Okay.

On Kong or regular leaning or agenda at four thirty-one on Friday May first.

Chair Andrew Boss.

I'm here.

Vice Chair Sanchez.

Councilman Espinon.

We have a quarter.

Thank you so much.

Um, and I know we were joined by um special guests tonight.

So I want to uh guess this going.

Um, just think of the office for ways and dare this with the uh muscle.

Um I just want to share that we will be taking public comments.

We're gonna move that to the middle.

So between one and two, so we can comment on both one and the uh ordinance.

Um if folks want to sign off require a comment, there is a sign sheet by the TV.

But if folks want to sign up for public comment, there is a sign-in sheet by the TV, and I will be going off people who've signed in at the sign in sheet by the big TV.

So if you do want to give public comment, sign in sheet and their TV.

Okay, just make sure anyone else sign and she felt okay.

Um can we please then read item number one into the record?

Discussion relative to the human right to privacy report on flock surveillance in Providence, Rhode Island.

The following have been invited for a presentation.

Students from Professor Robin Lynx 34 Human Rights course at Rhode Island College Department of Political Science.

Awesome.

So Professor Lynd is a constituent of mine and amazing, and her class has been researching Flock, and that comes up in so many of our conversations.

Um we do currently have a contract with Flock that's up to expire in the next council session, and so I'm just really grateful that the class wanted to look into this and provide us with some information.

So I'd love to invite Professor Lynde and her uh students up to give the presentation with gratitude for you being here.

Welcome to City Hall.

Y'all are also welcome at City Hall any time.

We would love to have you whenever.

This is for you.

So Professor Lynn, take it.

Yes, I just want to thank everyone for letting us take up some of your committee time to do this.

And um, all the credit goes to my students.

I think I can come up and present.

And we had it set up for the um for the PowerPoint.

Oh, yeah, there's you have the current point and when the students present, if you could just say your name clearly for the record so the clerks can get it, or you can write it down for them, whichever works better.

Um, but come on up, come join us at the table.

Or stand, whatever feels better for you.

We are totally flex.

So if you want to stand, if you want to sit, you're welcome to be at the table with us.

But you're also welcome to stand.

We're just grateful that you're here.

Oh, please work.

So, hi, we're so glad you're all here.

And uh, since we don't have amplification, even though it's a small room, I have a hearing disability, so I'm gonna ask you to be real loud.

Sounds great because I don't want to miss a word.

Yeah, how do you have voice?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Okay, hi.

My name is Abigail Spampinado.

Uh, thank you for your time this afternoon.

We'll be talking about the human right to privacy through our report on the flock surveillance cameras.

So, this project was developed in our human rights class taught by Dr.

Lindy.

Together we explored both global and local human rights issues through various case studies.

We focused our studies on the local issue of flock cameras here in Providence.

Our class was split into five groups.

It was the data, policy, case studies, GIS, and writing and analysis group.

So our central goal for this flock project was to provide the city of Providence with information and hopes that it could be taken into any sort of consideration once the contract comes up next year.

So a quick background of Flock.

I mean, I'm sorry, a quick background of surveillance in the US.

A reasonable expectation to privacy was established in the Fourth Amendment.

And since then, there will be many, there have been many cases that established precedence regarding our policy.

So the CAS versus US case established that privacy is extended to the people and not labels.

Rosie Wade established a woman's right to privacy and protected her liberty regarding abortion, and this is actually relevant to the flop cameras.

In May of 2025, uh Texas flock cameras tracked a woman who was traveling outside of Texas to receive an abortion.

The Texas Sheriff utilized these cameras to uh pose it as a missing person's case and use the term in depth investigation and through using 80,000 cameras, the kind of stopped her every move, and they tried to charge her for these crimes, but it was they couldn't, it was outside of their state.

The Pedro Act also extends to the government right to privacy to perform warrantless searches, and this became prevalent uh after 9-11.

There's also the Rhode Island data transparency and privacy act, and this only became effective January 1st of this year, which is legislation requiring businesses to disclose data that they're collecting and which third parties receive the data from the customers.

So Flock is a private corporation in the U in the US contracted to jurisdictions, which these cameras use various forms of AI to scan through collected data, and this is mainly through ALPRs, which is automated license plate readers.

These ALPRs track details beyond what you would suspect from these cars, like the build, the dents, and various other descriptors.

And these raise a lot of questions of privacy and just like general human rights concerns.

So Rhode Island.

Rhode Island negotiated a grant-funded three year flock contract, and that was for about $600,000.

And this contract is up for renegotiation or cancellation.

In 2025, Rhode Island State Police put pressure on 22 jurisdictions to install flock cameras, and listed here are the ones that have them currently installed.

So Providence has a series of MOUs which stands for memorandum of understanding with other jurisdictions, and it's just a mutual understanding that law enforcement agencies in this agreement can't share the data collected from flock cameras in third parties.

So there are some jurisdictions in Rhode Island that have taken actions to ban or curb the effects of walk.

Warren and Portsmouth specifically do not allow flock cameras in their town.

Additionally, the ACLU submitted a letter to the Middletown Council in 2026 asking them to reconsider the presence of block cameras in their community.

So we performed a network audit specifically looking for phrases related to immigration, such as immigration and deportation.

So the 2250, that's just the grand total number of searches that have been performed from the Providence data set broadly.

And this just shows how high volume our information is.

And of those searches, 6,600 are from federal agencies that operate outside of New England.

So just more in that about the Providence audit.

We found 12 searches that specifically name border control.

However, um this is likely underreported because when a law enforcement officer wants to search something up in our data set, they need to put a reason in, like Abby Stated death investigation before.

