SAN DIEGO — The City Council of San Diego has approved significant amendments to the city’s surveillance law, a move officials argue is essential to prevent city-wide disruptions but has sparked concerns among privacy advocates who perceive it as a reduction in oversight powers.
San Diego’s existing surveillance ordinance, established in 2020, underwent scrutiny due to its complex review process for various city technologies, ranging from body-worn cameras to emergency dispatch systems. City officials asserted that without modifications, the law could impede vital operations by hindering grant applications and contract renewals for crucial tools.
Proposed changes include exemptions for specific technologies, such as fixed security cameras monitoring city facilities, and law enforcement databases like the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS). Amendments also impact community meetings discussing surveillance technologies, annual reviews of tools, and the city’s legal repercussions for law violations.
A contentious proposal aimed to shorten the Privacy Advisory Board’s review period from 90 to 60 days, but this change was abandoned during council deliberations. Privacy advocates argue that the proposed amendments go beyond addressing operational concerns, potentially compromising hard-fought protections for individuals’ rights and privacy.
Members of the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology San Diego (TRUST SD) coalition, involved in crafting the surveillance ordinance, expressed disappointment, with one member, Seth Hall, describing the amendments as a “wrecking ball” to the existing law. Critics argue that the revisions betray the commitment to transparency and responsible use rules previously agreed upon with the community.
During public comments, numerous individuals voiced objections to the proposed changes, urging council members to reject them. Some criticized the decision to pursue amendments while the District Four seat, covering diverse southeastern neighborhoods, remains vacant.
Despite objections, six council members voted in favor of the amendments, while Council President Sean Elo-Rivera and Councilmember Vivian Moreno opposed the proposal.
The changes mark the latest development in a legal process initiated in response to public concerns over the mishandling of smart streetlights. The surveillance ordinance, unanimously approved in September, mandates city departments to disclose surveillance technologies, with reports reviewed by the Privacy Advisory Board and City Council.
Advocates argue that the city’s failure to provide a definitive list of technologies and nominate someone to the vacant Privacy Advisory Board position has hindered the law’s implementation. Council members indicated that additional amendments are likely as departments work to implement the ordinance.