HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-25 Tech Privacy Task Force Post Agenda Packet City of Chula Vista
Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
**POST-MEETING AGENDA**
Date:Monday, April 25, 2022
Time:6:00 p.m.
Location:Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
Meeting Agenda
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.INTRODUCTIONS
3.1.Welcome and introduction by City staff, task force member introductions,
and brief overview of task force scope and timeline for work
2
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 16
Any individual may address the task force on any matter within the subject area
of the task force that is not on the agenda. Speakers will have a maximum of
two minutes to provide their comments. A maximum of 20 minutes will be
provided for public comment at this time. Speakers will be called in the order in
which their requests to speak are received. If, after 20 minutes, there are still
individuals in the queue to speak, they will be provided an opportunity to speak
after the business items have concluded.
5.BUSINESS ITEMS
5.1.Presentation and discussion of public opinion research and direction on
further research and community engagement
37
5.2.Task force logistics - discuss and determine upcoming meeting dates
and times and potential selection of chair / co-chair
6.STAFF COMMENTS
7.TASK FORCE MEMBER COMMENTS
8.ADJOURNMENT
ADD TITLE
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force Intro
April 25, 2022
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 2 of 93
2
10
Objectives
39
Initiatives
4
Goals
Structure of the plan
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 3 of 93
3
•Network connectivity for city facilities
•Technology access for all
•Integrate smart city philosophy
Connected
Innovative
Transparent
Responsive
Smart Cities Strategic Action Plan
•Community engagement
•Intergovernmental relations
•Economic development
•Data & analytics to improve city services
•Public access to city KPIs
•Bayfront as model neighborhood
•Advance sustainability
•Cutting edge technology in city departments
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 4 of 93
Launched Digital HQ
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/businesses/smartcity
-
hr .
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 5 of 93
City Projects & Initiatives
Police Dispatch
Modernization
proving pubic safety
Advanced Traffic
Signals
Reducing traffic
Innovation Station
STEAM education for ids
Projects
Construction &
Development Data
Onie zoning and permitting
Smart Bayfront
Smart Cy test bed
e ea
·r ~ir"re ua? a F � .. . . ·-·-·---'
ebe •
Citizens' Apps
Two-way conunca0on
Unmanned Aerial
Systems / Drones
Accelerating drone technology
Autonomous Vehicles
Projects
Free Internet Access
Closing the digital divide
Telecommunications
Master Plan
Projects
Projects
Construction
Development Data
e2000.
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 6 of 93
❑Collaboration &
Partnerships
6
•Regional Smart Cities
Collaborative
•SANDAG Regional
Digital Divide Task
Force
•Bloomberg Harvard
City Leadership
Initiative
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 7 of 93
7
•Open Data Policy (2018)
•Data Governance
Committee (2019)
•Digital Equity &
Inclusion Plan (2020)
❑Open Data &
Transparency
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 8 of 93
2017 -2018 2019 -2020 2021 -2022
•Smart City Strategic
Action Plan
•Open Data Policy
•Smart city
marketing &
communications
•Traffic Signals
Communications Master
Plan
•Citywide
Telecommunications
Master Plan
•Data Governance
Committee & Standards
•Digital Equity & Inclusion
Plan
* Refining technology
privacy & oversight
policies
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 9 of 93
Technology & Privacy Advisory Project
1.Public opinion research
2.Establish community task force
3.Education, outreach, and deliberation
4.Draft technology and privacy oversight policy
5.City Council review and approval
9Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
April 25, 2022CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
(IIY OM CHULA VISTA
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 10 of 93
Public Opinion Research
•Scientifically valid public opinion poll and
focus groups
•Develop a clear understanding of residents’
opinions on: •City’s use of technology to support City
operations•Newer technologies in public safety •City’s commitment to privacy
•Understand differences of opinion among
segments of the population•Potential variables: age, comfort level with
technology, neighborhood, length of
residency, etc.
10Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
April 25, 2022
I
,,
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
(IIY Of CHULA VISTA
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
I
,,
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 11 of 93
Establish the task force
•Purpose: Develop a recommended policy
on technology, privacy, and acceptable
use for adoption by the City Council
•Members:
•Chula Vista residents
•Privacy advocates
•Technology experts
•Public safety experts
•Meets six to eight times over 2022
11Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
April 25, 2022
T
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
(IIY Of CHULA VISTA
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 12 of 93
Education, outreach and deliberation
•Presentations, workshops, interviews,
informal focus groups with:
•Community-based organizations
•Nonprofit advocacy organizations
•City staff
•Educational presentations for task
force members with guest speakers
•Developing communications materials
(flyers, social media) for the general
public
12Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
April 25, 2022
I
CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
(IIY Of CHULA VISTA
I
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 13 of 93
Developing the policy
•Five-to seven-page document
•Developed and refined over several task
force meetings
•Provide detailed guidance to City
decisionmakers on privacy considerations
and oversight of new technologies
•Presented to City Council for review and
approval in Fall 2022
13Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
April 25, 2022CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
(IIY Of CHULA VISTA
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 14 of 93
14
Task Force Timeline
Task Force Opinion Research Community Engagement
February –
March
•Established City steering committee
•Determined task force format and timeline
•Recruited applicants Feb. 16 –March 18
•Received and reviewed 57 applications
•Hired public opinion research firm
•Developed 25-question survey
•600-resident random sample survey in
field March 21 –March 31
•Solicit ideas and priorities for
community meetings
April -
August
•Interview and appoint task force members
•First task force mtg April 25
•Eight meetings (once every three weeks)
•Site visits and department briefings
•Develop and refine draft policy
•Present initial poll results to City staff
•Present full poll results to Task Force
•Four focus groups –12 people each
•Present full poll results and focus
groups to City Council
•Two to three community
meetings / workshops held
outside City Hall
•Publish regular updates to
City website, newsletter, and
social media
September
-October
•Final task force meetings
•Internal city staff review of recommended
policy
November -
December
•Presentation of recommended policy to
City Council
Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
April 25, 2022CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
CHULA CALIF.ORN IA
(IIY OM CHULA VISTA
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 15 of 93
April 25, 2022
City of Chula Vista
Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
Email: privacytaskforce@chulavistaca.gov
RE: Surveillance Technology Ordinance
Dear Members of the Chula Vista Technology and Privacy Advisory Task Force:
I write today on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a California-based
nonprofit that advocates for civil liberties as society adopts more and more advanced
technologies. Our organization has helped to develop, inform, and enforce municipal
surveillance oversight programs across the United States. In my personal capacity, I was
recently honored with the San Diego Society of Professional Journalists' Sunshine Award
for bringing transparency to the types of surveillance in use across San Diego County.1
We congratulate the city of Chula Vista for taking this first step towards reviewing
surveillance technologies through the lens of privacy. However, more needs to be done.
