Meeting Notes: CTTAB Privacy Committee Meeting 9/3/2014, SMT 2750, 6:00-7:30PM
1. Beryl Fernandes, Chair
2. Brian Hsi
3. Colette Taylor
4. Phil Mocek
5. Garrett Cobarr
6. Ginger Armbruster
1. Decide on a formal name for this group: voted and approved CTTAB Privacy Committee
2. Email from CM Harrell’s office: thank you for bringing this to where it is now, CTTAB has too many issues to proceed on all items of interest and it is now time to address privacy
3. Review of last meeting outcome:
a. Item 1: Discussion – What is privacy? Researched the meaning of privacy, identified 5 top priorities – list of those inputs went out via email to attendees (Michael Mattmiller from DoIT was provided the link.
b. Item 2: Arrived at consensus that first act of Privacy Committee should be to organize an information panel or symposium then start to focus on areas that the City and others may want to pursue or work on
1. Phase 1: Pre-symposium Outreach on Citizen Privacy Concerns
a. Prior to symposium, ask people in Seattle about their privacy concerns
b. 3-4 weeks prior to symposium compile of information from this outreach and send it to symposium panelists to inform their presentations and discussions
c. Online survey format is demographically limited in reaching all potential contributors
d. Want to include less-often heard populations (vulnerable communities): seniors, youth, less served populations that fall into three general categories:
iii. Small businesses
2. Phase 2: Symposium
Purpose of the Symposium: Raise awareness and inform citizens and officials about issues inside the City and in the general public arena; afterwards take this input to committee to focus on and generate ideas for solutions; Committee wants City to look at array of suggestions and encourage other organizations to pick up ideas for remediation
a. March 26, 2015 date voted on and approved
b. Timing: 2 hour session (5:30-7:30PM) for several member panel presentation and public Q&A
c. 5 issues to address at the symposium:
i. Privacy impacts on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized groups)
ii. Privacy issues of digitally engaged with advent of Internet of Things – what is collected and why?
iii. Privacy and government agencies
iv. Privacy and courts: Justice Yu, Ryan Cal (Paper reference: Privacy and Harm: subjective and objective harm of privacy infringement)
v. What can we do? Remedies
d. Several people trying to get panelists – looking at bios and backgrounds now
e. Need to develop criteria for finding panelists and then select according to this criteria
f. General requirements:
i. Need expertise on privacy
ii. Need grounding/involvement with Seattle community
g. Ideas about panelists including other sources:
i. There are many national and international experts interested in participating in this event
ii. CA is a location with a lot of legislation in place, may be fertile ground for SMEs and resources (Garrett to follow up)
iii. EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
iv. Privacy Activism: Debra Pierce
v. PII: Natalie Fonseca
vi. Justice Lu (WA State Supreme Court) interested in participating
vii. UW Tech Policy Lab: Ryan Calo – other suggestions from UW?
viii. Note: A lot of interest from UW and others, but need to keep slots open to offer to other perspectives (Beryl)
h. Panelists to address pre-symposium input: What do people in Seattle say is important?
i. Symposium alternatives proposed:
i. Allow everyday folk 2 minutes of microphone time on privacy: low income community members, for example – how impacted/issues/problems and what can be down to mitiate or help in the effort – solutions/options
ii. Could have smaller more informal groups as breakouts or other dates
3. Hack-a-thon-type of event after the Symposium, possibly in May 2015, with specifics yet to be fully defined.
Discussion and Ideas
1. Is there budget?
2. Has the Human Rights Commission taken this up? Yes, but slow going impacts on job searches, etc.
3. Profiling and bias huge part of the issue – references to Low Income Housing folks’ interest in being involved
4. Suggestion to focus on a portion of the proposed agenda to ensure efficacy – are we trying to go deeper into issues or overview issues only?
5. What are we going for – depth, breadth, over time? What are we trying to accomplish? Does this format lend itself to being focused on being tactical, how to frame this?
