Q&A
Council Member Gutiérrez questions DOI Commissioner about POST Act recommendations and NYPD contracts
0:42:28
·
3 min
Council Member Jennifer Gutiérrez questions DOI Commissioner Jocelyn Strauber about the NYPD's implementation of the POST Act. The discussion focuses on rejected recommendations from the DOI's report and concerns about NYPD contracts for surveillance technology.
- Two recommendations rejected by NYPD: identifying potential impacts on protected groups and including mechanisms for tracking technology use
- Clarification sought on NYPD's reasoning for rejecting recommendations
- Questions raised about NYPD contracts not registered with the controller or visible in Checkbook NYC, particularly those considered "demonstration projects"
Jennifer Gutiérrez
0:42:28
Thank you.
0:42:29
Thank you chair Brewer.
0:42:30
Thank you commissioners for your thorough testimony.
0:42:33
I just have a couple of questions, one specifically from your testimony if you could just clarify for me.
0:42:39
I believe you said in the the 20 you had mentioned in your summary of the recommendations that PD rejected two recommendations I think it was in the in their 2023 post act report.
0:42:57
Can you just clarify which were the two that were rejected?
Jocelyn Strauber
0:43:01
Yes.
0:43:02
So the first was, that each IUP should identify the potential impact of the surveillance technology on protected groups.
0:43:10
To be clear, the actual language of the post act, and we lay this out in the 2022 report, requires the department to report on any disparate impact arising from the IUPs, I.
0:43:20
E, arising from the policies.
0:43:23
You would not necessarily expect there to be disparate impact arising from the policies.
0:43:28
We ask that the department disclose any disparate impact arising from the use of the technology itself.
0:43:34
That is not required by the post act and that was rejected.
0:43:37
The second recommendation that was rejected, was that the the department include mechanisms within the IUPs for tracking and monitoring uses of the surveillance technology so that the policy itself incorporate a procedure for essentially auditing and tracking, and that was also rejected.
0:43:55
That is also not required by the post act currently.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
0:43:58
And then just for my clarification, when they are rejected, is there a reasoning shared or is it how what does that look like when they reject recommendations?
Jocelyn Strauber
0:44:06
The department is required by law ninety days after a report is issued to respond in writing to our recommendations and they do provide reasons for the rejection if they are gonna reject a recommendation.
0:44:18
And here I believe the rejection was was because this goes beyond the requirements of the post act.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
0:44:23
Okay.
0:44:24
So I understand.
0:44:25
Thank you.
0:44:26
And then my last question, thank you chair, is we believe some contracts with PD are not registered with the controller or visible in checkbook.
0:44:35
Some are considered demonstration projects.
0:44:37
Are you are you aware if the agency is tracking these or are you given access?
0:44:43
Are they at all included in any of the I guess, the report backs or IUPs shared by PD?
Jocelyn Strauber
0:44:50
So we are given access to all kinds of information that is not public when we do these reports, but I don't know and can't speak to the question of whether particular contracts for technology that we looked at are publicly registered or not.
0:45:04
I don't know the answer and I don't think we conducted an inquiry of that.
0:45:08
Okay.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
0:45:08
Are they share you have access.
0:45:10
Is it explicit that they whether when they are demonstration projects?
Jocelyn Strauber
0:45:14
Again, I'm not sure.
0:45:15
When we make requests to the department when we're going to conduct an investigation like this, we receive materials from them.
0:45:23
Some materials are public, some materials are not public.
0:45:25
But I don't know the specific answer to your question.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
0:45:28
Okay.
0:45:28
Alright.
0:45:29
Thank you.