A lot of times they're vague, they're just investigation, or sometimes they're honestly also just strings of numbers or letters that don't really mean anything.

But overall, our flock cameras do seem to be dominated by local and regional law enforcement, so that's just agencies in Rhode Island and Massachusetts overwhelmingly.

There are some federal actors, but they mostly only intervene for criminal investigations, intelligence sharing, and interagency coordination.

Okay.

Hi.

Hi, I'm Susan McCody.

I'm gonna talk to you about maps right now.

So this is a medium household income map of province.

Uh the big black lines, this is city borders, the dots, the black dots with the white circles around them, are the camera locations in uh in province, and uh there's a better indicator to show the key map, but uh actually maps.

Uh but you can see that some of these clusters have two or three cameras, oftentimes at similar intersections or highways, but you can also see a lot of these cameras are clustered in the pink areas.

The pink areas are where people's income is 70,000 or lower.

Uh and other than this cluster of cameras, presumably are in player street or out of campus.

Uh there's only one to root like there's only like three cameras in the uh above 118,000 area, and some others in the uh lower income cards that you say.

Okay.

This one is not a very pretty common.

Looks great.

But uh it's supposed to indicate uh race and ethnicity throughout the city and whichever rate or race or ethnic group is predominant in each census track is the one that shows up.

But in Rora and Province, it's really 5050.

The um surprisingly there's no census track uh where black or African American alone is considered um predominant.

Anyway, this shows that these areas here, here, and here are more predominantly Hispanic, and these areas are more predominantly non-hispanical white.

This one shows about the same thing, but I think in much prettier color.

And uh the uh the data specifically is 43% for these dark green areas uh of the uh the population are uh Hispanic or Latino work, and in these areas it's between 19 and less than 1%.

And uh our another professor in our department, Dr.

Dixon, did make a note using instead of a ward map, he used a uh a neighborhood map and looked at the 25 professional neighborhoods in province and saw that uh that uh eight Hispanic uh that in the least eight Hispanic neighborhoods with eight least Hispanic neighborhoods, rather uh there are 12 cameras in the 10 most Hispanic neighborhoods, there are 28 cameras.

Uh and that's just based on the dots, and as I said before, a lot of these dots are actually multiple cameras at the same intersection.

So we can um this shows uh a statistic called the diversity index.

I think it was I don't have my notes which agency uh run uh organizes it.

Uh but uh these areas are the the areas that are lighter blue are considered to have less diversity in the sense that the people like any two members of that area uh are more likely to be of the same uh the same race or ethnic group.

And in the darker areas, the uh the race or ethnic group are the regular any two random members of the community in those areas are likely to be a different race or other groups.

Uh they do it on a zero to a hundred scale, and it's on a colored radiant.

Okay, and this one here's the oh the screen went black for a second.

There you go.

This one uh indicates percentage of population that is foreign-born.

Uh any area that's 20% foreign-born or higher is this dark purple color, which is actually quite a lot of the city.

Um in these areas it's um more green, and you can see that there are a lot of cameras in these areas, and markedly less in the paintings.

Oh this indic uh this indicates the social vulnerability index uh from 2022, but um it's from the CBC, it's intended to help see who's most marginalized in the event of an annual disaster, but it was thought to be useful enough for our purposes to at least reiterate?

But it was thought to be useful enough for our purposes to at least reiterate.

Did I go for one?

No.

No, no, no.

This committee has really bad vibes as it comes to technology.

So Darius is now picking up on our bad technology vibes.

So we have a ghost in this committee.

It happens like every meeting.

We have some sort of technology issues.

I thought it would be fixed out of the carriage, but essentially, I feel like a lot of these maps are regulated in the point, the areas with a visible higher concentration of cameras are areas with uh of lower income of uh marginalized status.

Um hello, my name is Katie Mezza, and I focused on policy and budget.

And as your mind you use outdoor voice, outdoor voice.

Hi, my name is Caden Meza, and I focused on policy and budget.

So for policy, the current uh flock policy providence uh uses ALPRs for official law enforcement purposes such as stolen vehicles, missing persons, and stolen plates.

Uh flock supposedly does not use facial recognition or detect people's people, race, or gender.

Um province shares with multiple police departments across the state and in Massachusetts.

Uh no existing MOUs except for the established established policy of retaining data for 30 days.

Um points of the proposal are uh data retention, strict access control, ban on immigration use, in-depth review of camera review, and use limitations.

Um how does the current policy affect us?

So the pros are stolen vehicles, can be easily located, uh, no utilitization of facial recognition.

This means like no use of um facial recognition, uh, and it supposedly does not invade our privacy.

Cons are information is being shared outside of the state as previously stated, um, and it's not being kept in Providence.

Information can be shared with police and at least task forces.

Um tech may invade privacy, and the budget is now being prioritized.

So prohibited uses and main concerns are that uh are mainly immigrant enforcement, uh, traffic enforcement, harassment, or intimidation, uh, usage based solely on uh usage based solely on a certain class.

This includes race, sex, religion, etc.

Um, or personal use.

And there's also an improper spending on flock that we can assume.

Uh for example, the budget uh Providence public safety budget for the fiscal year 2025 to 2026 is a total approximation of over 230 million, um, or approximately that, um, including a 7.2 million uh increase in the police department funding.

Additionally, Rhode Island has committed to a three-year flock contract of more than 500,000 dollars, which has been explained earlier, which has expanded ALPR infrastructure in province.

And as shared earlier, sharing road information with other states is a big concern.

So this is the public safety budget uh from the official uh Providence budget from Mayor Smiley.

So the changes overall from the 2025 to 2026 uh fiscal year are an overall seven million uh increase for in um the public safety budget.