We urge the Task Force to cooperate with local civil rights and social justice
organizations to negotiate a robust surveillance oversight ordinance that allows for public
involvement and transparency, and that designates the power of final approval of
technology acquisitions and policies to elected officials.
Too often, public safety agencies acquire powerful technologies after closed-door
conversations with vendors, shutting the community out of discussions that will have a
significant impact on their rights. Privacy, civil rights, and individual freedoms are often
either an afterthought for officials or seen as a hindrance to investigations, when in reality
addressing these issues is a crucial element to public safety and maintaining a healthy
relationship between the government and its constituents. Without proper deliberation
and safeguards, surveillance technology can have a number of deleterious effects,
including misuse, racial and socio-economic bias, over-policing, and waste of public
1 Fraley, Malaika. "EFF Director of Investigations Dave Maass Honored With Sunshine Award For Driving
Public Disclosure of Government Surveillance Records." Electronic Frontier Foundation. March 23, 2022.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/eff-director-investigations-dave-maass-honored-sunshine-award-dri
ving-public
EELECTRONIC FF FRONTIER
FOUNDATION
815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 USA phone +l.415.436.9333 fax +l.415.436.9993 email info@eff.org eff.org
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 16 of 93
RE: Surveillance Technology Ordinance
April 25, 2022
Page 2 of 3
funds.
In recent years, the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) has adopted sophisticated
surveillance technologies that have proven controversial and damaging to community
relations. Of these, one of the most troubling has been the use of automated license plate
readers to collect data on drivers, which CVPD was found to have shared with
immigration enforcement agencies in apparent violation of multiple state laws.2
CVPD has also deployed the "Drones as First Responders" program, an unorthodox
system at odds with commonly accepted use across the United States. While many police
agencies use drones sparingly for emergency situations, swat operations, or documenting
crime scenes, CVPD has deployed drones more than 10,000 times to respond to routine
calls for service, including a variety of low-level incidents such as vandalism and people
sleeping in public.In fact, welfare checks and psychological evaluations accounted for34
19% of drone-involved cases—incidents that social workers and mental health
professionals would be better suited to address than remote-controlled police robots. If a
member of the community were to read CVPD's formal policy for Unmanned Aerial
System (UAS) Operations, they would discover a bare, 2½-page document generated by
the company Lexipol.They would not get a clear understanding of how the program5
works or what safeguards are in place. In addition,Voice of San Diego raised legitimate
questions about the relationship between CVPD officers and the drone vendor, which has
resulted in an employment "revolving door."6
CVPD has been planning to build a real-time crime center (RTCC), a surveillance facility
that would allow police to analyze and combine data from a large variety of sources,
including drones and license plate readers.This model of policing, pushed by vendors7
with much to gain, should raise red flags for public officials, especially without strong
7 Marx, Jesse. "Chula Vista Is Building a Real-Time Crime Center." Voice of San Diego. Sept. 2, 2021.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/09/02/chula-vista-is-building-a-real-time-crime-center/
6 Mejías Pascoe, Sophia. "Chula Vista PD’s Drone Program Opened a Revolving Door for Officers." Voice
of San Diego. April 6, 2021.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/04/05/chula-vista-pds-drone-program-opened-a-revolving-door-for-officer
s/
5 Chula Vista Police Department. "Policy 613: Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations." February 20,
2020. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16381/637178753321100000
4 Mejías Pascoe, Sophia. "Police Drone Footage Is Off Limits – Unless This Legal Challenge Takes Flight."
Voice of San Diego. May 5, 2021.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/05/05/police-drone-footage-is-off-limits-unless-this-legal-challenge-takes
-flight/
3 Chula Vista Police Department. "Drone Program." Retrieved April 22, 2022.
https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/police-department/programs/uas-drone-program
2 Solis, Gustavo. "Chula Vista gives immigration officials, others access to license plate reader data." San
Diego Union-Tribune. Dec. 6, 2020.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/south-county/chula-vista/story/2020-12-06/chula-vist
a-gives-immigration-officials-others-access-to-license-plate-reader-data
815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 USA phone +l.415.436.9333 fax +l.415.436.9993 email info@eff.org eff.org
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 17 of 93
RE: Surveillance Technology Ordinance
April 25, 2022
Page 3 of 3
controls grounded in community input. Such a center would supercharge privacy-invasive
surveillance, without commensurate improved oversight.
The Task Force has quite the task ahead of you, but by promoting an ordinance that is
inclusive of communities and permanently shifts power to elected officials, the city of
Chula Vista will be better suited to balance public safety with privacy and civil liberties.
Best regards,
Dave Maass
Director of Investigations
Electronic Frontier Foundation
815 Eddy Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 USA phone +l.415.436.9333 fax +l.415.436.9993 email info@eff.org eff.org
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 18 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 19 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 20 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 21 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 22 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 23 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 24 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 25 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 26 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 27 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 28 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 29 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 30 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 31 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 32 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 33 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 34 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 35 of 93
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 36 of 93
Public Opinion · Public Policy · Organizations · Campaigns
1987 –Founded in San Diego
1988 –Phonecenters established in Riverside, CA and San Diego
1990 –Phonecenters established in Reno, NV and San Diego
1992 –Predictive dialing installed to double interviewing capacity; CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
1993 –"The Edge" newsletter launches
1998 –Qualitative focus groups introduced
2000 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
2003 –KPBS/Competitive Edge Research Poll and annual Super Bowl poll launched
2004 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race (x2)
2005 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race (x2)
2006 –SDIPR/CERC Opinion Barometer launched; Ballot measures paper presented at AAPOR Conference
2008 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race; Convenes post-election summit @ USD
2009 –Interviewer effects paper presented at AAPOR Conference
2010 –Web-based interviewing and custom panels introduced
2012 –Dial-testing introduced; CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race (x2)
2013 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race; Business Forecast survey launched
2014 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
2016 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
2017 –Phonecenter established in El Paso, TX
2018 –CERC calls CA Governor’s race (x2)
2019 –Ballot measure wording paper presented at AAPOR Conference
2020 –Incumbent viability paper accepted for presentation at AAPOR Conference
John Nienstedt, MA Political Science: President
Member, American Association for Public Opinion Research
Insights Association
SBA Entrepreneurial Success Award (2000)
Pollster of the year (x7)
Rachel Lawler, MA Political Science: Research Analyst
Member, American Association for Public Opinion Research
Ronald Zavala:Director of Operations
James Iwu: Research Assistant
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 37 of 93
Chula Vista
Privacy Poll
n=607 residents
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 38 of 93
Page | 3
Summary
Research Objectives:1) Estimate resident approval of drone program
2) Estimate resident approval of automated license plate reader program
3) Understand opinion dynamics
4) Measure opinions of program benefits and concerns
Sample Size:n=607
Margin of Sampling Error:±4%
Confidence Level:95%
Sample Methodology:Simple random sampling from listed sample
Jurisdiction:City of Chula Vista
Eligibility:Adult residents
Interview Methods:Telephone (including cell phones), e-mail push-to-web, text push-to-web
Languages:English, Spanish, Tagalog
Average Total Duration:12 minutes, 36 seconds
Field Dates:March 21 -30, 2022
Field Facility:Competitive Edge Research, El Paso TX
Project Director:John Nienstedt, Sr.
