[0:04] >> Welcome back to this weekly

[0:05] meeting of the Health and

[0:06] Safety Committee with Denver

[0:12] City Council. Coverage of the

[0:12] health and Safety Committee

[0:15] starts now.

[0:25] >> good morning. This is the

[0:26] MARCH 18,000 Safety Committee

[0:27] meeting on mines. Darrell

[0:29] Watson. I'm honored to serve

[0:30] as the chair of this committee

[0:32] as well as the city council

[0:32] member representing all of the

[0:36] fine district 9. We have on

[0:38] the agenda this morning. An

[0:41] action for the Axon contract

[0:43] before we roll into this

[0:44] presentation. When we start

[0:45] introductions by city council

[0:46] members starting on right.

[0:50] >> Thanks sure. Kevin Flynn

[0:51] from Southwest numbers locally

[0:57] District little. Is there any

[0:57] wonder to council is a large

[1:00] from the entire police

[1:01] Boulder, Loveland.

[1:02] >> In tourists from West

[1:02] Denver district, 3 men to

[1:07] district 5. Cashman South 100

[1:08] district.

[1:08] >> Good morning. Everyone said

[1:10] in a Gonzales, also from have

[1:13] large lovely city of Denver.

[1:17] It does like a district 7.

[1:18] >> Also, we'll turn it over to

[1:20] Tim Hoffman for the

[1:22] presentation. And you think

[1:23] announcement on oldest

[1:26] introduced myself a lot of it

[1:27] the team introduced themselves

[1:28] as well. My name is Tim

[1:29] Hoffman. I'm in the Mayor's

[1:31] services, stricter policy. And

[1:32] good morning. Cliff Barnes. I

[1:36] up commander of our side your

[1:36] >> Tears to grow depiction of

[1:39] certain knowledge services.

[1:41] >> And we're here today to

[1:43] talk about license plate or

[1:44] your contract with Axon that

[1:48] closing. Through a couple

[1:48] slides and over to come into

[1:50] Barnes, talk through some of

[1:53] the specifics the details

[1:55] before you jump in. Kind of

[1:58] jumped ahead of protocol and

[1:59] Anyone was online or their

[1:59] producers are many

[2:09] councilmembers Seeing none

[2:10] sorry staff turn a battery.

[2:15] It's okay. So the contract

[2:16] details here. It's $150,000

[2:19] one year contract. Obviously

[2:24] the $150,000 Alec is below the

[2:25] normal $500,000 threshold.

[2:25] That would trigger a council

[2:29] action. The administration,

[2:30] the mayor are bringing this

[2:30] contract through the formal

[2:34] city council process,

[2:34] including in this committee

[2:38] and the full Council based on

[2:39] the promises that the mayor

[2:40] made when we were going

[2:41] through the last 10 years, no

[2:43] cost contract extension.

[2:47] They're request today is to

[2:48] vote to delay this contract,

[2:52] which is resolution. 26 a 0,

[2:52] 2, 4, 6, tweedy certain of

[2:55] MARCH 18th in the Health and

[2:57] Safety Committee. That is due

[2:59] to the fact we and our

[3:02] discussions with you all

[3:04] promised that before this item

[3:05] appeared in committee would

[3:06] get you a copy of the actual

[3:07] contract for you to review and

[3:09] to be able ask questions

[3:12] about. We getting pretty close

[3:14] to having that prepared fee,

[3:15] but it was not ready in a

[3:17] timely manner to present to

[3:19] you in advance to get even

[3:20] time to review. And so we're

[3:22] asking we're going to do the

[3:23] presentation today. We want to

[3:26] have keeping a in a discussion

[3:28] on it and get you all the

[3:29] actual contract with a little

[3:30] bit more time to review it

[3:32] before it comes back to

[3:33] committee for for further

[3:34] discussion before moving on to

[3:35] the full council. So just want

[3:36] to level. So the fact is the

[3:42] request today. It's often with

[3:43] that we here of your

[3:43] presentation questions from

[3:46] City Council members.

[3:47] >> put forward that request to

[3:48] delay action on into next

[3:50] week. One of the things I want

[3:53] insist upon is that that

[3:54] contract see by Friday. And

[3:55] can you stipulate that that

[3:58] has been the discussion, what

[3:59] acts on and with the city that

[4:00] we have, actual contract

[4:04] available by Friday.

[4:05] >> Yeah, we're we're we're

[4:06] pushing towards. We can make

[4:06] sure that you guys have ample

[4:07] time to review and understand

[4:08] that before the weekend is is

[4:10] where that needs to be in.

[4:11] Obviously we'll we'll be in

[4:17] touch as things progress. So I

[4:18] want to be clear on see they

[4:21] had contracted next week.

[4:22] >> Still will not provide time

[4:22] for us to be able to vote

[4:25] fully on that by Wednesday. So

[4:29] I want to put on the that by

[4:30] end of this week, it is

[4:31] essential. We have that

[4:35] contract. Understood. Thank

[4:35] Co-chair icu rework its

[4:42] server. It's a got so the the

[4:45] request was by Friday's sooner

[4:45] is requested. If there's

[4:48] anything that we need to do to

[4:49] help with moving that this has

[4:50] been a long process. We want

[4:51] to get to voting on this and

[4:59] we cannot without a contract.

[5:00] Good morning council members.

[5:02] I know that I'm most of you

[5:02] have seen the the presentation

[5:03] of this point and deaths. All

[5:07] try to keep the this morning.

[5:08] There's been a slight change.

[5:09] I think I can at this earlier

[5:10] in the week during the

[5:13] one-on-one briefings instead

[5:14] of having, you know, 1, 2,

[5:16] different types of cameras

[5:18] essentially in this contract.

[5:19] It's just going to be one type

[5:20] of cameras receiving 50 acts

[5:27] on outpost cameras. It for

[5:28] 150,001 year contract even

[5:29] though it's a one-year

[5:31] contract. There's a multi year

[5:32] warranty maintenance agreement

[5:36] with those 50 devices. In

[5:37] addition, we also obtain

[5:39] access to the software

[5:40] application or sweet that

[5:41] allows our users to utilize

[5:44] the lpr devices. There has

[5:46] been. And I know we went

[5:46] through some of this, but

[5:47] there has been a lot of

[5:47] scrutiny during this process

[5:51] in regards to data protection

[5:51] and safeguard surrounding the

[5:54] system based on the feedback

[5:55] that we've received from

[5:56] various converse in various

[5:57] conversations. And from that

[6:00] from the community. So, for

[6:01] example, with the software

[6:03] application when users utilize

[6:06] that they are required to put

[6:06] in a case number and reason

[6:10] for each brewery as are

[6:11] utilizing the system in all of

[6:11] those. All of that, all the

[6:12] screen transactions are stored

[6:14] in an immutable for further

[6:19] auditing and We're going to

[6:20] get much more to the details

[6:22] of the protections that are

[6:22] going to be built into this

[6:23] agreement with acts on. But

[6:26] just a high level.

[6:29] >> access to the APRIL ale pr

[6:29] system with acts on can be

[6:30] limited to Denver safety

[6:34] personnel only. That includes

[6:35] a couple of arson

[6:36] investigators from the fire

[6:37] department, but by and large

[6:37] will be police officers. But a

[6:38] couple of other safety

[6:40] personnel and vehicles. Axel

[6:43] and as a company does not have

[6:47] a national database national

[6:47] lookup feature. So it's not

[6:51] something that we're going to

[6:51] be enrolled into common. Any

[6:53] or fashion of access is really

[6:54] just going to shut down to

[6:55] police officers and a couple

[6:58] of other safety personnel.

[6:59] Denver will. It's going to be

[7:01] made clear in that contract.

[7:03] It's also something that acts

[7:05] on spells out in their

[7:05] policies and procedures.

[7:06] Denver will own and control

[7:08] its own There won't be any

[7:11] sort of using our meta data to

[7:12] train ai models. There's not

[7:15] going to be selling any of

[7:16] license plate reader. GOD of

[7:19] to 3rd parties or anything

[7:20] like that, commuter van. We'll

[7:23] talk about the the level data

[7:24] security that acts on uses. I

[7:27] think of the find vendors who

[7:28] applied in this rfp process

[7:30] acts on had the highest level

[7:36] data security. We are reducing

[7:37] the retention policy in the

[7:40] city is currently license

[7:41] plate reader information. We

[7:44] retain that data for 30 days.

[7:44] We're reducing that to 21

[7:47] days. Moving forward with this

[7:50] new contract. Then commuter

[7:51] Barnes, we get into this in

[7:51] much more detail. That access

[7:54] to the system is logging on

[7:54] and the commander can talk

[7:57] about the process by which

[7:58] safety staff make sure that

[7:58] that's being regularly

[8:06] checked.

[8:08] >> So as I as Mr Hop and

[8:09] related the there were 6 total

[8:10] bidders are one. There is one

[8:11] matter that pulled out. So,

[8:11] you know, in the end, her 5

[8:14] daughters that were considered

[8:17] in this process, acts on

[8:18] vendor brought the highest

[8:20] level security to the table

[8:22] with a fed fed ramp high

[8:24] authorization. This

[8:25] essentially that the highest

[8:28] level of of federal cloud

[8:30] security standards. And really

[8:30] what that amounts to is

[8:33] there's there's over 392

[8:34] individual security standards

[8:35] or controls that the vendor

[8:35] has to comply with and show

[8:36] that they're compliant order

[8:41] to achieve that. One of the

[8:45] specific items that my was

[8:46] sure to ask each vendor is,

[8:46] you know, there are some

[8:47] concerns about other platforms

[8:51] that MAY have, you know, the

[8:52] 15 it was recovered off of

[8:55] other types of the lpr

[8:56] platforms somewhere somewhere

[8:56] to be able to obtain physical

[8:58] access to the devices. So we

[8:59] have some really targeting

[9:00] questions of each vendor in

[9:05] that regard. Attacks on uses

[9:06] industry standard level of

[9:07] encryption on the device

[9:07] itself. So the data is

[9:11] encrypted at rest. And in

[9:14] addition to that, as images

[9:16] are collected and uploaded to

[9:19] the evidence dot com Cloud

[9:20] repository. They're

[9:20] immediately removed from the

[9:23] local device. What makes the

[9:24] recovery of any evidence or

[9:24] data from the device. Very

[9:28] improbable. And additionally,

[9:30] axons compliant with a lot of

[9:32] other standards. So nist

[9:34] center up. We also

[9:36] specifically asked each vendor

[9:39] if you know, perform manual

[9:40] third-party penetration

[9:41] testing, which they do when

[9:43] they provide us those results

[9:45] annually. Additionally, we

[9:46] asked if the city county of

[9:48] Denver could perform their own

[9:49] penetration testing on these

[9:52] devices to make sure you know,

[9:54] we can also check to make sure

[9:55] that they're complying with

[9:56] their security standards, for

[9:56] example, that the technology

[9:58] services security team could

[10:01] do that and day acknowledged

[10:01] and said that they would be

[10:02] willing to allow us to do

[10:06] that. Interesting testing. And

[10:09] really worth mentioning these

[10:10] devices integrate directly

[10:13] with the evidence dot com

[10:14] secure digital evidence

[10:15] repository that the city and

[10:16] county of Denver is used for

[10:16] many years. Acts on is the

[10:20] provider of that. But that is

[10:22] where all of data and evidence

[10:29] is securely managed in stores.

[10:31] I know the 2 mentioned that

[10:32] there's, you know, we're

[10:34] working on on various types of

[10:35] insurance, isn't controls that

[10:36] that we retain complete

[10:38] control and ownership over our

[10:40] data. I know that he did

[10:41] mention that are team during

[10:42] this process, asked very

[10:45] specifically targeting

[10:46] questions about will you

[10:48] resell or provider data in any

[10:50] way to any 3rd parties and

[10:52] axons response was no, it's

[10:52] fairly very clearly outlined

[10:53] in their data governance

[10:56] documents and policies.