Uh this is a huge increase from the from the prior year, and some of the main ways that we see this are in the emergency management.

Um it's more than 200,000 dollars has been increased in the emergency uh management uh department and communications have also increased by 600,000 or more than 600,000.

Um and this we can assume partially that this is because um this money is going to surveillance devices, such as Flock.

We can assume that purposes increase.

Um and there's no evidence that Flock actually prevents or solves crimes.

Uh so as you can see though, this is the biggest budget.

If you look at the official Mayor Smiley's budget report, it's the biggest um budget out of all of them, the biggest increase, which is alarming sense.

Such as recreation is being a decrease of over 140,000.

Housing and human services is also having a decrease of over $330,000.

Isn't it extremely important, especially for housing?

Because housing in Providence is the worst in the Northeast.

And there's an unaffordable housing problem in Providence.

And this department was decreased in order possibly to increase public safety budget.

So it's unmet need in Providence, and it shows that so my name is Brianna Santos.

I'm a justice studies major, and I will be talking about case studies across different states.

This shows like different the different case studies that I'm going to be talking about shows that this is not just a state problem.

It will be a federal problem as well.

So in Austin, Texas, they actually canceled their flock contract in 2025.

We don't exactly know if what they did with the blockers.

We don't know if there's no information or further information if they covered the cameras or if they're just still idle.

We actually don't know about that.

So the reasoning is that technology is preventing or sorry, potentially targeting individuals of vulnerable populations, for example, um cases of reproductive rights and transgender rights, which has not been really that well in Texas.

And 20% of ALPR searches lack proper justification and documentation.

The 2026 investigation found a loophole where license plate data was accessed by Austin police department through neighboring jurisdictions, and the city actually introduced the Trust Act, which on closed surveillance gaps by requiring public transparency and formal policies, oversight, and strict reporting requirements.

So in Washington, um they found or uh ALPRs have become increasingly common and have been sort of expanding within the state.

And the University of Washington found that at least eight state law enforcements have shared their data through federal agencies such as ICE.

And this is defined as backdoor access, which is the illegal approaches of sharing direct data to federal agencies.

So there's also side door access as well, which is kind of like there's different levels, so there's side door and backdoor, and back door is a little bit more worse because when cops are receiving the data, it's very it's very open.

So other agencies can look at that data.

Um states on their website that backdoor access does not exist, which clearly doesn't really make any sense given the University of Washington's observation of what uh flock users are doing.

And on personal level in Rhode Island, there's about 240 flock cameras as of March 31st, 2026, with 39 more set to be established.

Uh, Providence has the most block cameras, and the second city that has it is Cranston, and um cities such as, as you mentioned, um cities such as Bristol, Barrington, and Port Smith, and Ward have the rejected flock installations, and these are the other cities that actively have flock cameras as mentioned.

Providence and Princeton have the most, and um the city claims that flock uh data flock flex cannot be shared with ice, which also brings into question because if this is happening in Washington, who knows what is happening in Rhode Island as well and in other states that have one.

So what we do as a collective, according to the ACLU, Rhode Island has no protections and or regulations for privacy regarding ALPR cameras, especially in the context of data sharing.

And multiple, actually multiple attempts were made by the LCALU.

However, um the uh Rhode Island State Police and multiple um multiple chiefs of police have consistently shut it down.

And um, I think we think that um we should look at other states for inspiration.

So, for example, in New Hampshire, they provide that records of number plates read shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged within the system in the span of three minutes.

So as mentioned before, Providence um flock data seems that it's stored for at least 30 days.

Is it's the it's also the same in where I live in Cumberland, um, it's also fluffed out when it's um when it's processed and stored for at least 30 days, and um the mayor uh objective minor has expressed some concern concerns about that.

And another law is the city of Boston, requires that department state approval from city council to access the cameras, as well as annual reports that are benefit.

And they also ban facial recognition and limit the data of the miners.

I'm actually surprised about the new actual law which came out in 2018.

2007 and there's a bill that ACLU supports.

It is Bill H it's Bill 8077, which proposes restrictions on these police surveillance.

Representative Matthew Dawson actually supports this bill.

And right now it's being worked upon within the House Judiciary.

For more information regarding that, you can search up the ACLU regarding, and you could just search up ACLU breaking the firewall, and their those regarding privacy would be will be there's more in-depth um descriptions about their things.

Thank you so much.

If you don't mind, uh Vice Chair, I'm gonna uh say two things and then I'm gonna call on you.

First, uh I guess we can't first is thank you so much.

This is awesome.

Um so helpful.

Um the two quick notes and then a question.

One is that um I told Rector Austin about your presentation, and I told him I chair what was in afterwards.

So um I'm glad you had it with that because I do heads up.

Um and then just as a quick note for um the line name about the police budget, PIMA, which is emergency management, their increase was a federally funded grant.

It was not related to ICE, so just or to block.

So just to give that exact PEMA doesn't do anything by Block.

Uh but the question I have is um you mentioned like the potential to share with ICE, and in Providence, we have uh a role where we can't share with federal agencies, but can you guys clarify?

Are you seeing in your um research that like as data gets shared with other towns, like the leaks can happen in those places?

Is that what you're saying?

Okay, not done.

Yes, especially within the context of backdoor access, which makes it really easy for data to be looked upon within other like who knows who knows how many how many cities are sharing their data.

I think it's either we looked upon it and would stop it.

They share their data from outside other states, right?

Yeah, so like states such as socket with an MLE button.

Socket has MOEs with a much larger list of cities and the region.

Yeah, so like Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Okay.

So um to Temmy Young's outstanding student in my class.

Um data.

So he actually has it, um, I think it would be 37,000, is that right?

Cases of outside of of outside jurisdictions where we don't have MOUs.