Research Analyst: Rachel Lawler
Research Assistant:James Iwu
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 39 of 93
Page | 4
Current Approval of the Drone
Program
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 40 of 93
•Widespread approval that’s more strong than soft is a solidly positive result
•Only 18% disapprove of the program
•Just 5% are unsure, indicating drones elicit opinions.
Page | 5
9%9%5%35%42%
APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF CV PD’S USE OF DRONES
DISAPPROVE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE SOMEWHAT MIXED/UNSURE APPROVE SOMEWHAT APPROVE STRONGLY
More than 3/4ths Approve
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 41 of 93
Page | 6
Why?
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 42 of 93
Page | 7
Police/Public Safety, Crime Surveillance are Top Reasons for Approval
•Safety fans view drones as keeping people and police out of harm’s way
–“To keep the community and the officers that protect us safe”
•“Crime surveillance” is a popular response among residents < 38
–“It can be beneficial in terms of giving law enforcement and fire fighter
personnel a better idea of the environment they’re going into”
•18% see the drones as aiding investigations
–“It gives extra evidence”
–A more popular reason in the Northwest
•2nd tier: “Finding missing people and criminals” rises to the top for 7%
–“It could be used to find lost children or abducted children”
–“An elderly friend was found with the drone and probably saved his life”
20%
20%
18%
7%
6%
5%
5%
1%
5%
7%
POLICE/PUBLIC SAFETY
CRIME SCENE
MONITORING/SURVEILLANCE
AID POLICE INVESTIGATION
FIND MISSING
PERSONS/CRIMINALS
HELICOPTER REPLACEMENT
IMPROVE RESPONSE TIMES
USEFUL TOOL/TECHNOLOGY
DETER/REDUCE CRIME
ONLY IF USED PROPERLY FOR
INCIDENTS/EMERGENCIES
ADDITIONAL POLICE
MANPOWER
USED FOR
TRAFFIC INCIDENCES
CRIME IS INCREASING
I TRUST THE POLICE/I HAVE
NOTHING TO HIDE
OTHER
NOTHING/DON'T KNOW
REASON TO APPROVE OF THE
DRONE PROGRAM (n =477)
•Cutting costs by replacing
helicopters
•Response times
•The tech.
public sate Security
. invasion provide I s1tuat1on
••
Wpeople;safety .. _ catch ■ - good faster. I; • t"""'" 1 • ""' way =scrim heir@DO[ICe±: ·5raj';;sl':;;,:'s ...."""gffiersprIyVaCy information response safe
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 43 of 93
Page | 8
Privacy Concerns; Potential for Misuse are Big Reasons for Disapproval
•Privacy worries will be the Department’s chief hurdle to increasing buy -in
–Invasion, as in invasion of privacy, appear
–“I think personal privacy in gatherings makes it feel you’re being watched
even if you’re not breaking the law in general you feel watched”
–Note that this is more an issue of “feel”than losing actual privacy
•1/3rd cite the potential for misuse by the police or government
–Terms like surveillance appear
–“It is none of their business; stay out of my backyard; I don’t believe in a
police state”
•That the city is wasting resources spurs a minor amount of disapproval.
42%
33%
11%
12%
3%
PRIVACY CONCERNS
POLICE/GOV MISUSE
WASTE OF RESOURCES
OTHER
NOTHING/
DON'T KNOW
REASON TO DISAPPROVE OF THE
DRONE PROGRAM (n =92)
r public «a technology watched trust use
people_.. surveillance
rreaeh
lying incidents io know private
mt;r, a '-'-----: invade 1, around citizens rt sa intorma0on -- feel semi_p0I[Ce - - -invasion
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 44 of 93
Approval of Drone Program
Zip Code?
Page | 9
Gender?
Age?
Chula Vista PII Confidentiality?
Voter Registration?
Party?
Ethnicity?
Income?
Federal Government PII Confidentiality?
Online Business PII Confidentiality?
Civic Mood?
Trust in CV PD?
Area?
Language?
Type of Drone Info?
Exposure to Drone Program?
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 45 of 93
Page | 10
1) Trust in the Police Department Breeds Approval
•Almost all who trust police a lot approve, with > 60% registering strong approval
•Approval remains very widespread among somewhat trusting residents, but not as intense
•Even most who do not trust the police “much” widely approve of the program
–Approval among them is qualified
–Nearly 30% of these moderately distrusting folks disapprove
•A complete lack of trust leads to strong disapproval for the program
40%
17%
5%
20%
12%
11%
3%
6%
6%
3%
17%
42%
40%
30%
20%24%
39%
63%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(44%)
A LOT
(30%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY TRUST IN CV PD
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
•Building support for the drone program is
generally a matter of the system's operators
having at least a modicum of the public's trust
•Fortunately for the program, relatively few
residents seriously distrust the police
•Approval of the drone program would sink if
something occurred to substantially tarnish
the police department.
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 46 of 93
Page | 11
•Residents > 31 put the greatest trust in the police
–If they’re White, 48% trust the department a lot
and one-third trust it somewhat
–Their non-White counterparts aren’t necessarily
distrusting
–But their trust is tempered
•44% of younger residents --regardless of race or
ethnicity --have serious doubts
•The Department should expect those < 32 to view its
policies with skepticism.