[10:57] Additionally, I know that to

[10:58] mention this as well. They do

[10:58] not use any of our data to

[11:03] train any ai models. Also that

[11:05] that language is being built

[11:06] into the contract. So there's

[11:07] going to be like I said,

[11:07] numerous levels of assurances

[11:12] of that. I know that I'm also

[11:13] mentioned that platform is

[11:14] inherently different some of

[11:16] the other competitors in the

[11:17] market and that there is no

[11:18] nationwide ensuring that work

[11:19] for the specific platform all

[11:23] in all data sharing is is like

[11:24] a one to one relationship

[11:24] between one agency to another

[11:26] agency and invite only fully

[11:31] revoke a bull. So there is no,

[11:32] there's no pathway for, you

[11:35] know, inadvertently being

[11:35] enrolled in any type of

[11:36] nationwide sharing network

[11:41] cetera. The get into a little

[11:42] bit more. But I did mention

[11:43] earlier that there is an

[11:44] immutable lock, every user

[11:46] that accesses the system, the

[11:48] way in which they access the

[11:50] system date and time with the

[11:51] reason the system for has long

[11:51] been all talk about the policy

[11:55] surrounding that here shortly.

[11:56] And then as part of our our

[11:57] Dean ownership guarantees acts

[11:59] on in their data governance

[12:01] documents explicitly outline

[12:03] they receive any type of legal

[12:04] requests of subpoenas, court

[12:07] orders, cetera, for for data,

[12:10] then they refer that directly

[12:10] to the customer's city and

[12:11] county of Denver in this case

[12:12] so that our legal teams and

[12:14] city attorney's office can

[12:15] respond accordingly to those

[12:17] to those request.

[12:24] And numerous policy safeguards

[12:25] that that are in place today

[12:26] and will remain in place. This

[12:30] is not you know, a a

[12:30] completely conclusive list of

[12:31] every policy controls in

[12:32] place. But I feel like there's

[12:35] there's a few that are There's

[12:36] a mandatory training

[12:37] requirement for every user

[12:39] that's on board the system. So

[12:41] as the the Axon platform is

[12:43] implemented, all users will

[12:45] have to go mandatory training.

[12:46] Part of that training is

[12:47] outlining acceptable use of

[12:50] the platform. These devices

[12:52] MAY only be deployed and used

[12:54] areas of the city that there

[12:56] were. There is no reasonable

[12:56] expectation of privacy. So

[12:57] public areas public right of

[13:02] way. There are numerous

[13:03] explicitly prohibit uses in

[13:04] policy. And these are just a

[13:07] handful that I think it's

[13:10] worth mentioning any type of

[13:11] First Amendment violation or

[13:13] any type of monitoring is

[13:13] expressly prohibited when it

[13:15] comes to to First Amendment

[13:18] rights to any type of

[13:19] discriminatory use, harassing

[13:21] or intimidating use. Also

[13:23] expressing put prohibited in

[13:26] policy parking enforcement,

[13:28] traffic enforcement, driver's

[13:29] license, inforcement in any

[13:30] type of personal use of the

[13:35] system are also prohibited. I

[13:36] know that there has been some

[13:37] some questions about how

[13:40] officers respond to pr alerts

[13:42] in general and to make sure

[13:42] that there's verification

[13:45] being performed on those

[13:46] alerts in policy. Officers are

[13:48] not allowed to conduct vehicle

[13:50] stops just based on an lpr

[13:51] alert alone. They must verify

[13:52] the validity of that. And

[13:55] that's typically done

[13:56] communication with dispatch,

[13:58] for example, to to clear a

[13:58] plea to make sure that's a

[14:05] valid earlier. Acts on vendors

[14:07] capable of respecting any data

[14:09] retention policy that that we

[14:11] wish I know to mention that

[14:12] that policy is going to be 21

[14:16] day retention policy. There is

[14:18] a an audit trail and mentioned

[14:22] couple times now on a monthly

[14:23] basis, the cyber bureau and

[14:25] dpd on the first of every

[14:27] month pulls the lpr usage logs

[14:28] and performs a number of

[14:30] different types of mechanisms

[14:32] on those laws, including

[14:34] keyword, searches and random

[14:34] audits to make sure that all

[14:37] of the usage looks to be above

[14:39] board. Then that date is also

[14:41] shared with some data analyst

[14:42] director Safety's Office for

[14:44] further review on a monthly

[14:47] basis in policy. Any officer

[14:48] that's under investigation, I

[14:48] will have their access to the

[14:51] system immediately. Revote and

[14:52] that will stay suspended until

[14:53] for the duration of the

[14:57] investigation. As far as as

[15:00] far as to sharing I just

[15:02] wanted to this isn't policy. I

[15:02] just wanted to outline a

[15:03] couple of of of our policies

[15:06] surrounding data sharing. We

[15:08] only share data from the

[15:11] system when there's an

[15:12] official law enforcement

[15:14] investigations of another

[15:17] agency approaches and desires

[15:17] to collaborate investigating a

[15:21] certain crime has to be an

[15:22] official investigation. That

[15:23] crime that's at the center of

[15:24] that investigation has to be a

[15:26] crime. Under Colorado state

[15:28] law. So if it's if it's a

[15:32] crime somewhere else. But

[15:32] there are specific protections

[15:33] and safeguards are in

[15:33] Colorado. In those

[15:34] circumstances, we do not share

[15:37] data. That's a policy and

[15:37] additional call out is we will

[15:39] not share data to a

[15:39] prosecution related to any

[15:42] type of reproductive care If

[15:47] that wasn't enough to tear. I

[15:48] want to add too much 200 times

[15:51] covered. Most of it.

[15:52] >> Although we did conduct a

[15:55] vendor assessment on axon, it

[15:56] was a 2 full assessment

[15:57] because our internal

[16:00] questionnaire that based and

[16:00] then we also are a provision

[16:03] access to the at SunTrust

[16:05] Center where we could access

[16:09] applicable security and

[16:09] policies and other documents

[16:14] associated to Exxon. So it

[16:16] approved from seclusion and

[16:18] technology services and

[16:20] privacy. They should also know

[16:21] our price. Your view include a

[16:25] review of the ai It standards.

[16:26] National Institute Standards

[16:30] and Technology. It also

[16:32] reviewed and approved for the

[16:33] architecture information.

[16:37] Security. Ada, compliance and

[16:41] records management. You know,

[16:42] when we're doing a vendor risk

[16:43] assessment, we're looking at

[16:44] compliance. But we're also

[16:46] looking at risk reduction and

[16:47] ensuring that we're getting

[16:48] the right vendor at the right

[16:52] type of technology for that

[16:55] business or the need city. So

[16:56] it's really important to call

[16:59] out within vendor risk

[17:01] assessment conducting the

[17:04] privacy review and the review

[17:08] the technology at offers a lot

[17:12] of operational technology.

[17:13] Modern technology capabilities

[17:16] that reduces our risk by the

[17:17] information is collecting

[17:19] being minimized and then also

[17:24] from organizational policies.

[17:26] You know, often my team will

[17:27] joke around data. Privacy

[17:30] policy is just a way for.

[17:31] Organization to tell us that

[17:34] we have no privacy because

[17:34] they're telling us all of the

[17:35] different ways the data is

[17:37] being used and shared. I would

[17:40] say that when we reviewed Axon

[17:41] and we looked at the various

[17:41] privacy practices and the

[17:45] organization as a whole. It

[17:48] allows us to have ownership

[17:49] commander, bronze and tin

[17:50] spoke about know, allows us to

[17:51] have control over data. So

[17:53] definitely worthwhile to call

[17:56] out when looking at the

[17:56] Obviously, there's always risk

[17:59] when we work with any

[18:00] technology vendor. But when we

[18:02] when we look at as a whole and

[18:02] we're trying to create a risk

[18:06] rating. Choose the right

[18:09] vendors. A lot of these

[18:10] different technology

[18:11] capabilities in the policies

[18:12] of organization really reduce

[18:15] the risk overall I will stop

[18:18] there and turned over to Tim.

[18:19] That's happy to take

[18:23] questions. Thank you so much

[18:26] for the presentation. We have

[18:27] a to that started. It started

[18:27] with councilmember parody

[18:29] accounts cash councilmember.

[18:30] >> Thank you. Thank you so

[18:32] much. And thank you for a

[18:35] time. So hopefully things

[18:38] About this, both from the city

[18:39] came in from Axon. So coming

[18:43] out of I want to sort of

[18:46] clearly identify what I we

[18:47] have learned from from the

[18:48] flock to Michael that I hear

[18:49] being addressed here and I'm

[18:52] glad he's being addressed. One

[18:55] is the Denver will have its

[18:56] data tenant on servers that

[18:58] acts on rents from Microsoft

[19:00] Azure. And that's, of course,

[19:01] you know, the fact that that

[19:03] sort segregated from other

[19:04] cities data is a good thing. I

[19:09] did want to say and one point

[19:10] someone and it was so from the

[19:13] lobbying to not anyone from

[19:13] Exxon. And you could even MISS

[19:15] Spoke about this in a briefing

[19:16] and said that the data would

[19:17] be in Denver. So many of you

[19:18] were told that just because

[19:19] it's on the cloud, but it's

[19:20] segregated, which is

[19:22] improvement from and it won't

[19:23] be used to train. Algorithms

[19:24] will be sold and they will not

[19:26] respond to subpoenas on our

[19:28] behalf because unlike flocks

[19:29] are not apparently asking to

[19:30] maintain full permanent

[19:33] license to our data. And think

[19:35] we've been assured that we see

[19:36] this contract. It will have a

[19:37] provision around not adding

[19:39] features without consent.

[19:40] That's going to be really

[19:40] important because what I've

[19:41] learned in briefings with apps

[19:42] on is that they are working

[19:43] more of the sharing features,

[19:45] like flock, have, although

[19:49] with more user control and

[19:50] they're working on really how

[19:52] they're different from flock

[19:55] is that was essentially health

[19:57] care company? Fox on, of

[19:59] course, is all various kinds

[20:00] of surveillance systems. They

[20:01] collect a lot of different

[20:01] data. We have a ton of

[20:04] different contracts with them

[20:06] and they're sort of place in

[20:09] this market. Is 2 And so it's

[20:12] it's kind of it's a different

[20:12] concern than what I think

[20:13] that's we're focused on the

[20:18] lately. With flock. And I I do

[20:20] still have questions about in

[20:21] other cities like Seattle and

[20:22] we've talked about this in the

[20:25] surveillance task force. It

[20:28] would be a council to look at

[20:28] any new features that would

[20:30] have to lead to a new

[20:32] contract. So that's one thing

[20:32] I'm really concerned about is

[20:33] that there's just been a lot

[20:34] of very careful language from

[20:35] Exxon about well, today. We

[20:36] don't have this today. We

[20:39] don't have that. Also a

[20:40] suspect, their own pr for them

[20:41] is less developed than fox but

[20:45] for them do grown know your

[20:47] time. So first question, we

[20:48] need I really want to know

[20:51] going back to flock, what

[20:52] guarantees we will have that

[20:55] those cameras will stop

[20:56] collecting images. And it's

[20:57] not enough that they not. This

[20:59] law says they're not taking

[21:00] images because other cities

[21:01] have experienced that. They

[21:02] just simply kept cameras on

[21:04] even after contracts were

[21:07] ended. We need a timeline for

[21:07] removal, potentially hoods on

[21:09] those cameras. The minute that

[21:11] contract ends. I don't think

[21:12] that contract is legal in the

[21:15] first place the Charter.

[21:16] Regardless what it ends, those

[21:18] things need to be off. And the

[21:19] ceo when he was in my office

[21:21] told me that they cannot be

[21:22] black box. And so essentially

[21:23] they can't be manually turned

[21:24] off. You can't stop them from

[21:28] transmitting. So I think

[21:28] probably a good is engine or

[21:30] removal is the only way to do

[21:30] that. So that's my first

[21:31] question is what's the

[21:35] timeline for the cancer that

[21:36] counselor and my team has been

[21:37] tracking that down with flock

[21:40] to actually diligently this

[21:41] weekend. This MAY be new. I

[21:42] don't new this feature is, but

[21:43] they do have a decommissioned

[21:45] mode.

[21:46] >> And so fox is sure does

[21:48] that at the date of contract

[21:48] termination, every camera will

[21:50] be moved in to decommission

[21:52] mode and then we are seeking a

[21:53] certificate of destruction

[21:54] effective to of termination as

[21:57] well. And then my team will be

[21:59] working flock in order to

[22:00] schedule the actual removal of

[22:01] the devices as soon as

[22:04] possible. Contract

[22:05] termination. Thank you very

[22:06] Concerned because that is

[22:06] progress since we last talked

[22:09] about a week ago.