So as far as the jurisdictions and you could use your outdoor voice because there's a few people who are here for that is I can't really speak too much on that, however, with the with the data under the uh province uh network network audit.

There's not much information about what they're investigating when they do searches.

Um they do have a huge list of different agencies, different departments that are accessing this information.

I'm not sure which what province allows uh what other agencies have access to it.

But at least for the data that they provide us, it's all in millions.

How is it millions of harm's only, but for the NHCs that's hundreds, and then for all the data is millions.

And again, there's no information of what their reason for searching, either they don't have it, or that province just didn't provide that to us.

And so but but we definitely found evidence of sharing outside of the jurisdictions that we've agreed that it can be shared to outside of the zone years.

Okay.

We have significant thousands of thousands, yeah.

Okay.

Councilman's interest.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

Uh first of all, just want to say thank you guys uh so much.

Um it's uh very inspiring to to see young people uh care about something that's so much bigger than yourselves as individuals.

Um this technology is something that I you know have have looked at, have connected with other council members across the country.

I'm so happy that you guys looked into Austin, Texas, because they are the leaders in terms of opening this conversation and having some type of accountability.

I've spoken to council member uh Michael Siegel from Austin.

He's been a leading voice around this issue, and what he has come to conclusion is that he tried him and his colleagues to put safeguards to put different policies in place to protect uh the rights of uh residents, the civil liberties.

Um and what they have come to conclusion is that there's just no possible uh way to accomplish that.

The only way to truly hold uh folks accountable or protect the rights of uh their citizens or residents is to uh prohibit it.

So that's what they have have moved to do, um, something that you know I think we should all be open to.

Uh what they did was they they they they they put a prohibition on it, and what they found out is that Flock was turning the cameras back on.

Um so I know right now, literally these past couple months, they they're trying to actually uh completely prohibit it.

And I think an important part of this conversation that we should always you know include is the politics of it.

Um we have uh police departments that that do great work, um, and every police department that I've heard speak of this issue uh supports this technology.

So how do you balance out the the you know the goal of keeping our uh community safe when you have police chiefs uh you know supporting this technology, but also you have so much data and conversations and research uh that shows that there's no way to actually know uh what is being what this data is being used for because for my understanding and I would love it if you guys uh could confirm or or deny it is my understanding Flock uh doesn't see uh license plates as personal private information.

So how do you tell uh a company that you can't um uh uh you you you have to limit, you have to safeguard people's uh private information uh when they themselves don't see license plates as private information, which is in contradiction to uh state uh rhetoric to be specific on that point.

Uh a couple years ago um journalists asked the the DMV to uh put out personal information regarding people's uh license plates, uh but the state uh and their lawyers came in in opposition saying that that's private information.

So on one hand, you have the the state that we live in saying that this information is private, if not accessible to the public, of course, unless you're a fly agency or specific businesses uh that that work with license plates.

Um but we also partner up at the same time of a company uh that doesn't view uh license plates as private information.

Um so this is something that I'm you know very intrigued to keep discussing.

Um I have the personal opinion that that we shouldn't have them because there actually is no possible way to uh implement those safeguards that people um have discussed.

Um at the same time it's it's uh you know difficult conversation for folks.

Um so I'm happy to you know keep discussing and see um what we can do as a city because it's it's completely unacceptable in my opinion.

Um how this technology kind of has taken course and has expanded uh right before our eyes without really much input because I I'm one of uh strong belief in our constitutional rights, and uh in my opinion, allowing this technology to expand is leading us down a very slippery slope which really should uh make the alarm bells go in all of our um heads.

uh strong belief in in our constitutional rights and uh in my opinion uh allowing this technology to expand um is leading us down a very slippery slope um with which really should uh make the alarm bells go in all of our um heads do you guys have do you guys have any uh experience or I guess did you guys come across any information where flock doesn't consider uh a license plate as private information I don't think we came across a case as specific as that but um when it comes to the commercial use of private or personal data uh the law that we mentioned earlier that was recently um came into effect in January or I don't think a transparency and privacy protection act it's hard to say if it includes or protects block or if there's any loopholes uh rather affect spot or if there are any loopholes that protect them um if I guess it would depend on how the terms are defined in the next contract and also sorry sorry as the technique comments here go ahead so when it comes to the license and being on the road being hoped there's a thing with the subject case law that there's no expectation of privacy.

So even with Black having this information of license plates it's because of the fact that it's on the public or it's anybody can see it in vacant access if you don't have um expectation of privacy.

Now if it's in the garage that's different okay so it's no different these cameras are no different from saying another business like CBS or any other types of business even outside for the cameras in city hall seeing um you know have a view of the street the sidewalks get on public it's unfortunately it's there's no expectation of privacy.

So anything you get out of that is fair use or but I would also say that it's you know it's fine to like track you know licensing points but then to keep that information over a period of time so that you then track the license plate from place to place to place and keep a record of that I think that would be ancient privacy not the one off so the three the three minute law in New Hampshire avoids that.

Right.

So there are ways to sort of get around that yeah we've seen that like even um like decades ago with zones where police put a tracker under his truck to see if yeah to see if he was doing like any crime but actually held it for longer than it was supposed to be longer would be what longer than what we weren't delegated.

So it so like with with what you said um Dr.