10%
34%
17%20%
37%
33%
50%
19%
48%
27%
< 32 YO
(29%)
32+ YO; WHITE
(15%)
32+ YO;
NON -WHITE (56%)
TRUST IN CV PD BY AGE/ETHNICITY
A LOT
SOMEWHAT
NOT MUCH
NOT AT ALL
Trust in the Police Department Mainly Varies by Age
N
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 47 of 93
•Latino residents make up about half the city’s population
•Another 8% are ethnically mixed
–Latinos and multi-race residents are frequently younger than 35
•Whites are at 23%
–They’re often seniors
•Asian/Pacific Islanders are at 15%
–They tend to be middle-aged.
Page | 12
Chula Vista is Ethnically Diverse
WHITE/
CAUCASIAN ,
23%
HISPANIC/
LATINO , 51%
BLACK/AFRICAN
AMERICAN, 3%
ASIAN/PACIFIC
ISLANDER 15%
MIXED, 8%
ETHNICITY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 48 of 93
Page | 13
2) Some News is Better than Other News
•Simply hearing about the police using drones and that the program is in place contributes to approval
•There is also evidence that news stories have been beneficial
•But seeing, reading, or hearing about privacy issues or surveillance tends to make residents suspicious
•Only 6% have been exposed to this, so the drone program is, by and large, supported.
17%15%
28%
4%5%
15%
21%
13%8%
26%
7%
5%
33%
27%
16%
24%
28%
42%
44%42%
8%
66%
53%
41%
HEARD POLICE
USE DRONES
(13%)
PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE/
SEEN DRONES
FLYING
(9%)
PRIVACY/
SURVEILLANCE
CONCERNS
(6%)
READ/SEEN
NEWS STORIES
(5%)
OTHER
(13%)
NOTHING/
DON'T KNOW
(55%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY THINGS SEEN/READ/HEARD ABOUT DRONE PRO GRAM
APPROVE STRONGLY
APPROVE SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE STRONGLY
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 49 of 93
Page | 14
Program Flies Under Most People’s Radar
•55% have seen “nothing”or “don’t know”
–Women in the 91911 and men in the Southwest are at larger deficits
•Most of what residents are hearing is neutral
–Police use drones
–Personal experience when they see them flying over their house
–News stories
•The good news is negative information isn’t widespread
•But 6% have heard about privacy/surveillance concerns being raised.
13%
9%
6%
5%
55%
HEARD POLICE USE DRONES
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE/SEEN
THE DRONES FLYING
PRIVACY/SURVEILLANCE
CONCERNS
READ/SEEN NEWS STORIES
I AGREE WITH THE PROGRAM
HELPS FIND MISSING
PERSONS/CRIMINALS
CRIME SCENE
MONITORING/SURVEILLANCE
THE FIRST CITY TO USE THEM
POLICE/PUBLIC SAFETY
OTHER
NOTHING/DON'T KNOW
INFO SEEN/READ/HEARD ABOUT
DRONE PROGRAM
l·tt1 people safe .f]+- e. privacy:
bettr.r department y I n g n e w s place I technology time ii@#y,ir ho
use 10IICe ··"@~irzjti;iris.
sinformation officers "
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 50 of 93
Page | 15
3) Far More Support Among Residents Older Than 46
•84% of residents > 46 approve of the drone program
–More than half strongly support it
–Older residents emphasize the benefits of public and
police safety
•Widespread approval exists even among those 46 and
younger, but it’s lukewarm
–Nearly a quarter of those residents do disapprove of the
drone program
–In addition to privacy and misuse concerns, younger
residents are somewhat prone to regarding the system
as a waste of resources
–None of the older residents expressed that concern.
13%4%
11%
7%
6%
5%
39%
31%
32%
53%
< 47 YO
(48%)
47+ YO
(52%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY AGE
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 51 of 93
Page | 16
4) Support Increases as Income Decreases
•Very low-income residents are "all in"
•Almost no low-income residents do not approve
–They elevate finding missing persons as part of their
rationale
•Lots of approval among residents in the $25,000 to
$100,000 category, but it comes off its ultrahigh levels
•Even a super-majority of high earning households approve
–But it’s less widespread, not as strong, and 23% outright
disapprove
–Income residents disproportionately sense the potential
for police misuse of the drones.
4%
15%9%
8%7%
45%
33%
38%
50%47%
37%
< $25K
(7%)
$25-100K
(51%)
> $100K
(42%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY INCOME
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 52 of 93
Page | 17
5) Non-Registrants are Slightly Happier with the Program
•The differences here are not large, but they are significant
•Approval among non-registrants is very high but less robust among voters
–20% of the voters actually disapprove of the drone program.
10%
10%
6%
5%
7%
34%
38%
41%46%
REGISTERED (78%)UNREGISTERED (22%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY
VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 53 of 93
Page | 18
6) Ability for Chula Vista to Maintain Data Privacy is Important
•Residents more confident in Chula Vista’s data
privacy capabilities evince more approval
•No extremely confident residents disapprove
•Among those only somewhat confident, 16%
have a problem with the drone program
•That reaches 25% among those < somewhat
confident
•Lacking confidence in Chula Vista's data
privacy procedures isn’t a dealbreaker, but it
doesn’t help allay drone program fears
•A city-specific data breach would lessen
approval.
12%8%5%
13%
8%
8%
5%
29%
35%
48%53%
38%45%45%45%
< SOMEWHAT
CONFIDENT
(42%)
SOMEWHAT
CONFIDENT
(35%)
VERY
CONFIDENT
(15%)
EXTREMELY
CONFIDENT
(6%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY
CHULA VISTA PII CONFIDENTIALITY
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 54 of 93
Page | 19
40%
21%
14%
19%
24%
22%
24%
36%
35%
5%
12%
15%
6%
5%
6%
ONLINE BUSINESSES
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU, IF AT ALL, THAT THE FOLLOWING KEEP YOUR P ERSONAL INFORMATION SAFE
AND PRIVATE...
NOT AT ALL CONFIDENT NOT THAT CONFIDENT SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT VERY CONFIDENT EXTREMELY CONFIDENT UNSURE
8%
2%
5%
Chula Vista’s Reputation for Confidentiality is Better than the Feds’
•The city outperforms both the federal government and online businesses
•But fewer than one-in-ten are extremely confident any of these entities maintain confidentiality
–The vast majority of residents have some reservations regarding the protection of their private data
•Chula Vista’s reputation is not solid and improvements could be made
–More so among men, who are more skeptical.
