city, not just you know, a plate that we're looking for because of a crime, but anybody.

And there has never been in authoritarian government in history that had access to that kind of data.

And I am just terrified about the uses to which that is eventually going to be put.

And I see that as probably virtually inevitable.

And I wish I did not.

Um, so I just want to say, Councilmember Cashman, thank you for saying that because we're creating data that we don't have to create.

We're choosing to do this.

Um and we can put it on the world's most secure server, but at the end of the day, the Trump administration has not been shy about issuing subpoenas, executive orders, whatever the hell else they want.

Um and these kind of protections are only as strong as our legal system, which has been under attack, and we know that.

Um, the second thing I want to say is that um to commander and Tim's points in response to Councilmember Gonzalez Guterres's first question about um the provisions to do with uh adopting new features, opting us into um you know, future sharing, all of that.

You keep saying that the city will have a choice about that.

But what you mean, because our we don't have an ordinance and we don't have a revised ALPR policy, what you mean is DPD and or the mayor, if he chooses to become involved, will have those choices.

That's not the city.

We need a different kind of check on on all of that, um, which is what we've been driving towards in this task force.

We've talked about models from other cities where they have a lot of transparency before any of those kinds of additional features are adopted.

Um, but we're not there yet.

And if we enter into this contract, um, then I don't have any kind of faith that the mayor's office and DPD telling us you're going to change policies or continue to, you know, to the extent that you have been share information in support of ordinance.

I don't have confidence that that's gonna happen.

And the reason that I don't have confidence um in the decision making by those two entities is because you allowed the flock cameras to stay on a statewide network for a year.

You weren't initially honest with the public about being on a national network, um, and you didn't were not concerned and did not end sharing access when we learned that all kinds of federal agents had access, including a border patrol account, including the Loveland agent.

And so your track record here does not it it just isn't one that I feel like I'm doing my job if I say, okay, I trust you to be the decision maker on those things.

And under this contracting structure, you all are the sole decision maker.

You don't even have to tell anybody else what decisions you're making about new features and all of that.

So I'm glad again that we're telling the vendor that they can't do it without authorizing us, as Flock did.

That's a good step.

But then we have to have a process for that, and we don't.

Um question wise, um I think I just looked at a website that says that SkyDio is now an axon product.

What am I missing there?

So we have the um the uh gentleman from um Axon that's online, sir.

Do you mind please being promoted?

Raise your hand so we can have you answer the question and we'll have council member parity restate her question so you can respond definitively.

Council council member parody, do you mind ask repeating a question for the record?

Sure.

Um I just I believe that I'm looking at a website that's saying that SkyDio is an Axon product, and we just heard that it's not.

Is it or isn't it?

We have a uh sir, do you mind introducing yourself and you tell us?

Yep.

Ben Ruke, key account director for Axon.

Um we have a uh a technical and a business partnership and relationship with SkyDO.

Uh we can resell SkyDO hardware and software uh through our own quoting uh mechanisms, but um it is not owned.

Okay, so for purposes of Denver's SkyDEO drone, what does that partnership mean?

Um today it means very little.

Um SkyDO has provided uh that uh hardware directly to uh DPD and um it's it's a standalone contract that uh you know uh feeds directly into SkyDO's network and SkyDO's databases and um from my understanding doesn't touch the Axon network um unless and I have to defer defer to Commander Barnes unless that's being um streamed in any way to use this and or any of that video is saved, resulting video is saved in evidence.com, which are both possible, but I just don't have the extent of how we've integrated that in the pilot format.

Right.

And these kinds of integrations are what we're we're talking about that under this contract, the city, meaning DPD, the mayor's office, you know, the executive branch would make decisions about in the future.

So that that's an example of what I'm talking about here.

Um I also want to ask some questions about your algorithm because um I have read that partly because you haven't had this huge network like Flock has in an algorithm that's been sort of training itself as much over time.

Um I'm concerned about the accuracy rates, and I I don't need to hear the response again about the fact that um officers are supposed to double check because I know that.