6. Additional Focus: Youth? Schools and children and privacy may be another interesting pivot (Book reference: The Long Shadow, following kids over decades, what information is out there and how it affects them during their lives – challenges and opportunities (law and justice records being made available inappropriately)
7. Information about social media and putting kids’ information in public forums – impact of police monitoring or work place monitoring of social media sites (Book reference: It’s Complicated by researcher at Microsoft Research – Dana Boyd)
8. It was recognized that technology issues are generally multi-faceted, may transcend the responsibility of any particular entity, and require collaboration with others beyond the IT department.
9. Security breaches – many now are medical records breaches
10. How possible it is to come up with remedies in this forum? Complication of the legal environment
11. Example of small business data that must be submitted to start a business – very invasive and all are public records and then renewed every three years: possible solutions to limiting data gathering using external CPA resource to approve without offering data to City directly, focusing on people with experience – stay focused on local issues and remedies
12. FOIA Requests
a. Tacoma Stingray/cellphone spying FOIA article and discussion of similar requests and outcomes in surrounding areas (Phil Mocek effort)
b. Important of filing FOIA requests
c. FOIA as remedy for police lying about capabilities, discussion of a citizen’s handbook for protecting privacy – coming up with a cookbook approach for this activity – how to proceed on FOIA requests
13. Library involvement? Garrett knows Library Director is interested in privacy, may be helpful. Beryl mentioned she had already established a line of communication with Head Librarian, Marcellus Turner.
14. Utilizing a crowd sourcing tool to capture information, collect stories and suggestions – what is it important? How have you been impacted? What does this mean to you?
a. Granicus offered to do this for short term ($400 for 1 month) no funding available to implement
b. Word Press with plug-ins – forum for capturing information
c. 360.com: Picture based info gathering (Garrett to provide more information)
15. Other non-profit organizations involved in the privacy space want to make themselves available to help with the Symposium for free
Pre-Symposium Information Gathering: Brainstorm about Community Outreach
1. Pre-Symposium gathering information: Deploy teams of people to “their communities” to gather information
2. Two prong approach to information gathering:
a. In person/focus group – youth organizations and Youth Commission and those that work in Center City
b. On-line via tools and web sites
3. Group exercise to list target communities: See Attachment A for lists
Discussion and Ideas
1. Forms of outreach?
2. How to reach homeless populations? Methodology for that approach?
3. Based on the wide demographic and availability of speakers should the Symposium be over multiple days, a series of symposia?
4. Public rooms available for pre-symposia/focus groups/smaller panels or information gathering at library – Garrett to explore that room availability
1. March 26th Symposium date approved and will be announced at CTTAB (Sept 9 meeting)
2. One hour conference call on this subject every Thursday 12:00-1:00PM through Sept 26th to follow up on these issues for those interested in this
3. Ginger Armbruster will send meeting notes to Beryl for distribution
4. Based on the communities list generated here, Beryl will ask people to sign up for groups they can reach out to
5. The Privacy Committee plans to meet the third Wed of each month going forward, with the next meeting on Oct 15th. We’ll try to get the same Rm 2750, SMT, 6-7.30PM.
General Comments directed to COS/DOIT about City Technology
1. Open source software should be the COS standard for that online interaction with the City; more universally accessible (open) formats preferable; dismay expressed about decision to go with proprietary Cloud version of O365 (Phil Mocek)
2. Encryption on all City websites should be the standard (Phil Mocek)
Attachment A: Communities for Symposium Information Outreach
o Utility users
o General Public
o Medical Prof
o Politic activities
o Bus Owners
o Young Adults
o Children and Parents – Family Privacy
o Interim – immigrant pop
o One America
o Seattle Public School
o Seattle Globalist
o First Place homeless youth
o Roots Shelter – U District – homeless LBGT
o Orion Center
o Angeline’s Unions Gospel Mission
o Low Income
o Physically Challenged
o Star Center
o Workers: public and private , represented and unrepresented
o Whistle blowers
o Political Activists
o Small businesses
o Mentally Disabled from high to low functioning
o Homeless – voluntary and not
o Domestic violence victims
o Recently released prisoners
o Non-first English language
o Politically minded groups
o Environmental Activists and other groups sometimes labeled “terrorists”
Anti-coal and oil activities