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 55 of 93
Page | 20
7) Almost Universal Approval in South Central Communities
•No community “disapproves” of the drone program
•But the South Central area stands out as significantly less questioning
–A mere 7% there disapprove of the program, and just 2% strongly disapprove
•The other areas exhibit more than 70% approval
–But all those show substantial disapproval.
8%12%10%6%
8%
10%9%11%
5%
6%10%
6%
4%
35%
34%30%
32%
48%
45%39%40%45%42%
NORTHWEST
(29%)
NORTH CENTRAL
(16%)
EAST
(13%)
SOUTHWEST
(28%)
SOUTH CENTRAL
(14%)
DRONE PROGRAM APPROVAL BY AREA
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 56 of 93
5 Areas of Chula Vista
Page | 21
Northwest
North Central
East
@southwest
• South Central
• .° •
• Iii • • ROLLING
H' LS RANCH
,·% • • .. , • I EASTLA • ¢. )
Rancho dekRey
·% ' °j ;" .s» ¢° • ·.he4. ,°." • -� iJNllOW. • • e fe « s· •
ore • , • d zg; ,I• saw. • g] r ouw»am
Otay wr
haul
•
a I City
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 57 of 93
Approval of Drone Program
Page | 22
3. Age
6. Chula Vista PII Confidentiality
5. Voter Registration
4. Income
1. Trust in CV PD
7. Area
2. Type of Drone Info
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 58 of 93
Page | 23
Drone Use Benefits
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 59 of 93
•Providing live video to police and the de-escalation aspect are seen as highly beneficial by large majorities
•Only about 6% see each of these aspects of the drone program as not beneficial.
Page | 24
Most See the Drones as Delivering a lot of Benefit
3%3%2%23%28%41%
THE DRONE CAN ARRIVE ON THE INCIDENT SCENE AND PROVIDE LIVE VIDE O TO POLICE MINUTES BEFORE
A PATROL CAR ARRIVES SO THAT RESPONDING OFFICERS KNOW WHAT TO EX PECT WHEN THEY ARRIVE.
NOT AT ALL BENEFICIAL NOT THAT BENEFICIAL UNSURE SOMEWHAT BENEFICIAL VERY BENEFICIAL EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL
4%3%4%21%33%36%
DRONE VIDEO HAS HELPED CHULA VISTA POLICE SAFELY DE -ESCALATE AND RESOLVE POTENTIALLY
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS WITHOUT INJURY TO POLICE, SUSPECTS OR BYSTA NDERS.
NOT AT ALL BENEFICIAL NOT THAT BENEFICIAL UNSURE SOMEWHAT BENEFICIAL VERY BENEFICIAL EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 60 of 93
Page | 25
Strong Appeal for Trusting Residents
•The Johnny-on-the-spot feature is highly
appealing to those who at least somewhat
trust the police
•But this aspect does not matter much to
those who admit to at least some distrust
in the department
•De-escalation also strongly appeals to
residents who trust the police a lot
•Among those who trust the police less:
–Women tend to see this as a big
benefit, but men are very lukewarm
•Neither drone benefit resonates strongly
with marginally (or less) trusting residents.
35%
5%
38%
50%
21%
12%
7%
23%
38%
19%
21%23%
34%
67%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(44%)
A LOT
(30%)
PROVIDES LIVE FEED BEFORE POLICE ARRIVE BY TRUST IN CV PD
EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL
VERY
SOMEWHAT/UNSURE
NOT THAT
NOT AT ALL BENEFICIAL
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 61 of 93
Page | 26
Drone Use Concerns
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 62 of 93
•About one-third are highly worried about innocent people being filmed by the drones
•36% express serious concern about other agencies getting ahold of drone footage
–The question of shared footage is more polarizing than the invasion of residents’ privacy
•Concerns are certainly significant
–But more residents are unconcerned than highly concerned about these things.
Page | 27
More are Not Worried than Highly Concerned
20%18%29%14%19%
SOME PEOPLE WORRY THE DRONES MIGHT RECORD VIDEO OF INNOCENT PEOP LE WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED
IN A CRIME OR INVADE PEOPLE’S PRIVACY BY FILMING RESIDENTS IN TH EIR BACKYARD OR HOME.
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED NOT THAT CONCERNED UNSURE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED VERY CONCERNED EXTREMELY CONCERNED
24%16%22%14%22%
SOME PEOPLE WORRY THAT FOOTAGE FROM DRONE CAMERAS WILL BE SHARED WITH OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND IMMIGRATION AGENCIES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WIT H THE ORIGINAL INCIDENT.
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED NOT THAT CONCERNED UNSURE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED VERY CONCERNED EXTREMELY CONCERNED
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 63 of 93
Page | 28
Concerns Also Revolve Around Views of Police
•Worries footage might be shared with other
agencies really stick in the craw of those who
distrust police
–It even gets the attention of men who
somewhat trust the police department
–The rest of the residents –somewhat
trusting women and others who have a
lot of trust, are unconcerned
•The 28% who distrust the police tend to buy
into the argument that drones might record
innocent people
7%13%18%
45%
7%
10%
20%
16%
13%
16%
32%
16%
22%
15%9%
70%
39%
15%14%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(44%)
A LOT
(30%)
FOOTAGE MIGHT BE SHARED WITH OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT/IMMIGRATION BY TRUST IN CV PD
EXTREMELY CONCERNED
VERY CONCERNED
SOMEWHAT CONCERNED/UNSURE
NOT THAT CONCERNED
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED
–Among the rest of the population, this does not register as much of a concern
•Both concerns we tested tend to reinforce the anti-drone sentiments of distrusting residents
–But neither of the concerns we raised are very convincing reasons for trusting residents to disapprove.
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 64 of 93
Page | 29
Informed Sentiment Related to the
Drone Program
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 65 of 93
•After exposure to benefits and concerns and an explanation of the drone policy, overall opinions do not shift
Page | 30
Aggregate Approval Remains the Same
8%9%4%33%46%
POST -DEBATE APPROVAL GIVEN THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT A LLOW DRONES TO BE USED
FOR GENERAL PATROL OR FOR DISCOVERING NEW CRIMES AND THE DRONES CAN ONLY BE USED TO
ACTIVELY RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES OR TO SERVE SEARCH WARRANTS SIGN ED BY A JUDGE.