Um, but assuming that that sometimes won't happen, um, there are many, many, many examples around the country of false positives from ALPRs.

So, what is your current false positive rate?

That's something I would have to get back to you on.

I don't have that in front of me.

We asked that last week, I thought.

So I think that's really important because that's a risk that we weren't as attuned to with Flock because of the fact that they have been training their algorithm on plates all over the country, including Denver's.

Um, so I just I would really like to know that before we're voting on this.

And I know we're supposed to be doing that today, but that feels like a really important question to me.

Um last question is about the these live streaming capabilities.

I appreciate your subset in the questions, but if this is a last one, we'll move to the next person in the queue.

Thank you.

Can you just give her a promotion?

Yes.

So um I'll I'll obviously upset here, but then let's let's move through to Q.

You call you called your council numbers.

That's why we were last name.

Um I want to understand I the fact that DPD can apparently use these cameras to live stream is really concerning to me.

Is there anything in DPD's policy manual that talks about that capacity?

I I learned last week that we apparently do that with other cameras as well, but that doesn't make me feel any better about doing it with these cameras.

That's not something I was aware we ever did.

And that again tells me that we need some reg, you know, better policy manual provisions and legislation in place before we move forward with this, because that that's a whole nother can of worms that I'm really disturbed by.

Is there anything in the DPD policy manual that currently addresses that?

Happy to answer that question, council member.

So there are robust uh safeguards and policy controls currently in the operations manual for the real-time crime center operations and the operation of Halo cameras, etc.

Any cameras that are accessible by the real-time crime center, these devices would fall under those same provisions, and that's one of the things I'll be focusing on with the city attorney's office this week as well, is making sure that the language is clear and that any live streaming capabilities from these devices would fall under those provisions and be protected by policy.

Um I will note that the live streaming capabilities for these devices is not their primary role.

They are battery operated devices, as I mentioned last week, and so they do not record live streams uh, you know, 24-7.

It's really, you know, the the real-time crime center could live stream from a device in response to a critical incident, for example, that's happening.

Um, but then that would be a very temporary situation in that live streaming.

Once that's stopped, then it the camera returns to normal uh, you know, uh capturing images of of license plate mode, right?

So uh that that footage is not retained and uh and they do not operate in a 24-7 live streaming uh mode, if if that makes sense.

Okay, the idea that we would vote on this without um any kind of thought about when that kind of capacity can be used.

Um I just don't see how we could do that.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Parity, Councilmember Gitaz Guterritz and Council President Sandoval.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'm going back to section 12 again, uh, because I didn't get to ask this last time.

Um there's the the last sentence of uh sub-12.1.

It says upon receipt of any request from the Department of Homeland Security or its immigration enforcement partners for access to city or data or city technology systems.

The conjunctor shall promptly notify the city before any disclosure and cooperate with city's right to intervene consistent with the procedures set forth in section 12.4.

So a couple of things here.

One I know we specifically call out Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Enforcement.

I don't know if this needs to also just be a little more inclusive of the federal government.

And that being because you know there have been instances where other federal agencies have been utilized in immigration enforcement, and so I want to be thoughtful about that piece.

Um but then it also talks about the procedure set forth in section 12.4.

And I I don't know if I'm just not seeing it, but I don't see section 12.4.

It goes from said uh 1233 straight to 13.

So I'm not sure what those provisions are because I don't see them in this document.

And unless it's in a separate document, but I would imagine 12.4 would come following 1233.

Yeah, and councilman, happy to follow up um on kind of that specific process.

Um I do know that there are other places within the contract in the exhibits where um it is expressly called out that not just we we don't kind of um restrict the requirements of of notice with any legal demand or subpoena just to those agencies.

It's any local, state, federal law enforcement um would be captured in this.

So happy to um call out those specific sections and send you that kind of full readout.

And where is section 12.4?

Because I think they're it's missing.

I need to circle back with you on that.