[22:10] >> From the tax services point

[22:11] of view and how how can verify

[22:12] the decommission mode is a

[22:16] real thing. Where can we and

[22:18] screenshots sent his son to

[22:19] screenshots. So I can I can

[22:20] share that. On their devices

[22:24] themselves, they do this is

[22:24] the calm the center screen

[22:25] shots, pictures of

[22:28] >> Ok, thank you.

[22:28] >> I will want to more about

[22:32] that, but that's great

[22:33] information. Next thing, the

[22:35] sides that we've say that we

[22:38] have that our policy is only

[22:39] to share in response to a law

[22:44] enforcement investigation.

[22:45] When oxen described the data

[22:46] sharing that they're

[22:46] developing, which is not in

[22:47] place yet. So it's a little

[22:48] hard for us to assess how it's

[22:51] gonna work, which does give me

[22:54] some pause again after fans

[22:55] will flock. They are saying

[22:57] that they're developing

[22:58] developing it to one-on-one

[22:59] where it would actually be

[23:00] that you get access to another

[23:01] jurisdiction as a user. Same

[23:04] is with flock, not

[23:04] case-by-case. So I think there

[23:05] MAY be a disconnect there

[23:08] about. What dpd says its

[23:09] policy would be about sharing

[23:11] versus how they are developing

[23:12] the technology. And I think we

[23:16] probably need to had that off

[23:17] before we enter into this

[23:18] contractual relationship

[23:19] because that's just, you know,

[23:20] if they're building the tech

[23:23] to jurisdictional sharing did

[23:24] rather case-by-case, then

[23:25] we're sort of cruising for

[23:27] that to the conflict with our

[23:31] policies. So that's that's I

[23:32] guess I'm curious if you have

[23:33] any talked about that with

[23:35] have thoughts about that.

[23:35] Given that they're developing

[23:38] that jurisdiction based

[23:39] sharing feature.

[23:40] >> can see that that the

[23:41] intent and I haven't reviewed

[23:44] the final contract yet, and

[23:45] feel free. But yeah,

[23:47] absolutely. There's an opt out

[23:49] by default built into the into

[23:50] the contract. So any new type

[23:51] of sharing technology that

[23:54] they're bringing to the table,

[23:54] it blocking out. We would have

[23:55] to explicitly popped into

[24:00] that. And in the mind, a big

[24:02] question mark for me is who

[24:03] makes the decision to opt into

[24:04] new technology and how now

[24:08] within the city I think that's

[24:09] still the conversation that,

[24:10] you know, that is actively

[24:11] unfolding between Council

[24:12] surveillance task force,

[24:15] mayor's office cetera. So,

[24:16] right, okay. And I would be

[24:17] really hasn't done for us to

[24:18] enter into this contract

[24:19] without that being sort of

[24:21] because I think I mean, again,

[24:21] we messed up by not knowing

[24:23] the on national network and we

[24:27] can do that So another

[24:28] question about is auditing. So

[24:32] as of now, our internal policy

[24:33] says that we will require

[24:37] officers to enter a case

[24:40] number a a parent. And what

[24:41] I've been told is that with

[24:44] tax on online with flock, the

[24:44] formatting will have to sort

[24:45] of be similar to a case number

[24:48] to be accepted. But it's not

[24:49] like it links to our records

[24:50] management system. So there's

[24:51] no way to be sure that it's a

[24:52] real case number rather than

[24:53] just letter letter. Whenever

[24:56] for like us and then when we

[24:58] asked when we talk about this

[25:01] before, I think the team told

[25:03] me that our auditing of the

[25:05] flock logs was focused on key

[25:05] word searches and spot checks

[25:10] and sensitive terms I want to

[25:12] know if tbd will be checking

[25:14] in a more meaningful way to

[25:17] see that no one's putting

[25:18] think case In other words,

[25:22] doing more than spot chance it

[25:23] does not seem that the systems

[25:25] have been you so much that it

[25:26] would be impractical to review

[25:27] all searches periodically. I

[25:29] think that would probably need

[25:30] to be ndp's and tell policy.

[25:33] So I'm curious what the intent

[25:34] is there because that seems

[25:34] like something we need to

[25:38] enforced by actually looking

[25:41] at that search absolutely and

[25:42] Councilmember United Capital

[25:42] yesterday. And I'm very open

[25:45] to any suggestions on how to

[25:45] increase, you know, the level

[25:48] of transparency you know, say

[25:49] MISTER And says so if there's

[25:51] something reasonable that we

[25:55] can do to increase the amount

[25:57] of And I'm totally open to

[25:57] discussing that. I think we're

[25:59] trying to strike a balance,

[26:00] though. Obviously, you know,

[26:02] we want to to do our due

[26:04] diligence, but we also want to

[26:05] make sure that we're engaging

[26:08] too much administrative burden

[26:11] a month on a monthly basis.

[26:14] Happy to additional

[26:15] conversations with anybody

[26:16] who's interested. Yeah, I

[26:17] mean, the knowing the number

[26:17] of searches that have been

[26:18] performing Flock would be

[26:19] helpful to understand what's

[26:23] realistic there. So I don't

[26:25] mean the question of whether

[26:26] dpd season need to rewrite its

[26:27] internal lpr policy to address

[26:28] some of these things because I

[26:32] think the way Axon works. What

[26:32] the policy said was always

[26:34] different from how flock

[26:35] actually worked. And we need

[26:38] with pauses to match how Axon

[26:39] actually works. And if so, I

[26:41] just want to fly that the

[26:42] Independent Monitor Austin

[26:43] last task force meeting. She

[26:44] could be given time to review

[26:45] that policy. So I'm wondering

[26:46] if there's an intent to revise

[26:50] it all. Clarify question here.

[26:52] So what aspects in regards to

[26:54] specifically how acts on

[26:55] platform works to addressed in

[26:58] the current policy? Well, I

[26:59] think I should say, I think

[27:03] the policy, for example, isn't

[27:04] specific enough about what

[27:05] we're based on the terms our

[27:08] input into the system. Lays

[27:09] out what the rules are, but it

[27:10] doesn't lay out kind of how we

[27:13] check for the rainfall. And

[27:14] then in addition, some of

[27:15] these sharing aspects, right

[27:16] probably need to be in the

[27:18] policy. Will share with

[27:20] another jurisdiction a way

[27:22] that not just with the

[27:23] technology does. I'm always

[27:26] happy to put, you know. We're

[27:27] always have to be flexible on

[27:28] the policy. I think the reason

[27:31] why, for example, a keyword

[27:31] terms are not explicitly laid

[27:33] out in policies were trying to

[27:34] stays flexible in as a nimble

[27:36] as possible. So that MAY be an

[27:38] stop. There's a procedure, for

[27:41] example. But if there's a new

[27:42] key word that that is

[27:43] presented this week that we

[27:45] need to start auditing for,

[27:46] you know, to me that makes

[27:47] more sense to put it in

[27:49] procedure and then indicated

[27:51] policy that we are following

[27:52] these monthly types of pot.

[27:55] Audit cadences doesn't sense.

[27:56] >> And because policy isn't

[27:57] updated a weekly basis, we try

[28:00] to stay nimble with it. But I

[28:01] can easily have my teams

[28:04] update. Written procedure

[28:07] known as quickly as often as

[28:08] needed.

[28:09] >> yeah, and I hear all I hear

[28:10] the openness to do this. And I

[28:13] just continue to concerned

[28:14] that we've been through a lot

[28:18] on this task force and made

[28:19] province. But we're not all

[28:20] the way through all of the

[28:20] things that need to be done.

[28:23] And so I worry about putting a

[28:24] contract through without

[28:25] having dpd policies and

[28:27] procedures in place without

[28:28] having it's an ordinance in

[28:29] place and those other things.

[28:30] And that's not for lack of

[28:31] everybody working very h#

[28:31] #

[28:32] #

[28:32] o#

[28:33] this is because you certainly

[28:36] haven't a lot of others have

[28:38] been. Another question is that

[28:39] I my understanding is that

[28:40] originally we were talking

[28:43] about 45 cameras on posts and

[28:44] then finds cameras that had

[28:46] greater capacity. And it's

[28:48] something that changed to 50

[28:50] cameras on post. Is that right

[28:51] is and is that still what the

[28:53] cap of the contractor fox

[28:55] okay. Those cameras I

[28:57] understand can do some live

[28:59] streaming. Can you describe

[29:00] church? So they are battery

[29:01] power cameras the Dodgers are.

[29:04] Then we charged by solar.

[29:05] >> So the live streaming

[29:06] capabilities in these cameras

[29:07] are very limited. Great so

[29:08] they can't live stream. 24 7

[29:11] has to be a very overt action

[29:13] on the part the user live

[29:13] stream from that camera. The

[29:17] footage is also not retained

[29:17] great. So inappropriate use

[29:18] would be, for example, the

[29:21] real time crime Center

[29:23] responding to an unfolding

[29:24] incident in progress and needs

[29:25] additional intelligence about,

[29:27] you know, that specific area.

[29:29] But like I said, they're

[29:31] battery devices. They're not

[29:32] designed to to operate in type

[29:37] live streaming mode. 24 7. So

[29:39] as soon as that operator

[29:40] stopped a live stream that it

[29:40] would return to its. That's

[29:41] the motive. Just capturing

[29:43] license plate images that's

[29:48] different So this is something

[29:50] I I've asked a few questions

[29:51] just trying to understand but

[29:52] it's fairly new is a concept

[29:54] to me of how I would even

[29:57] work. And does concern me that

[29:58] the idea someone in the real

[29:59] time crime center could open

[30:01] up a live stream and watch.

[30:01] >> Everything that's

[30:03] unfolding. That's new and

[30:05] different. And it's not

[30:05] something we've it's not about

[30:06] a lot in the task force from a

[30:08] policy point of either every

[30:11] you MAY be aware that the real

[30:12] time Crime Center does monitor

[30:15] a number of cameras throughout

[30:18] the city in order you provide

[30:20] better response and resource

[30:23] allocation to unfolding

[30:26] criminal incidents. To because

[30:28] of this conversation, I didn't

[30:30] know that And so it's sort of

[30:31] a fun. I mean, I'm not

[30:31] concerned about all those

[30:34] cameras to, unfortunately, I

[30:35] was not aware that that was

[30:37] something that law enforcement

[30:38] have the capacity to do. And

[30:42] that is a pretty intense form

[30:44] You know, COUNCILMAN I wasn't

[30:46] limited to question limit, but

[30:48] I'm gonna see at the record

[30:50] reflect that. I asked I'm very

[30:51] happy isn't an item. One more

[30:52] question and then we'll get

[30:52] you back you.

[30:55] >> Okay. That sounds good. So

[30:58] >> last question, then can

[30:59] tell us all of the different

[31:00] acts on products that the city

[31:03] uses. The I think it's such

[31:05] comprehensive list yesterday.

[31:06] Don't want really MISS

[31:07] Anything, generally speaking,

[31:10] I'm not trying to trip you

[31:11] body-worn cameras evidence dot

[31:13] com which are digital.

[31:16] >> Evidence storage repository

[31:17] few sis which is the real time

[31:21] Crime Center on platform. And

[31:27] then lpr. Can think of what

[31:27] also MAY be missing in a rerun

[31:28] cameras, which probably

[31:31] interview room Deo drones.

[31:34] Scotty was not part of the

[31:35] acts on coffee. I think just

[31:36] acquired them. And I don't I

[31:37] think they just told us that

[31:37] they told office everything

[31:40] yesterday. So I think they are

[31:41] now part of get an honest to

[31:42] is not a gotcha. I'm just

[31:44] giving the full list. So

[31:47] Taylor's evidence a comp uses,

[31:49] which I don't think we've ever

[31:50] been briefed on our have a

[31:54] great understanding But in the

[31:55] body warns and then the sky,

[31:57] And that's where I just think

[32:01] that all of us need to kind of

[32:02] spend our time because this is

[32:04] really different from fox and

[32:05] the way that all these

[32:07] different, you know, images

[32:08] and types of data it's just

[32:10] going be learning her Thank

[32:12] you, MR. Thank you. Counselor

[32:14] Perry counts cash then

[32:15] councilmember

[32:20] >> Thank Committee chair.

[32:21] Presentation troops. That's

[32:24] one piece of information You

[32:25] have big question from come in

[32:29] and Houston. It would be

[32:30] forthcoming is as far as the

[32:33] flock cameras go. Which crimes

[32:41] how many of Which crimes do

[32:42] the flock participate in

[32:45] solving? Someone will looking

[32:49] forward that. And sure

[32:50] COUNCILMAN's questions on.