DISAPPROVE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE SOMEWHAT MIXED/UNSURE APPROVE SOMEWHAT APPROVE STRONGLY
•Opinions remain mainly driven by police trust levels
•This does not mean that individual opinions did not change
•The debate was a net stalemate, but more respondents moved in
the direction of approval than disapproval
•Residents who had heard about privacy or surveillance concerns
became much less hostile to the drone program
–37% moved toward approval
–This group ended basically split
–Evidence the messages do address the privacy concerns.
37%
7%
5%
14%
37%
19%
18%
59%
PRIVACY CONCERNS
(6%)
NO PRIVACY CONCERNS
(94%)
DRONE APPROVAL MOVEMENT BY
PRIVACY/SURVEILLANCE CONCERNS
STAY APPROVE
MOVE APPROVE
STAY UNSURE
MOVE DISAPPROVE
STAY DISAPPROVE
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 66 of 93
Page | 31
Current Approval of the Automated
License Plate Reader Program
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 67 of 93
•Still, 63% approve of the program
–38% strongly so
•On the other hand, 31% express disapproval
–18% strongly disapprove.
Page | 32
Program Generates Significantly Less Approval than the Drones
18%13%6%25%38%
APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF CITY’S AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER PROG RAM
DISAPPROVE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE SOMEWHAT MIXED/UNSURE APPROVE SOMEWHAT APPROVE STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 68 of 93
Page | 33
Why?
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 69 of 93
Page | 34
Deterring Crime Leads the List
•It “can easily identify cars that have some sort of criminal record attached to it”
–“Reducing crime, preventing crime, and solving crimes is the most
important thing in a community to keep it safe”
•Safety and security is mentioned by 17%
•Many in this group see potential personal benefits
–“For my safety and that of all the people who live in Chula Vista, safety is
the main thing”
–“It potentially makes my life safer”
•An additional 17% think the program can help find missing people or criminals
32%
17%
17%
7%
6%
3%
2%
9%
4%
DETER/REDUCE/
SOLVE CRIMES
PROMOTES SAFETY/
SECURITY
FIND MISSING
PERSONS/CRIMINALS
HELPFUL TO POLICE
HELP WITH
TRAFFIC INCIDENCES
DATA COLLECTION
NOTHING TO HIDE
FIND STOLEN CARS
NO PUBLIC
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
IMPROVE
RESPONSE TIMES
OTHER
NOTHING/DON'T KNOW
REASON TO APPROVE OF LICENSE
PLATE READER PROGRAM (n =399)
•Several appreciate its
value in situations like
“child abductions, hit-
and-run, drunk driving,
and road rage”
•7% say it helps police
•6% focus on traffic
incidents.
license need
-Cr1mie poise" activity community _ .ml] vow vehicles cameras car dring possioie] tack wrong tch! +j%ti¥ Ca[I; --, ;;:',,"j#safety ·+criminals informatioi find» .... keep
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 70 of 93
Page | 35
Fixation on Potential for Police Misuse of Information
•Misuse concerns range from
–“I believe it’s invasive and puts a lot of innocent people at risk”
–“They can possibly use that information for other reasons other than
to investigate”
–“Any time data is collected without consent, I feel it’s a violation of
folks’ rights. I don’t have faith in CVPD’s oversight of this project”
•There are also privacy concerns
–This fear is far more prevalent among disapprovers age 46+
•Those giving this response are worried because “it sounds like a police
state; big brother to the max”
37%
26%
7%
6%
5%
3%
3%
10%
POLICE MISUSE
PRIVACY
CONCERNS
THE CAMERAS
CAN BE WRONG
NEED MORE
INFORMATION
IT WILL BE USED
TO TARGET
PEOPLE
TOO DEPENDENT
ON TECHNOLOGY
INDISCRIMINATE
SCANNING
NO
TRANSPARENCY/O
VERSIGHT
OTHER
NOTHING/DON'T
KNOW
REASON TO DISAPPROVE OF THE
LICENSE PLATE PROGRAM (n =171)
so0ety
techhgr surveillance US€
. policea! information.-er-r Car tl\ aiminal . ■ bl£ i-,·,- 1 OOk n1111ey pc�n' � . ,e if tee
ii zz:ire.er InVaSIOn me -= is~ple
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 71 of 93
Page | 36
1) Trust in the Department Breeds Approval
•As with the drones, those who trust the department a lot rarely have serious problems with the program
•Somewhat trusting residents widely approve, but support is weaker, and they disapprove 30% of the time
•Even most who don’t trust police “much” approve –softly --of the program, and 45% disapprove
•Finally, a complete lack of trust results in strong condemnation of the program
•Building support for the program can only occur when distrust of the department is lessened
•Fortunately for Chula Vista’s license plate reader program, the Department is fairly well trusted
54%
29%
16%
5%
18%
16%
14%
9%
11%
9%
7%
28%
27%
25%
11%
25%
34%
59%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(44%)
A LOT
(30%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY TRUST IN CV PD
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
•If something occurs to erode trust in the
department, support for the program would
sink.
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 72 of 93
Page | 37
2) Spanish-Speaking Residents are Over the Moon
•Residents who took the survey in Spanish overwhelmingly approve of the program
•The variable here is the survey’s language, not ethnicity, so something was possibly "lost in translation"
•However, further analysis shows the question did not confuse Spanish speakers
–They’re bigger fans of what they see as the safety and security provided by the license plate readers
–They’re also less concerned about privacy issues.
13%19%
15%
7%
6%
29%
78%
30%
SPANISH (17%)OTHER (83%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY LANGUAGE
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 73 of 93
Page | 38
3) Not All News is Good News
•Without much information out there on the license plate reader program, findings here are somewhat slim
•However, disapproval rises dramatically if the main things residents are exposed to are:
–Privacy issues
–LPR information is shared with other agencies
•This only applies to very few residents
•That’s one reason the program enjoys overall support.