Okay.

It might be one of the exhibits, but let me circle back with you on that.

Well, it because this is section 12, so it should be in this section.

Yeah, and I I I don't be in an in an exhibit.

I I I'm trying to find it right now, but I'll circle back with you on it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh wait, that was one question, right?

Um I mean, I don't know that I have additional questions, but just kind of I guess an observation, because I know that we are continuing to say, well, we've been contracting with Exxon for body cams.

I just want to point the fact that I think body cams and ALPR, there are differences between body cam footage, uh body in the use of body camps versus ALPRs.

And in that experience is that body cams are activated and utilized when law enforcement is interacting with members of the public.

They're not on all the time, right?

Because we have a whole like thing, right?

You you have to turn on your body cam when you are interacting with members of the public, um, or like if you're in the jails, right, you turn on your body cam before that interaction is taking place.

Um ALPRs are capturing images of folks coming and going.

If they're if they're passing through wherever these cameras are, they're capturing footage of everyone's comings and goings, not just the people that are interacting with safety department or with with law enforcement.

And so I just want to point out that fact that we can't keep comparing them as like, well, it's axon and we've already been contracting with them and we already have body cams.

I get it that it's a it's a provider that we're aware of, but it's not the same thing.

And so I just want to be very clear about that, that this is a different type of technology, the use of it is different.

The way that the data is collected is different, um, including the live streaming capabilities and that what happens there that is still kind of I guess um there are some unknowns, and so I just want to be very clear on that front because I don't want it to be like a complete comparison, other than the fact that it is the same company is that is offering the technology.

That's all.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Gazaz Gutierrez, Council President Sandoval, and then Councilmember Flynn.

And and Council President, before you jump in, I just want to make sure.

Did anyone from TC join us?

I believe Tessa Guru Terrace and Guru is now on.

Is that has she been promoted?

Council President, I'll turn to you and then we'll we'll work to get TC available for any of those questions to be responded to.

Thank you.

So currently at the state right now, Senate Bill 2670 is moving through.

Um how is our current contract structured to if that were to pass to be compliant with that Senate bill?

So the main additional burden that um that Senate bill would place on uh local AL ALPR system like in Denver is the warrant requirement.

Um and so there's uh and I'm blank on the section right now, but um there are sections in the contract that say um that you have to comply with all local and state laws that are in it that kind of goes on in perpetuity.

So were that to pass, that would be an additional requirement that we would then kind of figure out with Axon how to make that um uh uh functionality update to make sure that the warrant requirement, but um off the top, I think that that would be the biggest additional shift.

Um, the rest of it, I don't think would uh would really contradict in any way.

I think their retention policy in Senate Bill 70, it was four days for a while.

They've now bumped that up to 30 days.

Um, so we would actually have a more restrictive retention policy than what that proposes.

And how does that work with the um police department getting a warrant if if we were to Senate bill be compliant?

So, what's your process to getting for you all to be able to access that?

Does that make sense?

Yeah, obviously that would we would have to work through what that looks like procedurally, and uh it would be a collaborative effort to kind of speak to what Tim was saying as well with the city attorney's office to make sure our policies in is in complete compliance with that uh legislation if it were to pass, but obviously that would there would be an additional administrative burden.

Um I I can say, you know, based on the analysis we've done it, it probably it would likely slow down investigations to at some point at some level, right?

But um uh if it you know, if it were to pass, then then we would take a look at it and uh we'd collaborate on on what that new procedure, process, and policy looks like.

I would say that that's one way to look at it, is that it would be more administrative burden.

The other way, the flip side of the coin would be added level of protection.

So with every implementation of policy, there's a benefit and there's a burden.

And so I understand that on your doing that job, there might be an it might feel as an administrative burden and take longer on the flip side of that coin, is there's another added layer of protection.