Lindley um the fact that the fact that like stored data is there for over 30 days really brings into question about what the capabilities are and how bought like what the necessary what point there is for that and I also think that while while um there's still like debates about public and private information the it should the overall issue is from these from up from what um sorry I thought the presentation was still there but from what we've seen and what we've um what we've been looking at through the entire semester with this project block is not being used for what is intended it's being used for stopping other cyber crimes scamming tracking people like for example the abortion case and um using using illegal methods to um to for ice to utilize so it I think that would be something that would be up to conversation if we were to bring it up to police departments because it seems that Rhode Island's chief of police and Rhode Island police have been turned it's been like it tried out um from the uh from what HCLUS have been I think the reality is too is like once um a third party like Flock has this information, this data like there's absolutely nothing that anyone in in in a position of leadership for the for the city or any municipality will know 100% like where that data is how it's being used who has access to it you know worst case scenario Flock could be um compromised by uh even more evil entity and in and God knows what we won't happen with that information or data so I mean that's where it gets uh pretty scary at the end of the day.

Any other committee members have questions?

Councilman Race?

Uh thank you, Chair.

I just want to show it.

Um I have a uh Soupy toddler here.

Our chairwoman has returned.

Um I just want to first state that whenever our students from Rhode Island College come before the council in any capacity piques my interest because we don't see that enough, not because we don't have amazing Rick students, it's just there's a something admirable about the working class nature of Roland College.

Um and I'm I'm in a problem, uh, so uh I just want to shout you all out.

Um I'm just thoroughly impressed and um always inspired when uh Rick is involved.

Um I have a clarifying question, and then maybe uh want to get your perspective on something that was stated in your presentation.

Um I want to just ask so I understand clearly province, I believe has MOUs with other cities in terms of sharing data.

Well we're what you are all saying is that no matter what's in those agreements, the federal agencies can come in and so for example, if we share data with one socket, they could come in and swoop that data from socket, even though we have a MOU with one socket.

Or from an agency that we socket shares with.

So we couldn't even control what would like we if even if we have an MOU that says A1 Socket, don't share our data with federal agencies, they could sort of well it being more like um I think when we we looked at it, it was uh that uh federal we we do know for a fact that federal agencies were looking at beta, but we're surmising that they used a side door, as Brianna was talking about.

It's a new term for me.

Um they uh used the side door to gain access to the data, probably by um having access to one police department uh data so that they could access uh data from other police departments like so you would have to find just one friendly police department to see lots of data from lots of cities.

Yeah, so we can't see, for example, how the federal government, you know, we think that these offices are accessing the data, but we can't see from which city they're accessing from, only that they're getting access.

Is that right, Satan?

Yeah.

Um I don't know if you have information from Rick Network Audit, but in there, there is a there's something that noise it was from Ground Rabbits Michigan Police Department in about a month, 30 to 60 days time frame.

There's been about a hundred searches for um deportation one department, and who knows that person that uh officer is working for or with another agency to pull up that information.

And that's the same thing as the side group thing where they just used to find another way to get the access to that information.

And that's just one of them.

And who knows, again, we don't know uh when it comes to the searches, the reason for the searches.

Some of them very big.

This thing just says investigations, someone just has numbers, someone just left blank in PVD's case, there's nothing in there for us even to determine whether what the reason is.

So we don't know for sure if what information they're sharing with other departments, whether they're using that information to access it for other agencies as well.

Yeah, sorry, just uh uh why are the searches big?

I mean, I I don't mean to be naive, but uh what um is that is there no policy in place to require a simple language or something?

Specific language when they do searches?

No.

They just have to see the end instead of investigation on the policy, you know, that's just a common investigation that tells us nothing.

And can I be uh blunt here?

Is do you believe the the vagueness of that those searches are intentional in terms of um they don't want to sort of give off transparency?

Is that kind of what you mean?

I know it's hard to determine that, but we know that ICE did actually do a search where it said it was the case and it did a search, it's like in Virginia, and you know, all hell ring down them, right?

So then you know they have you know reason now to not actually go in and search in very transparent ways.

And so we don't know by, I mean, some of it could be laziness, right?

But um but you know, there is evidence that there are federal offices that you know that have access to our data.

And then once one does, they also and then I want to make sure we have time for the the ordinance before people uh you agree to just one question about there was there's a mention of there's no evidence that flock cameras solve crimes.

I saw a post by the uh East Province Police Department on Facebook recently where I think they said they collaborated with the province of police and solving crime and they referenced how flock cameras were useful in salving that crime.

Um what would you say to them uh in terms of uh you know they would say just helped us solve that solve that case?

Um and that seems to be in direct conflict with the the claim that flocks do not solve crime.

There's no evidence of that.

So flock cameras very rarely actually do solve crime, and when they do, they tend to highlight that.

I know that um a lot of these when flock does solve a case that tends to be published by the flock website and then for the city at the end.

So when you look up like Flock Providence, and they like they claim that they helped to solve the broad shooting, which they really didn't, they only track the person down to give me I'm sure.

But if you search up Flock Providence, you get the article that they published about how they solved the broad shooting instead of um the like daily uses of flock, and they usually don't solve like violent crimes, they only really use it for private crimes.

We already have traffic cameras that fulfill that need.

So it's not to say that it's not useful, we just don't have evidence for it.

I don't want to end the conversation.

I just have a very exciting point.

I want to first of all thank you all so much.

Great research, really appreciate it.

Um I do think in um this may especially be because of the brown shooting and how recent that it feels for us.

I I suspect that there's probably a fair amount of confusion or like lack of distinction between police cameras, traffic cameras, and flock cameras.

And I heard that a lot in the discussions immediately following the brown shootings.

I represent one of those areas where there's very few flock cameras, but where the very near where the shooting took place.

And for weeks there was a huge amount of, I think, like reasonably justified conversation about the role of surveillance cameras and helping to solve that crime.

What I think that we may need to be doing is disaggregating or helping to clarify understanding what is a flock camera, what is a doorbell camera?

What is a traffic camera?