[32:57] We'll live streaming and where

[32:58] talk comes from tyranny. Makes

[33:02] a little bit sharing only in

[33:04] response. 2 official

[33:05] investigation. Could tell me

[33:09] more about What you that

[33:11] investigation with 2? How

[33:15] would that work? And then

[33:19] sharing with another agency

[33:20] who then nation are with where

[33:23] the guardrails there.

[33:25] >> great question. Questions

[33:28] council member as far as the

[33:29] data goes, we have done some

[33:30] annual review. Some of our I

[33:31] didn't Teams have done some

[33:33] annual review of of the the

[33:35] flock data from the duration

[33:38] of the program up to about the

[33:40] 11th of last month. And can we

[33:43] do have some of that data.

[33:46] There's been over that that

[33:48] platform has helped contribute

[33:50] to over 500 arrests over 400

[33:51] recovered motor vehicles and

[33:54] over 60 firearms that have

[33:55] been recovered. So obviously

[33:57] quite a successful program in

[34:03] my view, as far as And as far

[34:06] as the sharing goes as related

[34:08] to an official criminal

[34:10] investigation. So what I what

[34:11] I told many people is that,

[34:12] you know, criminals often

[34:15] don't really respect borders.

[34:16] So so it's important that we

[34:17] collaborate with our

[34:18] neighboring jurisdictions and

[34:19] in solving crimes, specially

[34:21] patterned crimes and what not

[34:25] so oftentimes we approach

[34:26] agencies to thaw for

[34:26] assistance in investigating

[34:29] crimes. And sometimes we are

[34:30] approached and there's all

[34:31] sorts of different types of

[34:34] crimes. You know, for example,

[34:35] narcotics trafficking or human

[34:37] trafficking or robberies. You

[34:38] know, the Magic Metropolitan

[34:38] Area, auto theft, I think has

[34:41] has been, you know, a major

[34:42] one for our state over the

[34:45] last few years, right? So when

[34:46] we are approached by an

[34:49] external agency for help

[34:50] investigating an incident,

[34:51] typically that's referred

[34:52] either a supervisor or

[34:54] investigator in an

[34:55] investigative team and obtain

[34:56] additional information about

[34:57] what type of crime is being

[34:59] investigated. But that's

[35:01] really what the necessity What

[35:05] is the crime that's being

[35:06] investigated I as the

[35:06] presentation, you know,

[35:08] elaborate a little bit. It has

[35:10] to be something that's illegal

[35:11] in the state of Colorado. In

[35:12] order for us collaborate and

[35:16] share information with that

[35:19] agency. Show. Go back initial

[35:19] comment.

[35:24] >> aware of the overall number

[35:25] cases have been involved. But

[35:26] it's really relevant. What

[35:27] were the actual crimes that

[35:29] would that were solved? You

[35:33] know how meaningful? In the

[35:39] House we? More we open up the

[35:43] door to sharing the more it

[35:46] becomes flock. Other words,

[35:48] they might not be an actual

[35:54] nationwide system like, door,

[35:55] you open increases the

[36:00] opportunity for the. I I'm not

[36:04] comfortable I need more

[36:09] comfort around guardrails. To

[36:11] that sharing couple other I

[36:19] would hope. Contract or any

[36:22] contract in ballpark. It moves

[36:24] forward that we would have

[36:31] regular reports. To committee

[36:33] How it was unfolding. The last

[36:45] thing I wanted to say fact.

[36:47] Flock screams says d-conn

[36:49] gives me no confidence in

[36:53] time. GOD is not being

[37:01] reporting sure I very least.

[37:06] Recognizing cameras, whatever.

[37:08] Would should be what are taken

[37:10] The more I talk to who really

[37:17] understand world. We're down

[37:18] is is being collected from

[37:22] multiple sources constantly.

[37:28] Like what economy? So I just

[37:30] want for that. I thank Thank

[37:32] cast count Arkansas tears and

[37:34] comes from Thank you. MISTER

[37:37] >> Thank you for you know,

[37:38] providing us the briefings

[37:40] ahead of time for the

[37:41] conversations that we continue

[37:43] to have. The surveillance task

[37:44] also been having conversations

[37:46] out community and asked to

[37:47] attend different arno's to

[37:50] talk about specifically plot,

[37:50] but also about just

[37:51] surveillance tech and where

[37:53] things are with the task force

[37:55] and a lot of the questions

[37:55] I've received tons of

[37:56] questions from some of these

[38:00] artisan. They've submitted. Up

[38:01] to like 15 questions, some of

[38:02] them. And so there is some

[38:03] fall of only to have provide

[38:07] that I won't asked all the 15

[38:08] questions here, all of the

[38:09] various questions that you

[38:10] receive But I do want to get

[38:11] at some of these things to

[38:13] make sure that the public is

[38:14] is aware that we're all on the

[38:17] same page so can you tell us

[38:20] about the privately owned? I

[38:21] know that you can't

[38:25] necessarily. You're I want to

[38:25] make sure that everyone is

[38:27] aware that privately owned

[38:31] flock cameras will remain

[38:31] because they are not

[38:33] contracted by the city. Right?

[38:33] And so one of the questions I

[38:36] know I asked was will dpd have

[38:38] access to those cameras and

[38:42] data for investigations. I

[38:44] think ultimately the answer

[38:45] questions is yes. What it

[38:48] comes down

[38:50] >> Investigating any type of

[38:52] crime occurred, right? And if

[38:53] there is a private entity to

[38:53] capture some sort of evidence

[38:57] of that crime it's our duty to

[38:59] to obtain that evidence to

[39:00] make it part of our

[39:02] investigation and provided to

[39:05] prosecution. So the question

[39:06] marks that my team is still

[39:07] actively trying to chase down

[39:09] is is what that that access

[39:12] looks like. But I would

[39:13] related to any depth, other

[39:14] type of business that that has

[39:16] a private surveillance camera

[39:18] network. Great. Typically when

[39:19] you respond to that location

[39:21] and investigate a crime, if

[39:24] they have of that crime, we

[39:25] ask them to provide it to us

[39:28] of the people. Want thank you

[39:28] for that.

[39:30] >> With that said, I'm one of

[39:31] the things I didn't get to ask

[39:32] him because I forgot about it

[39:35] was drones that we were

[39:38] utilizing from plot that we

[39:41] had access to in a contract

[39:42] that we actually were paying

[39:43] for. It was they were being

[39:47] provided to us free of cost.

[39:48] Are exact contract still

[39:48] exist? Are we going to

[39:51] continue that contract?

[39:52] >> contract still exists, but

[39:53] that program has not gotten

[39:54] off the ground were So we have

[39:59] not flown in flat rate. Okay.

[40:01] >> And then how having me come

[40:02] due to the 21 day data

[40:03] retention. Where did that

[40:05] number come from? Because I

[40:06] know there's been a of

[40:06] conversation around data

[40:11] retention. How can we utilize

[40:14] to determine data retention

[40:16] and what we know and why

[40:16] because every day was kind of

[40:19] the standard with flock. Now

[40:21] we have a 21 day, which is

[40:22] less and I see it as a way

[40:23] like, okay, we're moving the

[40:26] needle a little bit. But is

[40:26] there a rhyme or reason as to

[40:29] why is 21

[40:30] >> I'm happy to take this

[40:32] Thanks for time. The question,

[40:33] COUNCILMAN, as you said, I

[40:34] think most jurisdictions have

[40:37] a 30 day retention policy.

[40:38] There's some that 14 days.

[40:39] There's a couple of examples

[40:40] where it's less than that 3 or

[40:41] 4 days. But by and large, the

[40:44] standard is 30 days. I think

[40:45] in discussions that we had and

[40:46] the task that we've heard

[40:49] community members as well, it

[40:50] wasn't something that we

[40:51] wanted to be proactive about.

[40:55] And it's a treat testing out.

[40:58] Is there big loss evidence

[41:02] between days? 22 to going

[41:06] below something like 14. Know

[41:06] the Denver Police Department

[41:07] to look some of the homicide

[41:12] cases where license role in

[41:14] 2025. Look to when in the kind

[41:18] timeline of the case that

[41:19] evidence became relevant. I

[41:22] mean, it was pretty spread you

[41:25] know, immediately within

[41:27] minutes up to and including

[41:30] ending 2020 or 30 days with

[41:31] the lion share of the evidence

[41:32] found that it was between like

[41:36] 3 in 20 days. And so I think

[41:37] it was kind of clustered in

[41:39] that period. We want to still

[41:40] make sure that we were being

[41:42] responsive in reducing it by

[41:44] some but not by going too this

[41:52] point. Okay. I

[41:53] >> vast a couple of times for

[41:54] just like the data on that. I

[41:55] think so. My colleagues have

[41:59] also asked for wanting to just

[42:01] better understand everything

[42:02] that you just said. Don't know

[42:03] that her a level of that

[42:06] detail before this meeting and

[42:09] I would still love to see it.

[42:12] Eyes to see like how that been

[42:13] caused by the other piece that

[42:17] I have is on has released

[42:19] data. So when the evidence dot

[42:21] com, readings it's happening

[42:25] right of Has there ever been

[42:28] any leaks from evidence dot

[42:31] com we're aware Not to my

[42:33] knowledge, okay has so our

[42:34] data has never been

[42:35] compromised in any way in the

[42:40] past it's okay. Then the last

[42:41] couple questions that I have

[42:43] is around access to the who

[42:44] will have access to those

[42:47] audit. The platform,

[42:50] administrators in command

[42:50] staff.

[42:54] >> And myself, obviously

[42:55] access. We also provide that

[42:56] data to data analyst and

[42:59] director safety's office.

[43:00] There are sensitivities around

[43:02] that data because typically a

[43:03] can contain Pei and receive

[43:09] just enough. It's It does

[43:10] personally identifiable

[43:12] information and just this

[43:13] information.

[43:14] >> When it all continuing.

[43:17] Yeah, I because personal

[43:18] identifying information

[43:19] because license plates have

[43:19] been identified by the state

[43:23] by state law. Those are

[43:24] identified as person

[43:25] identifying from just like

[43:26] when we treated with with due

[43:27] regard because of the

[43:31] sensitivity of of the rent.

[43:34] City Council or the public be

[43:35] able to have any access at any

[43:38] form of level of the results

[43:41] of the audience we have

[43:41] provided in response to

[43:43] requests redacted data sets

[43:44] that show various usage sign I

[43:46] don't have any objections to

[43:47] that. But just understanding

[43:47] that we have we have an

[43:48] obligation to redact sensitive

[43:52] data from okay that's all I

[43:55] have for Thank you, Thank you.

[43:56] Cause Gonzales from thing's

[43:58] for sure.

[44:02] >> Thank you for intentionally

[44:03] going about designers contract

[44:06] to address most of them a

[44:07] year. Concerns about the way

[44:08] the system has been configured

[44:12] before. Closed system

[44:17] accessible only by We're going

[44:18] to take only which initiated

[44:25] by no, they are training. No

[44:31] National Network. Like that

[44:32] terrifying the question that

[44:38] council just ask other private

[44:38] flock cameras its to its

[44:39] systems for the icrc. A lot of

[44:41] them in my district after

[44:42] shopping centers, one in the

[44:42] shopping center where council

[44:44] offices. There's a couple of

[44:51] them actually. We will have no

[44:51] self initiated. That's matter

[44:52] is we won't be able log into

[44:53] the flock system. See those

[44:55] prior cameras. When relied on

[45:00] moves. Shopping center

[45:03] management that the access to

[45:05] provide photo ultimately it is

[45:07] the private entity that

[45:11] controls that have our ability

[45:12] to what that sharing mechanism

[45:13] looks like. My team is still

[45:15] trying to figure that out for

[45:15] one stuck on our current

[45:18] contract lapses. I don't know.

[45:19] >> Have specific answers in

[45:20] that regard. But I'm happy to

[45:20] share with looks like this we

[45:26] have information we have

[45:28] tasers and body cameras

[45:29] provided by accident in the

[45:31] most recent contract. One of

[45:32] the significant upgrades was

[45:35] when an officer.

[45:38] >> removes the Taser from that

[45:39] holder automatically activates

[45:44] the body cam. So doesn't have

[45:46] to do 2 things body cams not

[45:48] already activated for one

[45:51] reason or another. Is there

[45:56] any interactivity? Between the

[45:59] flock between the Axon cameras

[45:59] and then the other acts on

[46:05] device. Solis stand alone.