And I think that's what we're hearing from the constituents in Denver, and the fact that that Senate bills, a bipartisan bill from all over Colorado, um, is pretty telling that we're not the only um city in in the Colorado that's worried about how what's happening with automatic license plate readers, or else they wouldn't be addressing it, and especially a bipartisan bill.

Um, and the sponsors who are sponsoring that bill at this date are people who don't usually come together on bills, in my personal opinion.

Um, so it's telling to see who is on on um sponsoring that bill.

One last question is would any of your manuals have to be updated if that bill were to pass?

So how would that impact your manuals?

And are you all being proactive watching that piece of legislation looking at your manual that would need to be updated for this contract and for that piece of legislation at this date?

How does that impact the Denver Police Department's manual?

It will have uh impacts to our policy for sure.

Um we have been uh monitoring the bills and and trying to to gauge what that level of impact would be.

And so uh what if it does pass, then we will uh immediately begin working with the city attorney's office to make sure that we have policy that's that's compliant.

That is you know in touch with the folks on the hill, so he's aware of every bill and its progress through the you know through the house.

And so certainly we pay attention to those things, we prepare ourselves for needing to update our policies and and and things like that.

And so certainly we would be able to pivot immediately uh to change policy if that was necessary.

Yeah, uh, I wanted to see there's a person from um technology services council president that's online.

There was a question you had concerning um, I think it was cybersecurity.

Did you want to broach that question to tech technology services now, or did you want to write?

I can.

So for technology services, I was looking at sorry, I had to restart my computer because I didn't have internet, so I'm having to pull up all the docs again.

So it was a little security and the 48 hours and yeah, it's the 48 hours.

I'm trying to find, oh, it's 12.3.1 upon becoming aware or reasonably suspecting that a security breach is the contractor shall provide an initial condition to the city within 48 hours.

Um why 48 hours?

I think a lot that I feel like that's a long time.

Two days is for me an uncomfortable amount of time.

Yeah, hi, Teresa Gura.

Um, with technology services data protection officer.

Just um for clarification on that, that's a great question.

You know, um industry standards typically are 48 hours to five days for breach notification.

It should be pointed out that um the um ISO, which is the international standards, organization of standards, and um the Fed ramp um requirements.

Do you put the breach reporting at 48 hours?

There's um a lot of various types of activities and mitigation that's going to be occurring if a breach does occur.

Uh so 48 hours is very much in alignment with um industry standards for for breach reporting.

I'll also note when we look at the Colorado requirements and we look at House Bill 1811 28, those requirements are um a 30-day requirement for reporting.

So we're much more restrictive than it is from a Colorado law perspective when looking at the house bill and those requirements for for breach reporting.

So I understand the minimum, the the floor, but I don't still if someone has access into our system that's looking at somebody's license plate.

I feel like that should be I don't I I don't feel comfortable with 48 hours.

I just don't.

And then my second question is does the 48 hours stop and then what what how do we get to the 72?

So is it 48 hours and then within 72 hours?

So it's five days that we get the written report, or walk me through that portion of the contract.

It's 1200.

I would actually read point one.

Okay.

I would actually pivot if it's related to the contract language, I would pivot to either Tim or any of the state attorney representatives.

Yeah, that's the circle back with you on that interpretation, Council President.

Okay.

I'll just go on the record and say that that five days doesn't feel comfortable.

And I'm wondering, is that the same for body worn camera?

Do we get 48 hours on body worn camera breach?

We'll have to pull that axon contract and we can get back to you on that one.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Flynn and Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you.

Um chair.

Um I want to explore a little bit more on the live stream issue.

Um, because it seems to me that uh what you said is it would act very much like a halo camera in that when it's being used in that mode.

How many halo cameras do we have in the city?

I don't have the exact number, council member, but it's a couple hundred, I believe.

Okay.

Um is it possible?

Um we don't know the locations of where we would put the ALPRs.

It's is it possible that any of these 50 would be located at the same node as Halo Camera?

It could be, yes.

Okay.

Um the I think you indicated, and I will make sure I'm clear on this, that this is all one question, by the way.