I I noted during this conversation that there was a like not a lot of clarity and not a lot of distinction.

So this is not really a to-do for you or for us, but I want to put that on the table that as we're considering all this.

I don't think that all camera, I don't think you're saying that that all camera use is necessarily a problem, but I think that it can be easy to construe that if you sort of listen to some of the real challenges around the way flock is managing data, or vice versa.

So just an observation I'm gonna put out there as we're considering all of this.

Nice, thank you, Del Twoman.

Yeah, and I think they were only discussing Flock, but you're totally right, and I think in constituents' minds sometimes it gets confused which one for which, but um, well, thank you guys so much.

I hate to cut this short.

I just want to make sure we have time for the ordinance, but you guys are awesome, and I'm super appreciative, and I think we'll get a written report or this rush.

Yeah, no rush.

But thank you for your work.

Very grateful for that.

Yeah, they're always all the mid city hall any time.

Please come back anytime.

Yeah.

So technically all in favor?

Any opposed?

Cool.

Um, and um also acknowledgment raiser camera.

So good.

Um I have a motion to take uh item three out of order so it can be heard now.

Uh so move.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Excellent.

I just wanted to do public comment now if these folks wanted to comment on that, or if they wanted to share public comment on the ordinance we're about to hear before we hear it, so we don't get the public comment after we've run voted.

Um Robin already did comment, she's left, so check.

Aislin.

Hi.

Hey, I just email it's Eastern Hanley.

And um share your comment.

Wherever you want to stand is hi everyone, Easy Hanley.

I'm the program director with Climate Jobs Rhode Island.

We work with more than 30 labor unions, environmental organizations, and community organizations in the state working to ensure transition to a 21st century economy.

A few of our labor friends submitted testimonies.

So I'll try to keep this brief, but I just want to express our strong, strong support for this ordinance.

We see this as a major step in taking climate planning into action.

Creating this dedicated self-uh sustaining fund is really gonna be a national example, both for how we kickstart projects immediately, but how we can plan a pipeline of projects.

And Providence is really leading the way and showing that you don't have to pick between climate action, the jobs or preserving the community.

You can do all of it, and that is what this funds will do.

So I'm really excited for this to be giving some teeth to the carbon mutual ordinance and helping the city achieve those goals.

But we are in strong, strong support, and hopefully pass it.

Awesome.

We also have Randall Rose.

Randall.

And you can see where you want to hand this to the club that we're trying to call it.

Hello, my name is Randall Rose.

Um and um we the IRB here are um from the um Rhode Islanders for personal privacy, which is a new group which is um working on problems of surveillance and problems of uh AI pieces.

Um we have been um working mostly at the state house level, but um, we are also interested in working at the city level because we are very concerned about uh flop cameras and the other traffic cameras.

I'm just gonna say, I mean, probably um the council members are aware of this, but um just earlier this week um Mayor Smiley went up to the state house and he asked to renew a camera law that was scheduled to expire.

It wasn't the flop cameras, it was the state law on the don't block the box cameras.

Um and that section of state law has about um a total of three operative words that um that um are um relevant to privacy.

Um and if you try to have privacy controls in three words, you're just gonna be completely tubless.

So um, okay, maybe it's a half dozen words, but it's maybe it's it is a um it, you know, a lot of these camera laws say um to have at least a line or two about privacy.

This just has half a dozen words.

So he called for that to be renewed without any privacy protections added.

Um, and unfortunately, that's the kind of thing we're dealing with.

Um so it's um yeah, I I have dealt with these things.

Um I am a former software engineer, I know how um how easy it is to, as well people say code around the law, um how easy it is to obey the law that way.

Um and when um that ACLU bill was up for a hearing, Flock's representative was testifying, he kept saying the kind of things that you've heard.

He said we do not do facial recognition and so on.

Um but everything he said was in the present tense.

Um he says we don't do it, we don't do it right now.

They didn't commit to um not doing these things in the future, um, and we really it really needs elected officials as policymakers to set the right policy because otherwise the um people are gonna say the right things to win the deal, but then they're going to change their policy.

Um the um I would caution against taking any of the their buzzwords and face value.

Um when they say they don't use facial recognition.

We have heard cases of companies that say they do not do facial recognition, um what they but they still search on images of bases, um, and they may match those things to other things.

If they don't match it all the way down to a person's name, if they just match it down to a person's ID, they may claim that's non-facial recognition, but then there may be another database that matches that ID number back to the individual's name.

So unfortunately that's the way this tech ecosystem works.

Um one company complained they don't do facial recognition.

They complain these images are deleted after three days.

Um but even if the images are deleted after three days, um, there's a process version of the image.

They can process the image and say this RC number was spotted at this date at this location, and even though the image is deleted, that processed version of the data may still be around and may still be sold.

And Flock has a reputation for being really terrible on cybersecurity.

They are notoriously vulnerable to hacks.

So we may get foreign entities hacking into the flop cameras.

I would expect some foreign governments and hostile groups would be interested in hacking into that.

And you know, I think Mark, you were asked, um, what do we say to the constituents about what um about whether this is going to solve crimes or not?

Um there have not been the controlled studies have not found that locations of jurisdictions that install flop cameras are safer overall.

Um in fact they may be a little less safe, it's not safer overall.

That's uh there's no controlled study showing that.

Um there are claims that um flop is helpful in this or that individual case.

Police departments may say it's helpful in this or that individual case, but it hasn't shown up at a level significant enough to be statistically detectable in terms of level of safety.

Um cases have not been very well.

They came that have not been very well audited.

Um so um what we want is we just want to make sure we one thing we want to make sure is if you're going to claim that putting in these cameras is going to be a good trade-off, it's gonna sell crimes, it's not going to be used for big brother things.

