Rules Committee hears broad support for 'Stop Secret Surveillance' ordinance; Peskin seeks one‑week continuance

The Rules Committee advanced extensive public debate on an ordinance aimed at bringing city surveillance technology acquisitions into public view and under democratic oversight, but did not vote on final adoption. Supervisor Aaron Peskin introduced the measure — commonly referred to as the "Stop Secret Surveillance" ordinance — which would require city departments that acquire, use or access surveillance technology to develop and publish use policies and submit surveillance impact reports and funding requests to the Board of Supervisors for public review.

Peskin framed the ordinance as an attempt to prevent secret surveillance while retaining legitimate uses of technology for public safety. He described the proposal as modeled on similar local laws adopted in other Bay Area jurisdictions and said the measure is intended to require public vetting of technologies such as license‑plate readers, drones, and any proposed facial‑recognition systems.

"This is about saying that we can have good policing without having a police state," Peskin told the committee, laying out a package of line‑by‑line amendments he said would narrow exemptions, clarify technology descriptions, and set procedures for department reporting and public disclosure. He cited broad community input and said some amendments were already approved "as to form" by the city attorney; others remained under review.

Bill Barnes of the city administrator’s office described COIT (the Committee on Information Technology) as a clearinghouse that can provide a citywide review of departmental uses and recommended using COIT to avoid duplicative, opaque processes across dozens of departments.

Speakers for the ordinance included the ACLU of Northern California, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Secure Justice, the Public Defender’s Office, and a wide coalition of civil‑rights and neighborhood groups. ACLU attorney Matt Cagle said the ordinance would move surveillance technologies "out of the shadows and under community control," while other speakers urged a firm prohibition on facial‑recognition systems and narrower law‑enforcement exemptions.

Some department representatives and stakeholders acknowledged legitimate uses of surveillance for traffic safety, vehicle telematics and facility security but supported more transparency, retention limits, data‑sharing safeguards and public processes before procurement. After more than an hour of public testimony from a long list of individuals and organizations, Peskin asked for a one‑week continuance to finalize his amendments; the committee granted that continuance and the ordinance will return to Rules for further public consideration.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change procurement and oversight practices across city departments by making policy documents and impact reports public before certain surveillance technology uses are approved. Supporters say it will protect civil liberties and prevent discriminatory uses of new biometric or sensing technologies; some departments and stakeholders have sought clearer exemptions and implementation details.

Next steps: The item was continued one week so amendments can be finalized, at which point the committee expects at least one more public hearing before sending the measure to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.