Uh that the uh the axon camera when it's being live streamed, does not record or does it record into evidence.com.

It does not, to my knowledge, if if uh at the axon representative wants to correct me on that, but my understanding for my team uh over the you know the research we've done over the last few weeks is that it it does not by default record live viewing.

Correct.

Yes.

Halo camera does record.

It can, yes.

It can.

Okay, does it record all the time or does it have to be absolutely and it it depends on how it's configured, but uh I would say most of them do record uh constantly.

It's like a buffer.

So it's I've seen it on TV news, whereas something happened a month ago is on you know, recorded from a halo camera.

Um second question.

Um everybody here in this room, everybody in this building over over the course of 21 days may pass by a camera or two that records our license plate.

It's a passive collection.

In other words, no one's actively looking at uh for if there were a breach, it would be a breach of the data, it wouldn't be a breach of the cameras itself.

Is that I understand that correctly?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, but kind of a data breach we're talking about would be somebody collecting 21 days worth of where my car was 19 days ago, for instance.

Correct.

Okay.

Um just to make sure I understand it.

Under what circumstances, if my car went by two or three of these cameras in 21 days, under what circumstances would you have an opportunity to know that?

In other words, what when would you look at that?

What what circumstances would trigger uh I suppose if I report my car stolen, would be one.

Correct, or if you were subject to a uh legitimate criminal investigation, otherwise that data would go untouched until the you know the end of the retention period, at which point of your uh okay.

Okay, in other words, when an officer enters the system to do a search, uh not an alert, but a search, which under this pending legislation might require a warrant as part of an investigation.

Uh the officer would have to enter a case number so that it's audible and trackable, and that's not all able to be altered.

And once a month that's being audited.

Yes, sir.

What what are what are the under the policy?

What are the penalties for misuse of that?

So that would be it would depend on the type of misuse and and whatnot, but that would be referred to our internal affairs uh bureau for investigation and then um the the disciplinary process would be anything including termination could be yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Uh Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you.

Um so Tim, I just have a request for you.

If you could provide me, and maybe the members of this committee, the drone contracts, both the one that's in play currently and the one that's not, and that will be in play in the future.

And then um also can you tell me where the 21-day retention provision is in the contract?

Uh so there is language in the contract that says that the retention policy is set by the city.

Um, and so then the 21 days will be in the DPD ops manual where it'll be explicit in there.

Is there a reason that is not included in the actual contract?

That that explicitly toys.

Yeah, um, only the the when we were talking to Axon, they said that it doesn't really we we won't we wouldn't put it in most of our contracts because you all own the data and the retention policy is clearly within city control, and so that's why it would not fit into that neatly.

So it it more spells out who has that ability to set it um and not the actual policy.

So that's why it lives in the operations manual.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I'm not certain it um sir, are you on to respond to this that question or my next question is for him?

So there you go.

I I don't believe he is, but if you have a second question, Councilmember Lewis.

Yeah, so I I actually um had this question for you, Ben, so I appreciate that you're being that you're on right now.

Can you so can you tell me um what your philosophy is or the philosophy um that you hold in this moment under this federal administration as it pertains to deportations um and the use of this technology and aiding such?

And I don't want to know the general safeguards, but I think um we all understand that as it pertains to this contract.

I just kind of want to know in general what your philosophy is in line with what councilman Cashman brought up, as well as council member parody, is the zoom having are we having technical difficulties with the zoom?

I know I'm seeing some communications.

He can't hear you.

Can't hear.

So I'm waiting for the producer to the the council members that are online are having issues as well.

That'd do it.

I have to get rid of it.

So is it usually not the one down?

Okay, sorry.

It's gonna take a so council members um online.

Can you hear us?

I want to start first with you, then I'll go to the same.

Yeah, I can hear you.

So the representative from Axon, can you hear us?

We can, yeah.

I there was a question I did not hear it though.

There is councilmember Lewis will reason.

Yeah, thank you so much.