[46:07] Internal. It doesn't go

[46:08] anywhere else. Among other

[46:09] devices, halo cameras or

[46:11] anything like

[46:13] >> Right now it is

[46:14] stand-alone. There is so

[46:15] there's obviously an evidence

[46:17] dot com integration. That's

[46:18] where the gators essential for

[46:21] was gone. And there's a few

[46:22] says integration to that

[46:23] allows the camera locations to

[46:24] be viewed the few says map.

[46:26] And then in those cases in the

[46:26] real time crime centers

[46:29] responding to an active

[46:32] incident, they could act to be

[46:32] live streamed uses strike. And

[46:35] Bernard Live streaming we

[46:35] asked the same thing in the

[46:40] task force meeting last week a

[46:41] chair when the real time Crime

[46:41] Center says we need to see

[46:43] what's happening there right

[46:44] now.

[46:44] >> We don't have a halo

[46:47] camera, but there's a match on

[46:49] camera the are stream from

[46:51] that camera. That cameras no

[46:52] longer taking photographs of

[46:54] vehicles passing by. It is

[46:55] being used on a large tree

[46:58] moment taking photos. Is

[46:58] correct?

[46:59] >> I don't know that those 2

[47:01] modes are mutually exclusive.

[47:02] I My team is still trying

[47:06] to figure that But happy to

[47:07] provide that information says

[47:09] we to know that and we do have

[47:13] someone from acts online. I

[47:15] have all and much in show. We

[47:17] for that person answer that

[47:18] question. Joe has promoted. So

[47:24] to preserve you don't mind.

[47:25] >> I'm only human while you're

[47:27] doing Want to can council

[47:29] PRESIDENT Pro Tempore Mayor

[47:30] Council PRESIDENT Putin. If

[47:31] you want to join the queue,

[47:32] please communicate through

[47:34] instant message.

[47:38] We produce a lot of snow and

[47:43] generally it's been promoted.

[47:45] >> Part going here I introduce

[47:46] yourself your title and that

[47:48] customer Flynn has a question

[47:49] for

[47:51] >> It's my name is Joe. I am a

[47:54] vice PRESIDENT Of sales tax

[47:55] on. If you wouldn't mind

[47:56] repeating a question.

[48:01] >> Sure, when Cameron

[48:02] activated for live streaming

[48:05] for one reason or another.

[48:05] Does it continue to take

[48:06] photographs as well as large

[48:07] streaming through that same

[48:10] device?

[48:11] >> Yes, it does. So the device

[48:13] itself actually has 2 centers

[48:15] on it. What is dedicated to

[48:16] the alpr portion. The other

[48:17] one is dedicated to live

[48:20] stream.

[48:25] >> Ok, thank doesn't provide.

[48:26] Words through the live stream

[48:30] of any vehicle or does that

[48:30] function resigned? Only with

[48:35] the photographs.

[48:38] >> Well, all in terms all the

[48:40] learning back into Arkansas

[48:41] system to protect fails. The

[48:42] are that the license plate

[48:47] this. The the alerts come from

[48:49] the photographs, not the

[48:53] video.

[48:54] >> Thank a couple questions

[48:54] that have come to me answers

[48:59] for these devices are do not

[48:59] use facial recognition. Is

[49:04] that correct? Okay. Was asked

[49:07] that question. Constituents.

[49:08] Putting pictures on the backs

[49:11] cars. I don't workspaces with

[49:12] being involved America. I have

[49:21] to ask. Alert for him learn.

[49:22] Versus a search of the

[49:22] databases are 2 different uses

[49:28] of the system. Wear them.

[49:32] Camper trailers. There is

[49:33] child abduction and number of

[49:34] vehicle that's involved in

[49:37] passes by a camera alert is

[49:40] sent its verified by some

[49:41] other method before vehicle

[49:45] stops authorized. Does that

[49:48] automatically generate case

[49:49] number with your does it

[49:55] simply a cad number? The

[49:56] officer investigator responded

[49:56] to that incident would have to

[49:57] generate a cad number that

[49:58] eventually become the report

[49:59] number for that.

[50:03] >> that's automatic. So the

[50:04] hot list so that the platform

[50:06] is capable of maintaining a

[50:07] hot list of vehicles that, you

[50:07] know, for example, a stolen

[50:10] motor vehicle or it's just the

[50:14] example to you straight. But

[50:15] when a littler has received an

[50:17] officer to take action on that

[50:19] and create a system they would

[50:21] there have to create a cad

[50:23] number and put in record

[50:25] number officer generate is the

[50:26] system automatically generate

[50:27] doesn't automatically generate

[50:29] some of use. More immediate

[50:30] example that a child abduction

[50:31] because obviously there be

[50:34] earlier report already I hit

[50:38] and run and you got a call. It

[50:44] was a white Ford Bronco with

[50:46] but what I want for front it

[50:47] had a partial plate number,

[50:49] some signage. And hard to

[50:51] watch camera hits on that. And

[50:51] that's an alert. So that would

[50:53] be that would just generate a

[50:53] cad number.

[50:56] >> As soon as there's no case

[50:57] number, as soon as that's

[50:58] reported to Denver, 9-1-1, can

[51:00] generated right then.

[51:03] >> All of the investigative

[51:04] work and data collection

[51:07] evidence collection can

[51:08] centralize around cold water

[51:10] to pull its ok? Can you just

[51:14] describe what to catch them?

[51:15] It's a computer aided dispatch

[51:17] and it's just it's an

[51:18] electronic system that that

[51:19] Denver, 9, one uses track

[51:20] incidents and to deploy

[51:22] resources to those incidents.

[51:24] And whenever there's an

[51:24] incident that's received in

[51:26] the system that generates that

[51:30] unique number that then

[51:31] essentially precipitate all of

[51:32] that, all the data collection

[51:36] and responses. 4 for so that

[51:38] that creates portable trail.

[51:41] With full searches that are

[51:45] connected to that one

[51:47] incident. Yes, an officer gets

[51:48] a lead a month same number 12

[51:49] 20 days later, they be able to

[51:52] search system.

[51:54] >> are your final question?

[51:56] Because we're sliding one more

[51:58] and thank you asking happens.

[51:59] Separate case numbers while

[52:02] playing out for him do monthly

[52:05] audits under this contract.

[52:06] Yes, sir, will it be available

[52:08] to You mentioned that you

[52:10] would have access your data

[52:11] analyst where City Council be

[52:13] able to request seeing just

[52:17] want to logs. What I want to

[52:18] see license plate numbers. I

[52:20] don't any need to look at But

[52:23] the crimes, the cabs, senator.

[52:25] >> They do have to be rejected

[52:27] because of the sensitive

[52:29] nature of the certainty that

[52:30] know personally fine-tune the

[52:32] nation. I don't want to

[52:34] compromise. And then typically

[52:35] that's why we that's one of

[52:38] the reasons why provide that

[52:39] data is sent the director

[52:39] safety's office, the data

[52:41] analyst there. So although I

[52:42] have no issues with it, I

[52:44] would need to to discuss with

[52:44] the team. I don't know what

[52:48] kind of a lift that is for

[52:53] them to do that on suspect,

[52:54] there will be interest because

[52:57] going be theirs. And

[52:58] councilmember Taurus.

[52:58] >> you chair, thank you for

[53:01] coming forward with this.

[53:02] Despite that, we'll need for

[53:06] council. But I really

[53:08] appreciate attempt to have a

[53:09] better transparency and

[53:10] relationship when it comes to

[53:14] this as far as their attention

[53:16] period going back to council

[53:17] Putin and his question around

[53:21] the 21 days and data behind

[53:22] that I still and not

[53:25] understanding. How we got to

[53:26] 21 days and what is the

[53:28] difference between a vehicle

[53:31] that has actually been flagged

[53:31] and just anyone that's driving

[53:35] around the city.

[53:37] >> So happy work dpd team to

[53:38] provide a little bit more

[53:42] context on. We arrived at the

[53:44] 21 day. Number. We looked at a

[53:47] pretty small sample size cases

[53:52] in 2025 and then look when in

[53:52] the process, license plate

[53:53] reader system became involved

[53:56] are providing relevant and

[53:58] we're to balance not

[54:00] losing a bunch of cases where

[54:00] provided relative relevant

[54:04] evidence. We'll also be

[54:05] responsive to the concerns

[54:06] that we've heard from

[54:07] councilmembers community

[54:09] around. The longer you hold

[54:12] that the longer it's possible

[54:13] that someone gains access to

[54:13] the system and use it. So

[54:14] those are the 2 kind of

[54:17] bouncing factors that we're

[54:19] trying to strikes here in 21

[54:22] days felt least first attempt

[54:24] to strike to strike. And but

[54:25] think it's an ongoing

[54:25] conversation. Happened at dove

[54:27] into a little bit more detail

[54:28] there.

[54:32] >> And how about when we are

[54:32] searching for a particular

[54:33] vehicle? How long are we

[54:34] holding on to that data

[54:38] investigations open? Is it

[54:39] past that?

[54:41] >> that already obtained

[54:42] evidence for specific case,

[54:43] typically what would happen is

[54:45] we will take those images and

[54:46] we would attack them

[54:46] specifically. So the system's

[54:47] a little bit different. Just

[54:49] 40 resides in dot com. So

[54:50] socially would have to

[54:51] preserve it for that case

[54:52] because then it becomes

[54:55] evidence for that case that

[54:56] evidence was be retained as

[54:56] long as necessary for the

[55:01] disposition of case. Outside

[55:03] of specific specific evidence

[55:04] collected for a case that 20

[55:06] one-day retention period. But

[55:09] on a medic, the purge and he

[55:09] did

[55:10] >> And that something we will

[55:13] see specified in the contract

[55:15] with Axon?

[55:17] >> The 21 day or the All of

[55:19] Yeah. So the purging will

[55:22] absolutely part of the

[55:24] contract there will discussion

[55:26] of the retention policy. I

[55:27] don't know if it'll it's a 21

[55:27] days in the contract, but it

[55:31] will make clear. But it says

[55:33] the city who are the ones who

[55:34] set whatever that number is.

[55:35] And so it's within our

[55:35] discretion to that 21 days

[55:39] higher or lower.

[55:40] >> I guess my concern there is

[55:41] that we can change that any

[55:42] time without council and we

[55:45] want him be necessarily need

[55:48] to be informed. And so I'm

[55:52] just curious what that process

[55:53] also curious about that. And

[55:55] who is going to be approving

[55:56] that invitation. And will that

[56:00] be?

[56:00] >> There's no intention right

[56:03] now to move forward with any

[56:05] of those directly to sharing

[56:06] relationships. I know you

[56:07] know, I mentioned earlier,

[56:08] there's some of these

[56:09] conversations are still

[56:12] evolving. And so I think, you

[56:13] know, that conversation have

[56:15] to be had with council with

[56:17] mayor's office and dpd

[56:18] collectively to forward. That

[56:22] were something that we wanted

[56:22] to do just Just to reiterate

[56:25] on that at this point, it will

[56:28] be only Denver police a couple

[56:30] of other person news. Another

[56:31] safety personnel access to.

[56:34] This the city of Denver,

[56:35] >> And then what is the

[56:35] hickory and accuracy of the

[56:39] systems?

[56:40] >> I have a specific number

[56:42] the axe on representative on

[56:44] the call can speak to that You

[56:45] know, do you buy step back

[56:48] for?

[56:51] >> also in terms the accuracy

[56:52] of the system. All of that

[56:55] depends on real world weather

[56:56] conditions. But what we've

[56:58] seen in kind of all weather

[56:59] conditions is were upwards of

[57:02] about 98% accuracy in terms of

[57:03] the capture 8 and then

[57:05] accuracy of that capture,

[57:07] meaning they're 2 metrics that

[57:08] you look at when a car goes by

[57:10] how many times do capture car.

[57:11] And then when you do capture

[57:13] it, the accuracy of that read,

[57:14] were both and that kind of

[57:21] area.

[57:22] >> the with the foxes staff,

[57:22] you can also search for a

[57:23] vehicle with a scratch. On the

[57:27] phone for and other details

[57:29] using ai. Will the system be

[57:30] doing that as well? Or is it

[57:30] strictly license plate

[57:35] information?