Um, you have to be really honest with us.

You have to make sure that um that there is absolutely no way that these things can um leak personal information out the back door or out of sales to data brokers or out of some subcontractor flop leaking the data or some hacker breaking in.

Um you have to make sure when you say it's deleted, really, not just the original data, but all processed versions of the data are deleted, um, and that has to be in legally body language.

Um, and even so, even if it is indeed by the new language, um, as um Councilmember Sanchez says, there's a question can you really trust FROC to abide by that language?

Can um a municipality really be sure they're actually following the legal language.

So those are the concerns we have.

And if they can show that they're really going to have um not just use legal language, but actually have really um tight rules that they are um follow and they can we can audit and see if they're following, um, then we might decide it's worth the trade-off.

But they are not making an honest case right now.

Um and we uh we have to, and because we have we know that these things are vulnerable to hacking, they are going to leak out, they are going to be accessed by bad actors, um, the federal government may access it for immigration purposes.

We see that even on the searches that are visible from the from our side.

Um course we can't see when flock does searches in its own database, but even in the searches we can see from our side, we do see um immigration authorities doing that, and they are known for um targeting even legal immigrants.

They may decide that somebody who's been completely legal and follow all the rules, um they may decide to retroactively make them uh no longer having lawful presence and after people like that, they've even known block people up that way.

So there are a number of really serious problems, and unfortunately, we are nowhere near having adequate um laws to constrain them.

And when we when they do introduce laws like that, like the ACLU, Flock and lobbies against them.

Um so it's a um I hope I am pretty close to I'm pretty close to um considering Councilmember Sanchez's view that and the um Austin Council members view that there's just no way to be uh be to be sure that we can do it, but you know, I can give them a chance to prove they'll um follow the strict rules that are really enforceable, but that's not what they like to do.

They like to use weasel words and buzzwords and not really commit to anything.

So that is our thank you so much, Randall.

Appreciate you.

Um that was all the public comment.

I'm gonna give my own public comment, which is that I forgot to do this while the students were still here, and I regret it that I did bring cookies to celebrate the ordinance and this presentation.

So I'm sending us the cookies, but you guys all get cookies, so I'll pass them around.

Um we can start this way.

No, no cookie, no cookies.

Um there's also a lemon loan.

People prefer that.

So pass them around.

And can we please read item three into the record?

Anybody facilitate data to the table?

An ordinance and amendment of chapter five buildings and structural appetites of the quota ordinances of the City of Providence to add article 13 green revolving five.

Welcome.

Thank you so much for coming back.

Before we ask you to say anything, I also would like to enter into the record the um uh other testimony we've received.

Um, and so if I have a motion to enter this is item number two into the record.

Sorry, awesome motion second, all in favor.

Any both awesome, and I just want to highlight for folks who are watching the voluminous number of people watching this meeting that we have, and this is on the portal, but we have testimony from the shoe networkers from the IVEW electrical workers and from Build Rhode Island, and special extra credit goes to the IDEW for referencing at you in our testimony, and I appreciate that.

Um everybody could be please or a lending rope.

Um great.

Well, we heard you guys talk about this ordinance last time.

I'm not sure if there's anything else you guys wanted to share about it, which you're welcome to do, and I'm happy to chat, but um, go ahead.

If you have anything, no pressure.

Yeah, I'll just um very briefly then hand it over to David because he is um the mastermind behind all the decarbonization work that we do in the city.

Um, and David, David within our energy division, he runs that division as director of energy operations.

Um, we'll have the tall order of implementing um the actual operation of this weird revolving fund.

So I think it's important to hear from him and how he sees that the first year should go one to uh we enact this into law.

Um, but taking a step back, like I shared with some of you yesterday and last week when David and I were here.

Um, this is just a very important step, like you heard from Aisling with Climate Jobs, and really um showing the action behind the planning that we do.

Um so I commend um Council Woman Anderwell for her leadership in this space and really showing that you know we can walk the walk, we can do the work.

Um, and we have in fact been doing that the past few years and doing energy efficiency electrification upgrades in our buildings and also doing some solar pilot projects.

This is just gonna take it to the next level and ensure that we have dedicated streams of funding, um, but also that we can replenish that funding in a fund um to support future projects.

So I think this feels longevity for the city, um, and it's also tied to our climate justice plan and of course the uh energy efficiency for ordinance that um handle law spearheaded and got across the finish lines um two years ago.

So um we're very proud of this work on behalf of the city um and where we are today.

Um also just want to publicly acknowledge that um the coalition program capital um gave us funding 250,000 last year to really do the technical analysis and really look at how do we create a green green revolving fund?

Um, what are the best practices?

How do you operationalize that?

Um so we learned a lot throughout that process, um, and they um we were able to bring on sustainable endowment institute to do that analysis work with other partners like planning communities and also um power options.

So that is just all to say that um it didn't happen overnight, um, and that there's been a lot of thought put behind how this will work.

So I'll take it over to David and just talk more about the the projects or anything else you want to share about the green revolving fund.

Yeah, I'll just share a story uh actually just unfolded today.

I got a call from a colleague, Eileen Mason, who actually did some work for Providence about 10 years ago.

Um she runs a company called uh Rethinking Power Manager.

Um and we worked together in the Better Buildings Challenge with similar partners.

Uh and she said I just saw this news announcement that she folks have released a green revolving fund and ordinance.

Uh she said it's it's funny, you know.

I read that the news clippings, uh the projectory is exactly what we have been doing and what we started doing with several of our my former clients.

For current client clients, which is we started with benchmarking, we drew up efficiency and decarbonization plans.

