November 9th, 2015 IRC Meeting: Difference between revisions

From Mass Pirate Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 101: Line 101:


* bestpiggy (olivia Píñeyro, Boston)
* bestpiggy (olivia Píñeyro, Boston)
* Bluestreak (Lucia Fiero, Medway)
* Bluestreak (Lucia Fiero)
* jokeefe (James O’Keefe, Somerville)
* jokeefe (James O’Keefe, Somerville)
* JTIII (Joe Thornton, Boston Ma)
* JTIII (Joe Thornton, Boston Ma)
Line 119: Line 119:


We vote in favor of supporting H.2170 (6-0).
We vote in favor of supporting H.2170 (6-0).
BPCAT’s Boston Police Body Camera Use & Procedure ordinance.  Vote in favor of supporting (4-0).
H3383.  We identify some positive points, but some significant limitations (sections 7 & 8).  Vote to endorse as a small step forward, while calling out limitations.  Passes (6-0).  Steve to draft statement.


== Minutes ==
== Minutes ==
<nowiki>
21:00 < jokeefe> ahoy
21:00 < srevilak> hi jokeefe
21:00 < bestpiggy> hey all
21:01 < JTIII> hello
21:01 < Bluestreak> hi bestpiggy
21:01 < Bluestreak> hi JTIII
21:03 < jokeefe> ahoy Kendra
21:03 < jokeefe> agenda -
        https://masspirates.org/wiki/November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting
21:03 < jokeefe> ids - James O’Keefe, Somerville
21:03 < srevilak> Steve Revilak - arlington, MA
21:03 < Bluestreak> Lucia Fiero
21:04 < Kendra> Hi All, Kendra Moyer, Michigan
21:04 < JTIII> Joe Thornton, Boston Ma
21:04 < bestpiggy> olivia Píñeyro, Boston
21:04 < jokeefe> Review & Decisions
21:04 < jokeefe> H.2170 – An Act promoting the use of body-worn cameras
        by law enforcement
21:05 < jokeefe> Boston Police Body Camera Use & Procedure ordinance
21:05 < jokeefe> Links at the agenda
21:05 < jokeefe> Discussion?
21:05 < jokeefe> ahoy igel
21:05 < igel> yaar
21:05 < jokeefe> just doing ids - agenda -
        https://masspirates.org/wiki/November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting
21:06 < igel> william fleurant arling[Cton
21:06 < igel> k
21:07 < jokeefe> Discussing the Body Cameras bills
21:08 < jokeefe> Opinions or is everyone reading the text?
21:08 < srevilak> I have question about
        http://issuu.com/ccyancey/docs/aclum_boston_city_council__ordinanc?e=11811396/14739898
21:08 < srevilak> issuu.com only shows me the first page of six.
21:09 < srevilak> and The URI implies that it's Yancey's bill.  He lost
        his seat last week
21:09 < Kendra> I think the past few days have proven that the body
        cameras, or any camera obviously provides a fully picture of particular
        situations.  The little boyt just killed in Louisiana caught on tape
        and it led to the officer's arrest.  Also people have lied against the
        police, accusing them of unnecessary force,  and been caught by the body
        camera recently.  Perfect example of a double edge sword.  If nothing
        else people are fo
21:09 < srevilak> Guess I'm wondering if the bill is in limbo (and is
        there another source for the bill text)
21:09 < Bluestreak> one sec
21:09 < Bluestreak> https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2170
21:09 < Bluestreak> BRB
21:10 < srevilak> Bluestreak: H2170 is the state bill -- I was asking
        about the boston bill
21:10 < jokeefe> Not sure, srevilak
21:10 < igel> film the police
21:11 < srevilak> I support H2170 (largely based on Alex's summary)
21:12 < jokeefe> My guess, srevilak, is that even with Yancy out, they
        will find others to bring their ordinance to a vote
21:13 < Bluestreak> Sorry, distracted by teen asking for food
21:13 < igel> yeah its no surprise complaints decreased in nyc when the
        video doesnt lie
21:13 < jokeefe> no worries
21:14 < srevilak> The OCR errors (aka extraneoue numbers) in
        https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2170 make it rather amusing
21:16 < jokeefe> The data retention policy of the Boston ordinance is
6 months.
21:16 < Kendra> They have passed this in Detroit.
21:16 < jokeefe> nothing about FOIA’ing the video though
21:17 < srevilak> jokeefe: yes there is
21:17 < Kendra> I think it is long overdue, but there is obviously
        resistence.  I think is will become the status quo over time due to the
        amount of lawsuits and liability issues.
21:17 < srevilak> sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(2) cover relationship to
        public records law
21:18 < srevilak> All audio-visual recordings that are captured during