21%
8%
40%
78%
14%17%
4%24%
47%
11%13%
4%7%
32%
28%
7%
11%
33%24%
43%36%
7%11%
39%40%
THEY'RE
BEING USED
(8%)
READ/SEEN NEWS
STORIES
(4%)
INFORMATION
SHARED
W/OTHER
AGENCIES
(2%)
PRIVACY
CONCERNS/
GOVERNMENT
OVERREACH
(1%)
OTHER
(6%)
NOTHING/
DON'T KNOW
(78%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY THINGS SEEN/READ/HEARD ABOUT THE PROGRAM
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
-
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 74 of 93
Page | 39
LPR Program Hasn’t Achieved the Drone Program’s Visibility
•78% haven’t been exposed to any information
–Exposure is higher among White residents
–The program is close to invisible for non -white women
•The top type of info is that the LPR readers are in use
•4% talk about news stories in the papers, on the web or on TV
–12% have been exposed to “neutral” or generally “non -negative” info
•2% information is shared with other agencies
–This has penetrated a bit more in the east Chula Vista neighborhoods
•1.5% have heard about privacy issues
6%
4%
2%
78%
I'VE ONLY HEARD OF IT
I'VE SEEN
TV/NEWSPAPER/SOCIAL
MEDIA
INFORMATION SHARED
ACROSS MULTIPLE AGENCIES
PRIVACY
CONCERNS/GOVERNMENT
OVERREACH
I AGREE WITH THE PROGRAM
PEOPLE FIND IT
CONTROVERSIAL
I DISAGREE WITH THE
PROJECT
SCANS LICENSE PLATES
OTHER
NOTHING/DON'T KNOW
INFO SEEN/READ/HEARD ABOUT
LICENSE PLATE READER PROGRAM
•Another 1.5% have heard
some people find the
program controversial
•The ratio of non -negative
to negative information is
greater than 2:1.
how, ~~ ~«e,support taffi ~4e (d ., «
,, j. ,gegutty" under stan ..ct9yane.«heat, =e/,pIVaCy 'je ag~igj~jest#z neWS;;;'J; ,y'gaton i~jware;&95jeople UIS- approve; [ear' ~implemented
j lat~ijjforrhatip:rsi. jjii automated enforcement 1 • stolen car-- ea resp0lIC vi~es
shared
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 75 of 93
Page | 40
4) More Skepticism in North Central
•Influenced by skeptical Bonita residents, North Central issues a split verdict
–These residents are more sensitive to privacy concerns and the potential for police misuse
•There is very little hostility in the South Central region
–Other regions are not upset with it.
24%29%
9%13%10%
7%
18%
14%
19%
8%
8%
9%
6%
6%
20%
16%
37%18%48%
41%
29%33%
45%
31%
NORTHWEST
(29%)
NORTH CENTRAL
(16%)
EAST
(13%)
SOUTHWEST
(28%)
SOUTH CENTRAL
(14%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY AREA
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 76 of 93
Page | 41
5) Voters are More Favorable
•This difference is the opposite of what we found with the drone program
•Registered voters approve of the license plate reader program 65% of the time, and only 29% disapprove
•They are significantly more pro-LPR than nonvoters
–More non-registrants focus on the potential for police misuse.
15%
26%
13%
13%7%
26%23%
39%36%
REGISTERED (78%)UNREGISTERED (22%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY
VOTER REGISTRATION STATUS
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 77 of 93
Page | 42
6) Much Less Disapproval from Asian Residents
•A mere 21% of those residents disapprove
•That’s much better than the 32% disapproval among the rest of the population
•Further, strong disapproval among Asian residents is about half what it is among non-Asians.
10%19%
11%
13%10%
5%
39%23%
31%40%
ASIAN/
PACIFIC ISLANDER
(15%)
OTHER
(85%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY ETHNICITY
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 78 of 93
Page | 43
7) Middle-Age Females are Big Fans
•35 to 54-year-old women express overwhelming approval
•There is also very little strong disapproval among middle-age women
•This large segment is a bulwark of support
–Among other things, the group more often appreciates the license plate readers' ability to find missing
persons.
6%
20%13%
13%7%
6%29%
24%
45%37%
MIDDLE -AGED
FEMALE
(18%)
OTHER
(82%)
LPR PROGRAM APPROVAL BY AGE/GENDER
APPROVE, STRONGLY
APPROVE, SOMEWHAT
MIXED/UNSURE
DISAPPROVE, SOMEWHAT
DISAPPROVE, STRONGLY
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 79 of 93
Approval of LPR Program
Page | 44
7. Age/Gender5. Voter Registration
6. Ethnicity
1. Trust in CV PD
3. Type of LPR Program Info
4. Area
2. Language
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 80 of 93
Page | 45
Automated License Plate Reader
Program Benefits
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 81 of 93
•Locating missing persons is seen as highly beneficial by 70% of the residents
–Nearly half say it’s extremely beneficial
–It’s the most popular feature of either program
•Using the data to investigate and solve violent crimes is perceived to be highly beneficial by 62%
•Only about 10% don’t see these aspects as beneficial.
Page | 46
Residents Like Both Features
4%4%3%19%24%46%
CHULA VISTA POLICE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE MISSING PERSONS USIN G THE PROGRAM.
NOT AT ALL BENEFICIAL NOT THAT BENEFICIAL UNSURE SOMEWHAT BENEFICIAL VERY BENEFICIAL EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL
5%5%4%24%26%36%
CHULA VISTA POLICE HAVE USED LICENSE PLATE DATA TO INVESTIGATE A ND SOLVE VIOLENT CRIMES AND
FIND AND ARREST CRIMINAL SUSPECTS.
NOT AT ALL BENEFICIAL NOT THAT BENEFICIAL UNSURE SOMEWHAT BENEFICIAL VERY BENEFICIAL EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 82 of 93
Page | 47
Locating Missing Persons Turns Out to be a Big Selling Point
•No demographic or attitudinal group does
not like this
•It’s the only benefit of the four for which
opinions don’t hinge on impressions of the
police
–It is not about the police
–It is about the people
•Locating missing persons “breaks the mold”
that the other three pro-police aspects settle
in to
•The investigational aspects of the LPR
24%
6%
6%
6%
38%
19%25%16%
14%
21%28%
20%
21%
48%42%
56%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(43%)
A LOT
(29%)
POLICE HAVE LOCATED MISSING PERSONS BY TRUST IN CV PD
EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL
VERY
SOMEWHAT/UNSURE
NOT THAT
NOT AT ALL BENEFICIAL
program break down along now predictable trust fault lines
•Those who don’t trust the police much or at all do not see value in this.
