Trending
MORGANTOWN - With the use of advanced surveillance technology, including automated license plate reader cameras and facial recognition software, becoming increasingly mainstream, Morgantown City Council is looking to preemptively adopt ground rules about how such devices can be used by the city and on city property.
On Tuesday, council held its first public discussion, but took no action, on the first reading of an ordinance regulating surveillance systems.
While some members of council indicated they generally support the ordinance as presented, they expressed a desire to continue to refine the language before moving the issue forward for adoption.
Councilor Joe Abu-Ghannam, who was the first to publicly raise the topic back in August, was one such member.
"I'm glad that we are having these discussions. I'm good to move forward, but I also feel there are some substantial changes that I would like to see in terms of some of our very specific terminology," he said.
The ordinance, as presented, would amend Article 115 of city code pertaining to city property and create two new articles - Article 116 "Face Surveillance Systems,” and Article 117 "Surveillance Technology."
In short, the ordinance says the city will not install, nor allow any other person to install or maintain, any recording device on city property that engages in "face surveillance."
It has the same prohibition for automated license plate reader cameras (ALPRs).
More broadly, it states the city nor any city official, will use, install or maintain, nor allow any other person or entity to use, install or maintain any "surveillance technology" - which includes but is not limited to cell site simulators, automatic license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, predictive policing technology, face surveillance systems, gait analysis software, characteristic tracking systems, video cameras that record audio or video and can transmit or be remotely accessed, and unmanned aircraft systems equipped with remote video capabilities - unless it is in accordance with the procedures spelled out in the law.
Those procedures include a public hearing and the approval of city council.
Any such request must come with a detailed use policy explaining what data will be collected, what measures the individual/department will take to keep collected data secure, and information on whether the data will be shared with any government or private entities. It must also include certification from any vendor pertaining to the collection, retention, access and purging of data gathered in the city.
In regard to preexisting uses, any surveillance technology being utilized by a city official or department must request the approval of city council within one year of the ordinance's passage.
Each use of surveillance technology approved by city council under the law will require an annual report from the relevant department defining its use, details of any data shared, copies of each audit conducted, reports detailing any breach or violation and the cost of the technology during the reporting period.
The law would not govern private property or property of other government agencies, including streets owned by the state.
"I think the issue for local government is we often find that we now have to think of not simply whether a technology is useful, but whether there are clear rules on governing when it may be used, how we access it, how the information is protected, how long it's retained, and making sure that the public as well as elected officials understand how it is used as well," City Manager Jamie Miller said. "So that is what part of this ordinance is intended to address on these types of technologies."
During the public comment portion of the meeting, council heard from a handful of individuals who expressed appreciation for the city's willingness to address the issue preemptively.
Each of the individuals who spoke have appeared before the Monongalia County Commission to voice opposition to the county's deployment of Flock Safety ALPRs.
"I think it's a very important issue and I think it's very forward-thinking of the city to try to get a jump on some of these things before the tech is already here and we're trying to think through it as a lawsuit or looking back and regretting not doing this beforehand," Lesley Nash said.
Harrison York said the ordinance presented Tuesday is a "pretty solid start," but falls short in that it doesn't ban the technology outright, leaving it open to the decisions of future city councils.
In response, Deputy Mayor Mark Downs said everything council does is subject to the whims of future officeholders.
That said, Downs believes the current iteration of council is doing its best to set expectations on the use of this technology.
"None of us are experts in this issue, but we care about your privacy. We care about your safety. And there's some intersection here. That doesn't mean we have to compromise one to have the other," he said. "This is a work in progress."