So can you tell me what your philosophy is that you hold in this moment under this federal administration as it pertains to deportations and the use of this technology and aiding such?

And I I don't necessarily want to know about the safeguards that are written in within this contract because I think you all have been clear about that.

I'm just curious as uh more generally in terms of your philosophy, um, in line with council catchman as well as council member parody.

Yeah, I I can absolutely get you a statement from our team on that.

I wouldn't be able to respond directly in this form on behalf of the entire organization, but uh I can get you a statement on that, absolutely.

Thanks.

Were there additional questions, Councilmember Lewis?

That's perfect response.

All right, and so I I wanted to remind the members of the I'm in the way of the thing.

No, the technology sister, I'm not even seeing you.

Council member Sawyer.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um the irony of us having a conversation about technology and our technology struggling is something today.

Um I don't have any questions.

I think my fellow council members have done a great job of asking um a number of different questions, and also I'm an attorney, so I can read the contract and I understand things like exigent circumstances.

I think differently than a layperson would.

Um, I will say a crash course in exigent circumstances might be really helpful in this situation for council members because that overarching language, which we understand to be pretty clearly related to exigent circumstances.

Um, it's not fair to ask someone who didn't spend three years in law school and a year studying for the bar exam to understand that entire body of constitutional law.

So if there's maybe an opportunity to do a quick write-up on what that means, what it is, how it is applied, um that would be really really helpful, I think, for other council members.

So that would be kind of my one request for from you guys as follow-up.

In terms of the contract itself, um, I am ready to make a motion to move it forward, but I want to talk a little bit about why.

Um so the goal here is a balance between privacy and um safety, right?

I can tell you with 95% confidence and a 2.4% margin of error that the residents of district five's number one concern is community safety.

It has been this way since 2020.

Um, it has not changed, and we have well over a thousand responses to our annual survey that we do every year that tells us this.

Um, community safety can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, right?

Uh but I do know that this is important to my residents, and so I am willing to support it because you guys have done a really good job of putting the things in the contract that need to be in the contract.

The one space that I think um is a little bit of a gap and needs a little bit of work is with the internal DPD policies and procedures.

So three weeks ago, four weeks ago, we sat in this committee and uh looked at our mask ordinance, and there were some gaps in definitions and all of those different kinds of things that um were that made it potentially not ready to move forward out of committee.

And remember, for the public watching our thresholds at committee, is this ready for uh for consideration by full council?

So when we sat here and there were some definitional issues, um I said to the council members who were moving that forward, can you promise me you will get this done by the time we consider it on the floor?

Because I want to vote yes, and there is a gap here that needs to be solved first.

So I'm gonna say the same thing to you.

Can you promise me that before we consider this on the floor?

You will get with the city attorney's office, you will update the manual for DPD's policies and procedures to ensure that the gaps that we have identified here today, which my fellow council members did a great job of, will be closed.

I'm confident we can get it done.

Awesome.

Then I would like to make a motion to move this forward.

Call the question?

Uh do we need to do a uh uh a vote around yes?

Yes, we do perfect.

So um Alyssa, do I just call by names or do you do the call?

All right, council members um parody.

Nay.

What is In?

All right, Gonzalez Gutierrez?

Nay, President Sandoval.

Hi Sawyer.

I Mr.

Chair Watson.

Aye.

Hi, guys.

It has passed.

So this um we'll move to the floor for can I make a comment after you're done with that?

Yes, you may.

So this will move to the floor.

And Council President, I'll turn to you for a comment.

So just so the public is aware we have a courtesy public hearing on Monday.

Um it was only 30 minutes, and I just asked to extend it to an hour, and I feel like that because of the public comment that happened on Monday, 30 minutes doesn't feel like a lot of time.

So just want to give the public notification that it will be in our courtesy public hearing on Monday, and that's a change that just happened just now.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Council President.

Um there are no other items on the agenda.

There are three consent items on none have been pulled.

Uh so with that, this meeting is adjourned.