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 83 of 93
Page | 48
Automated License Plate Reader
Program Concerns
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 84 of 93
•About 33% are highly concerned that the police department is recording the data from innocent citizens
•35% are highly concerned that the information is shared with federal immigration agencies
•In both cases more residents are unconcerned than highly concerned.
Page | 49
The Amount of Concern is Consistent with the Drone Program
20%17%27%15%18%
ONLY ABOUT ONE OUT OF EVERY 2,000 LICENSE PLATE READINGS PROVIDE A REAL -TIME MATCH TO A
SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE. SOME PEOPLE SAY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS REC ORDING THE DATA OF TOO MANY
INNOCENT RESIDENTS, CREATING A SYSTEM OF MASS SURVEILLANCE.
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED NOT THAT CONCERNED UNSURE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED VERY CONCERNED EXTREMELY CONCERNED
27%18%18%14%21%
SOME PEOPLE WORRY THE LICENSE PLATE INFORMATION WILL BE SHARED W ITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
AGENCIES THAT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED.
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED NOT THAT CONCERNED UNSURE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED VERY CONCERNED EXTREMELY CONCERNED
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 85 of 93
Page | 50
Police Distrusters are Seriously Concerned
•The surveillance issue and the sharing of data with immigration both run into big trouble among those who
trust the police < somewhat
14%17%24%
42%7%
15%
17%
25%
7%
11%
27%
17%
14%
22%
14%
5%
59%
36%
19%11%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(44%)
A LOT
(30%)
FOOTAGE MIGHT BE SHARED WITH IMMIGRATION BY
TRUST IN CV PD
EXTREMELY CONCERNED
VERY
SOMEWHAT/UNSURE
NOT THAT
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED
33%26%
14%19%
32%
17%
18%
13%
25%
SPANISH
(17%)
NON -SPANISH
(83%)
DATA WILL BE SHARED WITH IMMIGRATION
AGENCY BY LANGUAGE
EXTREMELY CONCERNED
CONCERNED
SOMEWHAT/UNSURE
NOT THAT
NOT AT ALL CONCERNED
•Spanish speaking residents tend to be less concerned about the information being shared with immigration
authorities.
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 86 of 93
Page | 51
Informed Approval of the Automated
License Plate Reader Program
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 87 of 93
•Opinion is more likely to change when the public is less informed about an issue
Page | 52
Approval Edged Up 3% and Strong Disapproval Edged Down 4%
14%15%6%27%39%
POST -DEBATE APPROVAL GIVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY LIMITS ACCES S TO THE LICENSE PLATE DATA
ONLY TO AUTHORIZED POLICE PERSONNEL WHO ARE INVESTIGATING CRIMES AND LICENSE PLATE DATA
CANNOT BE SHARED WITH ANY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
DISAPPROVE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE SOMEWHAT MIXED/UNSURE APPROVE SOMEWHAT APPROVE STRONGLY
48%
30%
14%4%
10%
23%
16%
9%
4%
31%
13%
23%
19%
10%
33%
44%
67%
NOT AT ALL
(5%)
NOT MUCH
(21%)
SOMEWHAT
(44%)
A LOT
(30%)
LPR MOVEMENT BY TRUST IN CV PD
STAY APPROVE
MOVE APPROVE
STAY UNSURE
MOVE DISAPPROVE
STAY DISAPPROVE
•Sentiment remains tied to the amount of trust residents have in
the police department
•Residents who trust the police at least somewhat became much
more likely to approve after the discussion
•However, those with "not much" trust went in the other
direction, becoming more disapproving
•Reinforces the importance of a trustworthy police department
•Faith in the police department is not only linked to current
impressions, but trust is necessary for positive opinion change.
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
-
■
■
■
■
■
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 88 of 93
Page | 53
Forward-looking City Policies
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 89 of 93
•When they’re designed to improve traffic flow and safety, only 18% disapprove of this program
Page | 54
Strong Approval for Cameras on Signal Polls
11%8%4%25%53%
APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC CAMERAS
DISAPPROVE STRONGLY DISAPPROVE SOMEWHAT UNSURE APPROVE SOMEWHAT APPROVE STRONGLY
•The only residents who express serious doubts?
–Those who don’t trust the police department
•Again, approval is dependent on trust.
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 90 of 93
•Only 8% think that is unimportant, so this is certainly a priority in the public’s eyes.
Page | 55
A New Privacy Protection Policy is Widely Cheered
4%4%7%15%41%29%
IMPORTANCE OF ADOPTING A NEW PRIVACY PROTECTION POLICY IN AN EFF ORT TO MAKE THE CITY’S USE
OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES TRANSPARENT AND EFFICIENT
NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT NOT VERY IMPORTANT UNSURE SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT VERY IMPORTANT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 91 of 93
Thank You!
Page | 56
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 92 of 93
Public Opinion · Public Policy · Organizations · Campaigns
1987 –Founded in San Diego
1988 –Phonecenters established in Riverside, CA and San Diego
1990 –Phonecenters established in Reno, NV and San Diego
1992 –Predictive dialing installed to double interviewing capacity; CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
1993 –"The Edge" newsletter launches
1998 –Qualitative focus groups introduced
2000 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
2003 –KPBS/Competitive Edge Research Poll and annual Super Bowl poll launched
2004 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race (x2)
2005 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race (x2)
2006 –SDIPR/CERC Opinion Barometer launched; Ballot measures paper presented at AAPOR Conference
2008 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race; Convenes post-election summit @ USD
2009 –Interviewer effects paper presented at AAPOR Conference
2010 –Web-based interviewing and custom panels introduced
2012 –Dial-testing introduced; CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race (x2)
2013 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race; Business Forecast survey launched
2014 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
2016 –CERC calls San Diego Mayor’s race
2017 –Phonecenter established in El Paso, TX
2018 –CERC calls CA Governor’s race (x2)
2019 –Ballot measure wording paper presented at AAPOR Conference
2020 –Incumbent viability paper accepted for presentation at AAPOR Conference
John Nienstedt, MA Political Science: President
Member, American Association for Public Opinion Research
Insights Association
SBA Entrepreneurial Success Award (2000)
Pollster of the year (x7)
Rachel Lawler, MA Political Science: Research Analyst
Member, American Association for Public Opinion Research
Ronald Zavala:Director of Operations
James Iwu: Research Assistant
DATE Technology & Privacy Advisory Task Force Agenda Page 93 of 93