[57:36] >> That system our system does

[57:38] have the ability to search for

[57:39] things to characteristics of

[57:42] the vehicle.

[57:43] >> And will he having that is

[57:45] part of our system with the

[57:49] city of acts have is my last

[57:52] question. Provides just public

[57:53] transparency portal. What does

[57:54] that mean? Where does that

[57:57] look like? And how will we

[57:58] provide transparency to the

[57:59] public without jeopardizing

[58:03] sensitive information? Was for

[58:10] you. As a w.

[58:11] >> If absolutely sure the

[58:13] trial transparency portal that

[58:17] we have allows agencies

[58:19] publish how they're using any

[58:21] of axons technology to the

[58:22] public. It is a tool that we

[58:23] provide through the few says

[58:24] platform and so allows it

[58:27] allows you to say what are the

[58:28] technologies that you have,

[58:29] any sharing agreements that

[58:29] you have with other police

[58:31] agencies or entities and then

[58:34] also an ability for community

[58:37] members to there, cameras or

[58:41] register any cameras too.

[58:43] Existing kind of use its

[58:44] network, meaning called a

[58:45] private cameras that you

[58:46] previously talked about on the

[58:48] fox Network. You can also do

[58:48] similar things issues that

[58:53] work as a private individual.

[58:54] >> Thank. Thank Thank you.

[58:55] Committee chair. Thank you.

[58:55] Council Roby, there's

[58:56] Councilmember Torres. Thank

[58:59] you. MISTER Chair I want to go

[59:00] back to COUNCILMAN Parodies

[59:03] question about the ops manual

[59:04] because there are several

[59:05] references to flock in the

[59:06] Alps manual. So assuming you

[59:10] have to change that 2. We

[59:13] references and replace with.

[59:16] The name. This system meant

[59:17] your potential? Absolutely.

[59:21] Yes. And the policy itself I I

[59:23] review routinely. I think they

[59:23] biweekly with the city

[59:24] attorney's office cannot far

[59:26] from the truth. But is pretty

[59:30] robust generalizing lpr

[59:32] systems. You know, just

[59:33] generally speaking. So yes, we

[59:35] do intend to go through and do

[59:38] some slight amendments because

[59:39] explicitly it doesn't

[59:42] reference live streaming and

[59:45] any regulations around that

[59:47] when then rely the guidance

[59:49] under Halo. And we do have

[59:51] some robust policy controls

[59:52] Rican regards to all of

[59:53] technologies that are used

[59:54] utilized by the real time

[59:56] crime center as well. So yes,

[59:58] it would because it is a

[59:59] camera device. Well, would say

[1:00:02] that, though. And updated

[1:00:06] policy language. If that's

[1:00:09] tool absent provides. That

[1:00:09] there would be even the

[1:00:12] reference to the sections or

[1:00:16] something else. Because that

[1:00:17] just learned about that that

[1:00:19] side of that technology here.

[1:00:20] So just wanted something to

[1:00:24] speak to that. I think that's

[1:00:27] absolutely did call out. I All

[1:00:27] of you that with the city

[1:00:29] attorney's office was once

[1:00:30] more to just make sure that

[1:00:31] that if it's not in there

[1:00:32] already, that we could

[1:00:33] something that explicitly

[1:00:36] addresses that concern the

[1:00:39] real time crime center how

[1:00:43] long does that then? Like a

[1:00:44] dedicated team and how many

[1:00:48] people make it up? So it's

[1:00:50] quite a few years now. I think

[1:00:52] I think the halo cameras go

[1:00:53] back to the dnc that we

[1:00:57] previously hosted. So

[1:00:58] >> doing that math in my head.

[1:00:58] It's been it's 20 years been

[1:01:02] quite long time. The author, a

[1:01:03] strength real time. Crime

[1:01:05] centers is 12. Far below that

[1:01:13] currently. But yeah, okay. I

[1:01:15] don't think I have additional

[1:01:17] questions. Only interest that

[1:01:22] I have as as we just utilize

[1:01:23] more frequently, do want to

[1:01:25] better understand what impact

[1:01:29] that has on redistribution of

[1:01:33] officers and budget

[1:01:35] consequences. I feel like we

[1:01:37] should be creating more

[1:01:38] efficient systems where we

[1:01:40] need fewer people interacting

[1:01:44] or we're trying to address

[1:01:46] some of gap that we experience

[1:01:47] with either response times or

[1:01:50] something like that and this

[1:01:53] is just the sense that I feel

[1:01:54] it MAY not be real in terms of

[1:01:58] numbers or data. We things to

[1:02:03] the side of budget and

[1:02:04] technology. I'm concerned that

[1:02:06] we're not being very judicious

[1:02:06] about. Where does that then

[1:02:09] relieve us of publication to

[1:02:14] keep putting money in our

[1:02:14] personnel and when we continue

[1:02:18] to both tolls and money to the

[1:02:20] side of the budget. But I can

[1:02:21] bring that up another time.

[1:02:25] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:02:30] Councilmember I have a second

[1:02:32] that beef before we jump 2

[1:02:35] quick First on year.

[1:02:38] >> Policy and procedures

[1:02:39] manual. Is there a reason why

[1:02:41] we're not think not stick to

[1:02:46] carriers, wiser name of that

[1:02:46] carrier. Less than an We're

[1:02:51] going to be going think that's

[1:02:53] a good I was actually thinking

[1:02:55] about that as we were just

[1:02:56] discussing, removing flock and

[1:02:56] then putting in an Exxon. I

[1:02:58] think the reason that it's in

[1:02:59] there now

[1:03:00] >> is to differentiate the

[1:03:01] unique characteristics of the

[1:03:05] various platforms that we use.

[1:03:05] So I will definitely bring

[1:03:06] that up with the city

[1:03:08] attorney's office and see if

[1:03:09] we can. You just make a pass

[1:03:11] from

[1:03:15] >> One of 13 council members,

[1:03:15] my strong recommendations that

[1:03:16] were not flipping names an

[1:03:19] opera Miles that we are having

[1:03:24] procedures specific 2 systems

[1:03:25] and abilities And means

[1:03:27] because then you're going

[1:03:29] continue updating whatever

[1:03:30] basis. That is just my

[1:03:31] recommendation. So would love

[1:03:33] to hear city attorney's

[1:03:35] perspective.

[1:03:38] >> I have I have continued

[1:03:39] concerns. West.

[1:03:40] >> Surveillance cameras near

[1:03:42] predict reproductive all

[1:03:44] centers. And I would like you

[1:03:45] to describe once what controls

[1:03:48] that we have as we commission

[1:03:51] on cameras from the last

[1:03:51] carrier to now this carrier.

[1:03:55] What? Controls that? We have

[1:03:59] to ensure that new cameras,

[1:04:02] our place places that provide

[1:04:03] details folks going in and out

[1:04:07] really ensuring that they have

[1:04:08] safety, security and privacy

[1:04:11] with going to reproductive

[1:04:12] health centers.

[1:04:12] >> Yeah, thank you,

[1:04:14] COUNCILMAN. I we've had this

[1:04:15] conversation a couple times.

[1:04:15] We've also been talking with

[1:04:16] some of the organizations in

[1:04:20] that space I know dpd is

[1:04:21] currently working on kind of

[1:04:23] the list of criteria that

[1:04:25] they're going to use for

[1:04:27] determining where these camera

[1:04:28] placements we're happy to sit

[1:04:30] down with any councilmember

[1:04:30] and have discussions about

[1:04:31] either in your district or

[1:04:34] city at large where camera

[1:04:35] placements going kind of the

[1:04:39] feedback there in a couple of

[1:04:40] things that we've talked about

[1:04:44] as it relates to putting that

[1:04:46] certain sensitive locations,

[1:04:47] right? As we've already talked

[1:04:49] about, these are facing the

[1:04:50] public right of way right

[1:04:51] there facing public streets to

[1:04:52] face in the parking lot. It's

[1:04:53] not facing a specific

[1:04:55] building. It's getting the

[1:04:55] image is going through and

[1:04:57] down the public street. So

[1:05:00] that's part of it. The

[1:05:01] reduction in the retention of

[1:05:06] the number of days policy is

[1:05:06] son, Parker, reflection of

[1:05:07] some of the concerns have been

[1:05:10] raised about the potential for

[1:05:12] improper uses around

[1:05:14] reproductive healthcare

[1:05:14] investigations and there's

[1:05:15] going to be there's already

[1:05:16] policies and exist with be

[1:05:19] explicit language in the

[1:05:21] contract about the fact that

[1:05:23] we have shield laws in the

[1:05:24] state and that none of this

[1:05:25] can be used for the purposes

[1:05:26] of those types of

[1:05:29] investigations. So it's the

[1:05:30] balance of the concerns that

[1:05:33] have been raised. Also

[1:05:34] recognizing that a lot of the

[1:05:35] sensitive locations, those

[1:05:36] type of facilities, hospitals

[1:05:40] and places, those are also

[1:05:40] places that targeted for

[1:05:44] attack other. Criminal

[1:05:45] conduct. And so weighing those

[1:05:46] factors as part of what we've

[1:05:48] been discussing. But I'm

[1:05:50] certainly chat about the

[1:05:51] camera placement that you any

[1:05:52] other member who would like

[1:05:59] to. Thank you so much. In the

[1:06:00] second round councilmember

[1:06:01] parity visas tears comes from

[1:06:01] Cashman and Council member

[1:06:04] Fletcher.

[1:06:05] >> and I apologize. I just our

[1:06:11] council member Amanda Sawyer,

[1:06:12] and you didn't go first round.

[1:06:14] So if you don't mind jumping

[1:06:14] in and don't go to second.

[1:06:16] Great. Thank you so much.

[1:06:18] MISTER Chair. Really person

[1:06:18] and I want to say thank you

[1:06:21] for hearing the council's

[1:06:22] concerns about.

[1:06:24] >> You a lot of the different

[1:06:24] things that we've already

[1:06:27] talked about here and being

[1:06:27] responsive to them. I really

[1:06:31] appreciate it. We have been in

[1:06:31] situations previously where

[1:06:33] we've had concerns like this

[1:06:33] and haven't been responded to

[1:06:36] with such thorough and

[1:06:37] extensive conversation and

[1:06:39] research and discussions. So

[1:06:43] thank really appreciate Wanted

[1:06:46] to ask about the 55 cameras

[1:06:47] that are coming in in this

[1:06:48] contract. So right now we have

[1:06:52] 111 flock cameras. This more

[1:06:56] than cuts that in half. What

[1:06:58] does that mean for kind of

[1:06:59] system in general and the

[1:07:03] impacts that I have? I think

[1:07:05] we're going to have to and we

[1:07:07] fully anticipate to drain into

[1:07:08] the collection phase as we

[1:07:09] roll out this platform to kind

[1:07:11] of see where.

[1:07:11] >> That plans to on. If you

[1:07:13] want to see details in that

[1:07:15] regard. But essentially, we do

[1:07:16] know that they're, you know,

[1:07:17] reducing the number of lpr

[1:07:19] devices will have some sort of

[1:07:20] impact. We're not exactly sure

[1:07:21] where that impactful will

[1:07:23] land, but we're definitely be

[1:07:24] collecting data as much as

[1:07:27] possible in that regard. Is

[1:07:28] that does that make sense? I

[1:07:29] think so. I mean, I guess I'm

[1:07:32] I'm asking

[1:07:35] >> this we have seen

[1:07:36] significant success with 111

[1:07:40] cameras are we going to be

[1:07:42] able to have that same level

[1:07:45] of success with less cameras?

[1:07:46] I think there will be an

[1:07:47] impact. And I just I just

[1:07:48] don't I can't quantify what

[1:07:48] that impact will be at this

[1:07:53] plane.

[1:07:54] >> think

[1:07:55] >> that that's goes back to

[1:07:56] their earlier discussion of

[1:07:56] why tpd is coming up with

[1:08:00] this. This kind of list of

[1:08:02] parameters for determining

[1:08:03] where cameras are most needed

[1:08:03] across the city and then

[1:08:07] obviously working with council

[1:08:08] members to have that further

[1:08:11] discussion around the

[1:08:12] placement. But it's it'll be a

[1:08:14] little bit of an iterative

[1:08:15] process along with the 21 day.

[1:08:19] Retention period rate is to

[1:08:21] How much of a loss evidence

[1:08:23] does that create? Because it's

[1:08:24] significant not similar with

[1:08:25] the reduction cameras. It's

[1:08:27] something that will be

[1:08:28] tracking certainly.

