Outlook
Public comment - Pasadena Municipal Services Committee - 05/12/26 From Yadi
Date Tue 5/12/20261:22PM
To cityclerk <[email protected]>; PublicComment-AutoResponse <[email protected]>
I 1 attachment (88 KB)
Public Comment - Pasadena Municipal Services Committee 05-12-26 Cameras.pdf; [A] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. For more information about the Phish Alert Button view article "KB0011474" on the DolT portal.
Hi,
Please find attached my public comment for the May 12, 2026 Pasadena Municipal Services Committee meeting, agenda item 1. DOT body worn cameras and PW Refuse Fleet cameras Thanks,
Yadi
(Attachments: 1)
1. DOT Body Worn Cameras & PW Refuse Fleet Cameras
DOT Body Worn Cameras
Where is the proposed DOT Body Worn Camera (BWC) Use Policy for the Council and the public to review?
Where is the proposed Public Service Announcement to the public that Parking Enforcement employees will be outfitted with BWC?
Public Works Refuse Fleet Cameras
This is yet another example of the lack of good governance with the deployment of technology – especially technology with surveillance and AI capabilities.
Again, t he City of Pasadena is looking to shoehorn tech solutions wherever possible that are excessive, heavy handed and punitive rather than providing our communities resources to help build them up centering on the human connection.
Where are the Surveillance Tech, AI and Privacy policies? Where is the Council and community input?
Where are the safety controls? The transparency? The Oversight? Where is the facial recognition ban?
Where is the weaponization ban?
Where is the protection of workers at risk of displacement by these tools? Where is the protection of our information from being used to train AI? Where are the pilots and studies? The research on efficacy? Where is the auditing and reporting requirements?
Where is the transparency, the public trust and the PSA? Other Cities responsibly govern technology
San Francisco has an AI policy with human accountability, public disclosures, and guardrails.
Austin has a resolution for the ethical use of AI, with transparency and worker protections.
Seattle has an AI policy with guidelines for piloting AI programs.
Boston’s CIO says; “The city reviews all technologies for alignment with Massachusetts state law, Boston’s local ordinances, and our own security and privacy policies,” Garces said. “Boston has a surveillance technology policy that governs how the city plans, procures and evaluates the use of technologies that have an impact on privacy.” The state of California had a moratorium on the use of facial recognition on body worn cameras, and when it expired, it did not follow that with any legislation that essentially green- light the use of facial recognition in the state.
Even Columbia, South Carolina tested these proposed technologies, as did Stockton with a short pilot.
1. DOT Body Worn Cameras & PW Refuse Fleet Cameras
Why, pray tell are we still putting the cart before the horse? Continuing to proceed with the acquisition and deployment of technologies with surveillance and AI capabilities without due diligence or regulation is a choice.
________________________
Yadi
Pasadena Municipal Services Committee
May 12, 2026
1. DOT Body Worn Cameras & PW Refuse Fleet Cameras