We've um we needed uh seed money we started revolving funds, green revolving funds, efficiency funds, and one organization uh soft housing started with the three million dollar green revolving funding since turn that into 12 million dollars worth of sentences and savings uh they're revolving their savings back in.

So this is the next logical step.

And I'm glad we're here.

That's amazing.

What happens if this when this passes, can I be when this passes, you know?

When I get a call from you at the minute, the final book savings.

There are several contracts we would like to sign to get DMS systems in buildings that we will own shortly, and we currently do.

We've seen a reduction already in the number of buildings where we've upgraded both lighting and VMS systems 2025 energy reduction.

So we will see savings coming back immediately.

We're also just finished analyzing 12 sites for solar installations.

We go to the template for the contracts.

So we're on a case to see.

So everything is, I'm sure you're aware, you know, for the green revolving fund is predicated on let's block in the ITC credits, which we need to have locked in and talked to it's June 30th, it's July 4th, we're even uh June 15th.

Uh but we have 12 projects, all of them very viable.

If we can get six of them, if we get two megs up in line within the next few years, uh that will secure additional funding coming in, and of course, a reduction in energy use and cost.

So, and that's that's the reminder here, which is we're not spending money to maintain buildings or spending money to reduce the main use of those books.

Um I don't have a lot of things.

Yeah, you guys described a lot last time.

Right, to contribute unless you have questions.

Um, I said when I showed up here, you give me the money.

We're trimming into savings, so um this is a lot of money, so I guess you're looking for a lot of savings.

We can deliver this.

I love this.

Um I have two quick notes, and I'll open it up for any questions or comments from committee members.

One is I just want to thank both David and Priscilla as well as the members of this committee, council people, um, for coming back so quickly after the Sabilly Department presented to us last week.

I think many of us heard the sense of urgency to capture all of these federal uh incentives before they disappear.

And so um, with the rigorous schedule of the Ways and Means Committee, we just found like the first available date that we could get this room and have a quorum.

So I just really appreciate you guys coming in on Friday afternoon, swipe out cookies as a thank you.

Um, because we really need to make sure we get this passed in time for them too.

Uh if we're gonna pass it, which I'll be presumptuous, but I'll be presumptuous.

We need to pass it in time for them to take advantage of those credits.

And the second thing is um before we pass, I will want to ask us for a very minor amendment.

We um wrote the 2020 climate justice plan, and director Dela Cruz reminded me that it was 20, it came out in 2019 and so then a minor typo that we created.

Um, and so um I don't know if the clerks can capture that or what the process is, but we would just need to amend it to say 2019.

Yeah, in the purpose section.

We have a send it kind of where they could send it over to us with like the updating, it's just it's just the date instead of saying just the date and the 2020 climate justice plan and say the 2019 climate justice plan.

That's the only thing that's yeah, so whatever the changes are, just if you can send that over to me and then we'll all I think we just need a motion okay.

Can I have a motion to amend 2020 to 2019 in the purpose section?

Either should be that second all in favor?

Any post?

Excellent.

Does anyone have any questions or comments about the ordinance?

Jill.

Hi, yes, thank you.

I have a question.

Um clearly it isn't part of this ordinance, but I'm curious uh whether there's any relationship to um vendors and providers, whether they are required to be United States-based, Rhode Island-based, or whether it's strictly on uh price when it comes to actually bidding for services.

That's a great question.

So the way that the green revolving fund is structured is that it's tied to all the provisions within the energy efficiency and carbon control ordinance from 2023, and that does have um it has a labor standards in there, and then it also ties back to the to a tax stabilization um law in existence that looks at pre-apprentips first source.

So for us, the directive and what that means for the city is that anything that goes out to bid, it references that ordinance and abides by that ordinance.

I don't know if that that answers.

It certainly starts to, yeah.

I mean, and because you know, and I don't want to get in the weeds about procurement, but I know that's we just go strictly on um meeting standards plus price.

Um but we have you know, sort of we're we're part of an ecosystem where we really want to make sure that Rhode Island has the systems it needs to support this kind of work.

Yeah I can give you an example um yeah so I I think the first part is like if ever we go out whenever we go out to procurement for for these type of projects or initiatives it will tie back to the energy facility green revolving fund yeah um carbon neutral ordinance tied to the green revolving fund and the second bucket of that is we've been fortunate to have um competitive bids that we've been able to piggyback off of working through the League of Cities and towns for example and they've done for competitive procurement um we are working with a solar vendor um how to state select energy but because of the provisions that we have in the carbon neutral ordinance um it resulted in them working with local uh with IBW local I mean not right so it's just like the power of like we we whether we go through an existing competitive bidding that's already been done or we do our own procurement it all ties back to the ordinance and really incentivizes the the vendor that we use to really abide by our labor standards and pre-apprentip requirements and in this case this vendor in subcontractor said I'm gonna work with IBW in addition to meeting the apprenticeship requirements help of the hand that's great yeah yeah and like you I'm always thinking about like um and and like Councilwoman and the well when we're thinking about like this energy of workforce space like how does it how do we ensure that it's benefiting our local economy so that's certainly something we're gonna continue to keep in mind too thank you awesome any other questions or comments or thoughts towards that one thank you guys thank you okay then if there are no further questions or comments um do I have a motion to approve as amended so moved.

Seconded awesome motion to approve as amended second all in favor any opposed excellent the uh ordinances passed that committee as amended and we'll go it's passed in time to go on the meeting next week right excellent so we'll be passing we'll hear for the first time back to that I thought yay okay and about um next meeting yeah yeah so our next full council meeting is on Thursday so this isn't time for it to be on that agenda so yeah um and that'll be the first passage um given that there is no further business do I have motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second all in favor?

Yay we are adjourned thank you all