[1:08:30] >> Ok, so are you kind of

[1:08:31] looking at this that as a

[1:08:37] pilot to see what that?

[1:08:40] >> loss what that impact will

[1:08:41] be, what all of the different

[1:08:42] things that we just talked

[1:08:43] about like is that are you

[1:08:46] sort of? From a management

[1:08:47] perspective? Are you looking

[1:08:50] at this as a as an opportunity

[1:08:52] to pilot a different

[1:08:55] technology that works better

[1:08:56] given all of our concerns. And

[1:08:57] given the community's concerns

[1:08:59] about data, retention, cetera,

[1:09:03] that vision here.

[1:09:05] >> Absolutely. That's

[1:09:07] different aspect because this

[1:09:07] is a different platform Levy's

[1:09:09] previously. For example, the

[1:09:11] retention period is, as Tim

[1:09:12] said, is being reduced. So I

[1:09:12] think there's there's

[1:09:13] definitely different types of

[1:09:16] metrics that we're going to be

[1:09:16] monitoring and capturing to to

[1:09:19] kind of judge the efficacy.

[1:09:20] And I think, you know, as this

[1:09:20] new platform rules out, that's

[1:09:24] going take some time. This is

[1:09:24] new platform rules out. You

[1:09:27] know, we can start comparing

[1:09:28] what that what the numbers

[1:09:28] look like to the previous

[1:09:34] platform. Really appreciate

[1:09:37] that. I I will just follow

[1:09:37] Councilmember Cashman's

[1:09:38] requests that U.S. Keep us

[1:09:40] updated on what this looks

[1:09:41] like after.

[1:09:42] >> You know, assuming the

[1:09:43] contract goes through after

[1:09:44] certain number of months,

[1:09:46] maybe quarterly kind of go

[1:09:51] over what that looks like

[1:09:53] really appreciate that. I will

[1:09:55] say thank you for delaying

[1:09:56] this to a date certain because

[1:09:56] I don't feel comfortable

[1:10:00] voting on this contract and

[1:10:01] tell they see the contract

[1:10:04] itself. And the reason for

[1:10:06] that is because task force has

[1:10:10] been talking. Lyle about

[1:10:11] creating an ordinance that

[1:10:15] would manage data sharing and

[1:10:17] privacy are across all

[1:10:18] technology platforms that

[1:10:20] doesn't exist at this moment.

[1:10:26] I hope it does But what that

[1:10:28] means for real world

[1:10:28] implications is that

[1:10:31] guardrails have to exist in

[1:10:32] the contract. And that's why I

[1:10:35] feel like I cam vote to move

[1:10:36] this out of committee until I

[1:10:38] see the contract because the

[1:10:39] only place these guardrails

[1:10:44] exist the contract. So really

[1:10:45] appreciate you getting that.

[1:10:47] That to us soon as possible.

[1:10:48] And thanks again for hearing

[1:10:50] us and for doing only work on

[1:10:54] Thank you.

[1:10:54] >> Thank you. Councilmember

[1:10:55] And then Councilmember gets

[1:10:59] off terrorists and let's start

[1:11:02] there thank you, MISTER Do we

[1:11:03] have an axon representative

[1:11:04] available to be promoted or is

[1:11:06] he he great. Thank you.

[1:11:08] >> So something I didn't get a

[1:11:09] chance to ask. And to

[1:11:10] Beijing's, I've had with you

[1:11:12] all that. I appreciate all

[1:11:15] that time spent how a tax on

[1:11:19] handle executive order or a

[1:11:20] situation where the federal

[1:11:22] government sent you a

[1:11:23] subpoena. You sent it to the

[1:11:23] role. The jurisdiction is the

[1:11:25] owner of the data. But the

[1:11:27] federal government then took

[1:11:28] Exxon to court trying to get

[1:11:33] essentially all of your data.

[1:11:34] >> In in a scenario like that

[1:11:35] is something that we have a

[1:11:36] legal team where we would

[1:11:38] fight against That's kind of

[1:11:42] as far as I. And able to

[1:11:43] probably speak to that. But I

[1:11:44] get more specifics in terms of

[1:11:45] like what we would actually do

[1:11:46] in a matter like that. But

[1:11:50] Lilly under contract, we send

[1:11:51] the did send the foi request a

[1:11:52] review because we do not have

[1:11:55] access and it is not our data.

[1:11:56] >> Something that we talked a

[1:11:57] little bit everything in our

[1:11:59] second briefing yesterday was

[1:11:59] that also impacts on has an

[1:12:02] ethics board around ai looking

[1:12:04] into a little more actually

[1:12:05] saw that entire board resigned

[1:12:06] in 2022. So I We're talking

[1:12:08] about a new word. It was

[1:12:09] replaced. That resignation was

[1:12:11] pretty concerning to me. Can

[1:12:15] you talk about whether Axon

[1:12:15] did anything to address the

[1:12:16] concerns that led the entire

[1:12:20] board resign due to the

[1:12:23] announcement some time not his

[1:12:27] quick to and then also use

[1:12:27] surveillance cameras with

[1:12:30] real-time streaming, which is

[1:12:31] exactly what we're talking to

[1:12:32] me what it acts. In response

[1:12:35] to that words as a nation of

[1:12:36] 2022.

[1:12:37] >> That's one of probably have

[1:12:38] to follow up on to get more

[1:12:38] specifics about that

[1:12:39] particular piece. But all fall

[1:12:42] on that.

[1:12:42] >> Okay. I would appreciate

[1:12:43] that because I wasn't aware of

[1:12:49] it is concerning for dvd. Is

[1:12:50] there any other software of

[1:12:51] all the different tools that

[1:12:51] you have available in the real

[1:12:54] time crime center?

[1:12:55] >> That has facial recognition

[1:12:56] capability. Even if you're not

[1:13:03] necessarily using No, to my

[1:13:04] knowledge. I'm I'm concerned

[1:13:07] that even if the even of axons

[1:13:09] over them is not building in

[1:13:11] facial recognition, that live

[1:13:12] streaming capability leads to

[1:13:13] the possibility of fake

[1:13:14] official recognition by

[1:13:15] wearing it with another And

[1:13:16] it's just one of these things

[1:13:17] where there's so much we don't

[1:13:18] know about what happens in our

[1:13:21] gcc that I have to raise a

[1:13:21] concern. It's a member and I

[1:13:25] know I just want to

[1:13:25] >> a flag for you like, you

[1:13:27] know, we're we're very aware

[1:13:30] that recognition legislatively

[1:13:31] regulated in the state of

[1:13:34] Colorado. And so that's, you

[1:13:34] know, you have to be something

[1:13:36] almost all of our vendors that

[1:13:37] dead even have anything

[1:13:39] related to facial recognition

[1:13:40] understand that we would have

[1:13:43] to explicitly opt in and

[1:13:43] typically we would have to

[1:13:47] provide evidence that, you

[1:13:48] know, we collaborated with

[1:13:50] city council as required by

[1:13:51] law in order to bring that

[1:13:55] technology and to use That's a

[1:13:56] lot. And our compliance with

[1:13:58] is another side topic. That's

[1:13:59] a reasonable course of this

[1:14:00] task force. And I just haven't

[1:14:01] had time to sort of fully ask

[1:14:02] questions about. And so

[1:14:06] >> I would like to do that as

[1:14:07] well because just it's only as

[1:14:09] good as our kind of enforce

[1:14:10] mechanisms. You know, that

[1:14:11] down flock was developed

[1:14:12] initial actions and

[1:14:13] technology. So again, we have

[1:14:15] an example where all these

[1:14:16] things on the on paper just

[1:14:17] into the tracks. All I have a

[1:14:18] question about that, but thank

[1:14:19] you for that. Has the

[1:14:22] administration probably hurt

[1:14:25] him. Doesn't sort of diligence

[1:14:25] on axons business immigration

[1:14:30] enforcement?

[1:14:31] >> Yes, mean, I know that they

[1:14:32] have contracts with dhs with

[1:14:34] ice to provide teachers and

[1:14:36] body-worn camera. I believe

[1:14:37] this was probably a top

[1:14:38] discussion when the body-worn

[1:14:38] camera Taser contract came

[1:14:40] through this body a couple of

[1:14:44] months ago. So it's certainly

[1:14:46] a factor. This obviously a

[1:14:47] separate program from those.

[1:14:51] To my knowledge, the federal

[1:14:52] there, there is not an example

[1:14:53] the federal getting access to

[1:14:57] that scenario. Lpr system.

[1:14:57] >> And I guess I'm curious

[1:15:00] whether after Mets executive

[1:15:01] order recently, whether

[1:15:04] there's any thought from the

[1:15:05] administration about kind of

[1:15:05] from like unethical

[1:15:09] contracting point of view

[1:15:10] considering those sorts of

[1:15:11] times before we agree get a

[1:15:12] lot of money to a company

[1:15:12] because that's something the

[1:15:14] mayor isn't interested. Happy

[1:15:16] have a conversation. Will this

[1:15:17] the time? Because we're about

[1:15:20] to vote on this and we would

[1:15:21] be, you know, paying money to

[1:15:23] this coming. We have a We

[1:15:24] hundreds company already, but

[1:15:25] this would be a new one that

[1:15:27] we don't have already. So I

[1:15:27] just wondered about that from

[1:15:32] the Executive branch Last

[1:15:33] question here. I just want to

[1:15:36] say correcting one thing to

[1:15:37] heart. We are adding new ones.

[1:15:37] I what can enter her and told

[1:15:40] the task force is that average

[1:15:45] range of time for what tpd

[1:15:46] defines as useful evidence

[1:15:50] from a flock cameras was up to

[1:15:52] 14 days, not 20. So I just not

[1:15:53] to her split, but I again

[1:15:57] wonder why 21 days and I also

[1:15:58] carry us about ledgers to

[1:16:00] actions have those 3, 4, a

[1:16:00] time frames that you

[1:16:05] referenced. Do know that tough

[1:16:07] I don't happy have a

[1:16:09] spreadsheet that I share with

[1:16:10] all council members of a range

[1:16:13] 25 or 30 cities and their

[1:16:14] retention policies.

[1:16:16] >> then since I know that you

[1:16:17] as long, just the idea that

[1:16:18] we're not going cameras near

[1:16:19] reproductive health

[1:16:20] facilities. That's obviously

[1:16:25] important. But that also. To

[1:16:27] me is sort banking the

[1:16:28] question. We know that don't

[1:16:29] Cameras have been used in

[1:16:30] other jurisdictions, for

[1:16:32] example, to monitor protest

[1:16:33] activity in the live streaming

[1:16:34] capability makes that far more

[1:16:38] concerning to me. That's

[1:16:38] another exercise of

[1:16:39] constitutional rights and

[1:16:40] concert tours that are still

[1:16:40] protected on like reproductive

[1:16:41] rights, which no longer are.

[1:16:43] But federal government. And so

[1:16:48] it just sort of To me. I feel

[1:16:51] like carving out particularly

[1:16:52] well organized kind of

[1:16:53] constituency in the voting

[1:16:54] rights groups who I appreciate

[1:16:56] and agree with. But then we're

[1:16:57] leaving unprotected. A lot of

[1:16:59] other people who might be

[1:17:00] engaging in other kinds of

[1:17:01] protected activity such as

[1:17:02] first met. Right? So I just

[1:17:02] want put that out there for

[1:17:06] conversation. A consideration.

[1:17:08] And I I want to add took a

[1:17:09] very long time to get this

[1:17:10] level of responsiveness. I'm

[1:17:13] glad that we're getting it,

[1:17:13] but I'm not feeling like like

[1:17:16] any of this would have

[1:17:19] happened. We have not had huge

[1:17:20] amount of accountability from

[1:17:20] the public about what went

[1:17:21] incredibly wrong with flock

[1:17:23] and should never have gone

[1:17:25] wrong. Should have been put a

[1:17:27] stop to a year sooner than it

[1:17:29] was and so on. So I just have

[1:17:30] to say that and that's not

[1:17:32] uncommon for dpd. Those are

[1:17:34] political decisions, but I can

[1:17:35] sort of I'm not going to give

[1:17:36] a lot of credit for for this

[1:17:37] process because this is a

[1:17:38] process that's been demanded

[1:17:41] from the public every step of

[1:17:43] the way. And it's been a lot

[1:17:43] of pulling together. Thank

[1:17:47] you. MISTER Chair. Thank

[1:17:47] Councilmember Gonzalez get

[1:17:50] discount cash money accounts

[1:17:51] for Flint.

[1:17:52] >> Yes, my question is for is

[1:17:53] it Joe with Axon? Yes. Is he

[1:17:56] any still available? Is the

[1:17:58] main office. Okay. Thank you.

[1:18:01] Thank you. So I have question

[1:18:02] about the trigger which

[1:18:03] triggers the cameras to

[1:18:05] activity and actually captured

[1:18:07] images. When I met with the

[1:18:09] fox it was explained to me

[1:18:10] that there was cameras were

[1:18:11] triggered by any sort of

[1:18:14] movement, including someone

[1:18:15] walking through a crosswalk.

[1:18:16] So was it just a on a mobile

[1:18:20] movement? It was unjust,

[1:18:21] capturing license plate data.

[1:18:24] It was also also capturing

[1:18:25] people because of that trigger

[1:18:28] and motion detection. Can you

[1:18:29] tell me how these cameras are

[1:18:34] triggered to capture?

[1:18:35] >> The way that our camera

[1:18:35] works is we have both active

[1:18:39] and passive infrared. The idea

[1:18:42] is basically a vehicle creates

[1:18:44] a large amount of heat. And so

[1:18:45] we have a heat signatures that

[1:18:49] basically send turns on the

[1:18:50] image sensor. That takes a

[1:18:51] photo of the vehicle and then

[1:18:53] we do analysis to pull out the

[1:18:56] license. We're also working on

[1:18:58] a motion based but that is

[1:19:00] vehicle specifically are not

[1:19:00] using these cameras to track

[1:19:05] motion of individuals.

[1:19:06] >> Thank you for for answering

[1:19:07] that. I think that just puts a

[1:19:11] finer point Lake making sure

[1:19:13] that whatever, however, that

[1:19:14] technology is being developed,

[1:19:15] that there is clear indication

[1:19:18] around that. Again, like not

[1:19:19] going into the like facial

[1:19:23] recognition piece rate of

[1:19:25] identify simple in the use of

[1:19:27] these cameras there was one

[1:19:31] other question I had forward.

[1:19:35] This is also for you, Joe.

[1:19:39] Wasn't around. How information

[1:19:42] is shared with other

[1:19:43] jurisdictions. And I know that

[1:19:44] dpd is saying that if there's

[1:19:45] not going to be to my

[1:19:47] understanding and open door

[1:19:49] kind of policy or even

[1:19:51] agreements with other

[1:19:51] jurisdictions that everything

[1:19:53] would stay in-house as opposed

[1:19:55] to how things were being

[1:19:57] shared before. But I just want

[1:19:58] to, I guess, put a finer point

[1:20:01] and and confirm if this is

[1:20:05] actually true, is that We'll

[1:20:09] see I have my here and forgot

[1:20:14] it.

[1:20:15] >> Is this so if there are

[1:20:18] protect our Times when data

[1:20:20] would be shared with other

[1:20:25] jurisdictions. The Axon

[1:20:27] different jurisdictions

[1:20:27] because this is something we

[1:20:29] talked about kind of artists

[1:20:31] that we know that if a crime

[1:20:34] occurs you know, the border of

[1:20:36] Denver and Lakewood and that

[1:20:38] person that goes into

[1:20:39] Lakewood, that there is some

[1:20:40] kind of collaboration that

[1:20:42] would be happening. And so

[1:20:44] just curious, like, where is

[1:20:45] everyone's part in that

[1:20:48] sharing of that information

[1:20:49] across jurisdictions?

[1:20:50] >> So on the opposite side

[1:20:52] all, what we're doing is

[1:20:53] creating a software that

[1:20:56] facilitates that sharing and

[1:20:56] then the facilitation

[1:20:57] overtime. We're developing

[1:20:58] more and more granular levels

[1:21:01] of that sharing peace.

[1:21:01] Councilmember parity asked the

[1:21:03] question earlier related to

[1:21:06] can you do it based off of

[1:21:06] just case? And the answer is,

[1:21:07] yes, we are developing. So

[1:21:08] that will be available by the

[1:21:10] end of this year where you

[1:21:11] could actually have a sharing

[1:21:13] protocol set up with Lakewood

[1:21:14] or any any agency that you set

[1:21:17] up the sharing principal with

[1:21:19] and it can a space to come.

[1:21:21] The reason based number of

[1:21:21] different characteristics, you

[1:21:22] also can have it set up where

[1:21:26] it's the full global access of

[1:21:27] of those lpr reads, but it's

[1:21:31] completely on your and

[1:21:33] discretion in terms how you

[1:21:35] create that sharing principle

[1:21:36] between agencies. There also

[1:21:38] is no syndication of

[1:21:41] information, meaning we are

[1:21:42] not rewriting that your pale

[1:21:44] pr reads into another

[1:21:46] database, but other agencies

[1:21:47] database, they are getting

[1:21:48] access to look at the data. So

[1:21:52] if you have your 14 day

[1:21:54] retention policy or 21 day

[1:21:56] retention policy. Those reader

[1:21:57] delete it and no other agency

[1:21:58] can be those because they're

[1:21:59] delete it. And they're only

[1:22:02] looking at your information.

[1:22:07] >> That's on the Thank you.

[1:22:07] Cards guns off terrorist

[1:22:10] Cashman think you MR. Chair

[1:22:17] bills from us to you know.

[1:22:21] Talks still

[1:22:22] >> Currently you're doing this

[1:22:24] more than license plate

[1:22:25] reader.

[1:22:29] >> Because you said can also

[1:22:32] look for body damage and Saint

[1:22:34] truck on a vehicle. Trying to

[1:22:37] find out exactly what. When

[1:22:38] you're taking pictures and

[1:22:41] just the back of the car. Can

[1:22:41] you capture the dent on the

[1:22:43] hood of a car in the roof?

[1:22:47] What is being done?

[1:22:48] >> Absolutely. So all do it

[1:22:49] all is based on the

[1:22:51] orientation of the camera to

[1:22:53] the road. And so we're

[1:22:53] capturing an image of the

[1:22:55] vehicle as it passes the

[1:22:57] camera. And so any

[1:22:57] characteristic of that

[1:23:00] vehicle, we would be able to

[1:23:00] capture. And then over time

[1:23:03] you be able to search off with

[1:23:05] policy Right now. It is an

[1:23:08] image of that. The back of

[1:23:09] that vehicle.

[1:23:10] >> It just shows that one

[1:23:11] image as the car passes you

[1:23:14] shooting multiple images.

[1:23:16] >> It is. It a shooting,

[1:23:17] multiple images and then

[1:23:18] taking the one has the best

[1:23:23] overall view.

[1:23:24] >> Thank marcher. And just

[1:23:29] customer fun. Temperatures I

[1:23:33] just be commander. Of all

[1:23:33] hundreds of thousands of

[1:23:36] photos might be in the

[1:23:38] database are rolling. 21 day

[1:23:43] basis. I just want for you so

[1:23:47] you can affirm that. Images

[1:23:51] are looked at. Are based on. A

[1:23:55] lurch. For information

[1:23:56] developed after a criminal

[1:24:01] complaint. But individual

[1:24:02] beagles are search only south.

[1:24:06] If I'm in there 5 times read

[1:24:08] camera hard times in 21 days.

[1:24:10] No one's working on my car.

[1:24:15] Former car stolen. So we still

[1:24:15] my plate robbed a 7.11 or

[1:24:17] something like that. And then

[1:24:20] on the other hand. If an image

[1:24:26] is useful crime. In

[1:24:27] investigation after the 21

[1:24:33] days. How is that preserved in

[1:24:33] evidence starcom and not

[1:24:34] pursue because we're gonna

[1:24:37] need a going forward for case

[1:24:39] firing. So how do that set up

[1:24:40] more medically as an automatic

[1:24:41] Lee? Same those? The

[1:24:45] detective. Drag and drop it

[1:24:45] into the case file so that

[1:24:48] available 21 days. Absolutely.

[1:24:49] So to address your first

[1:24:52] question. The majority of data

[1:24:54] will be automatically courage.

[1:24:55] There has to be there has to

[1:24:56] be nexus to a crime that was

[1:24:58] committed that we're

[1:24:59] investigating.

[1:24:59] >> In order for us to even go

[1:25:02] look at that image and that

[1:25:05] would be, you a fraction of

[1:25:06] the total amount of data

[1:25:09] that's captured in that

[1:25:10] automatically perched. There

[1:25:10] has to an official law

[1:25:13] enforcement reason to do that.

[1:25:17] And then as far as retaining

[1:25:18] images, if there is an image

[1:25:20] that is evidence in a crime,

[1:25:22] then I know that the platform

[1:25:23] has a specific way to retain

[1:25:24] that, according you know, and

[1:25:26] then tag it with the case.

[1:25:28] Number. I can't I can't think

[1:25:29] of off time. I had exactly

[1:25:31] what the mechanism is. A new

[1:25:32] platform. I'm sure some

[1:25:33] members of my team know

[1:25:34] exactly how to do that

[1:25:37] already. But there is a way to

[1:25:38] preserve evidence dot com as

[1:25:42] evidence for couple.

[1:25:43] >> In front starting just in

[1:25:49] terms of that worked out. Just

[1:25:50] be it called the lpr read. You

[1:25:51] can actually just click a

[1:25:53] button that says send evidence

[1:25:54] case.

[1:25:58] >> Thank you. That soldier.

[1:25:59] >> Thank you. Councilmember We

[1:26:00] have 5 more minutes to see if

[1:26:04] there's any final questions. I

[1:26:06] comes PRESIDENT Pro did not

[1:26:07] have an additional question.

[1:26:08] Councilmember Torres I to

[1:26:09] myself into queue for timing.

[1:26:12] But if it got.

[1:26:13] >> a couple of the camera

[1:26:15] placements for Flock had to

[1:26:20] put up with tier 3. Permits

[1:26:21] once we're no longer

[1:26:24] contracting with them. Does

[1:26:26] permit expired for them or

[1:26:28] what happens with that? Know

[1:26:29] you mentioned a new cameras

[1:26:33] would be utilizing the same

[1:26:35] encroachment kind of platforms

[1:26:36] coming. Just tell me a little

[1:26:41] bit had swapped takes place.

[1:26:41] Committed. Please jump in as

[1:26:42] well. The permits for those

[1:26:46] rate of weight.

[1:26:48] >> We're 4, 1, plate readers.

[1:26:49] Generically, I think to the

[1:26:52] earlier point, have term is

[1:26:53] better than specific. Those

[1:26:54] locations where there

[1:26:57] currently are flock cameras,

[1:26:58] her permitted and they would

[1:26:59] remain to be permitted for the

[1:27:03] permanent to flock No. It has

[1:27:04] in close communication with

[1:27:05] Donny and our understanding

[1:27:06] right now is no, they were not

[1:27:10] commit specifically to flock.

[1:27:10] >> And the swapping of

[1:27:11] hardware on those Poles should

[1:27:14] no problem. Okay. So what's

[1:27:14] the timing for this to come

[1:27:20] down? As soon as contract

[1:27:21] breaches term, our data spurs,

[1:27:24] those moved to become status.

[1:27:24] My team is working to schedule

[1:27:28] the with flock, to schedule

[1:27:29] the removal of those. I don't

[1:27:30] know what rate yet. They'll be

[1:27:32] able to remove them. But

[1:27:33] obviously we're going to move

[1:27:36] as as quickly as possible

[1:27:37] because the existing hardware

[1:27:37] has to come down. New thank

[1:27:43] you. Thanks. Thank you.

[1:27:43] Councilmember Torres song see

[1:27:44] no further questions on based

[1:27:49] on administration is request.

[1:27:51] >> I will put forward a motion

[1:27:54] to postpone this item to take

[1:27:57] certain 3/18/2026, I need a

[1:27:57] second second do we need vote

[1:27:59] or up and down anyone that

[1:28:02] it's on the committee that

[1:28:06] comes up. Perfect. Thank you

[1:28:10] so much for the presentation.

[1:28:11] We have second final many on

[1:28:16] week. We have one item on

[1:28:17] consent on that has not pulled

[1:28:17] off. So the meeting's

[1:28:32] adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

Health and Safety on 2026-03-11 10:30 AM

Agenda

Transcript