        an interaction between a 116 individual or individuals and an officer
        or officers are exempt from public disclosure 117 under 4 MGL 7(26)(a)
        and shall be kept confidential absent a court order.
21:18 < srevilak> This exception does not apply to individuals filmed
        in a police interaction, and their 119 legal representatives shall have
        the right to inspect and copy such recordings.
21:19 < Kendra> laws always have a loophole
21:19 < igel> i find this unreal
21:19 < Kendra> It's all about the loophole
21:19 < igel> mm
21:19 < Bluestreak> Unless there is a complaint, right?
21:20 < Bluestreak> The whole point is to be able to access the video
        if there is a complaint filed.
21:20 < srevilak> I think 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(2) are reasonable.  If you're
        filmed, you can get a copy, and your lawyer can get a copy
21:21 < jokeefe> That covers H.2170.  I was thinking about the Boston
        Ordinance & its FOIA coverage
21:21 < jokeefe> thanks for pointing out the section
21:22 < jokeefe> anything else anyone wants to bring up?
21:23 < srevilak>
        https://aclum.org/app/uploads/2015/09/ACLUM-Model-Municipal-Body-Camera-Policy-9-16-15.pdf
        is the ACLU's model legislation for municipalities
21:24 < srevilak> Since I can only see first page of
        http://issuu.com/ccyancey/docs/aclum_boston_city_council__ordinanc?e=11811396/14739898,
        can't tell if they're similar
21:24 < jokeefe> hello aquaticonions
21:24 < igel> i was just reading that related doc
21:24 < jokeefe> agenda -
        https://masspirates.org/wiki/November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting
21:25 < jokeefe> talking BodyCam legislation
21:27 < jokeefe> I think the share some common language, but aren’t
        identical
21:27 < srevilak> (ACLU model legislation addresses public records law
        in section 5(f) and 5(g)
21:28 < jokeefe> ACLU defines Subject, but Boston bill doesn’t
21:29 < jokeefe> Is anyone seeing anything that convinces them that we
        shouldn’t support either of these pieces of legislation?
21:29 < Bluestreak> No.
21:29 < Bluestreak> pe
21:29 < srevilak> I support H2170, abstain on the Yancey bill (because
        I'm unable to read the whole thing)
21:30 < igel> the hardware spec
21:30 < igel> 640 x 480
21:31 < jokeefe> Not seeing anyway to download the yancey bill, but I
        can see all of the pages
21:32 < jokeefe> Ok, not seeing any reason we shouldn’t put it to a
        vote, closing discussion
21:33 < jokeefe> All in favor of supporting H.2170 - An Act promoting
        the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement?
21:33 < srevilak> aye, in favor
21:33 < Bluestreak> aye
21:33 < bestpiggy> aye
21:33 < Kendra> aye
21:33 < igel> aye
21:34 < jokeefe> aye
21:34 < jokeefe> any opposed?
21:35 < jokeefe> motion passes
21:36 < jokeefe> All in favor of supporting BPCAT’s Boston Police Body
        Camera Use & Procedure ordinance, say aye, opposed say nay
21:36 < igel> aye
21:36 < Kendra> aye
21:36 < Bluestreak> aye
21:37 < jokeefe> aye
21:38 < jokeefe> motion passes
21:38 < jokeefe> Discussion of
        https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H3383 - An Act relative to
        the digital right to repair
21:39 < jokeefe> Do we need discussion?
21:40 < Bluestreak> "Owner", a person or business who lawfully acquires
        a digital electronic product purchased or used in the commonwealth.
21:40 < Bluestreak> LOL
21:41 < srevilak> I like section 2(2)
21:41 < igel> hheh..
21:41 < igel> High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP), is a
        form of digital copy protection developed by Intel Corporation[1] to
        prevent copying of digital audio and video content as it travels across
        connections. Types of connections include DisplayPort (DP),....
21:41 < jokeefe> So if someone steals an iPhone, they cannot get it
        repaired except at an Apple Store
21:41 < igel> you are free to watch what we tell you
21:41 < igel> err allow you to watch
21:42 < Kendra> I agree that there should be accessible options for people
        to repair items they own without involving the government or manufacturer,
        within reason
21:42 < srevilak> Section 7 gives me pause.  "Nothing in this chapter
        shall be construed to require a manufacturer to divulge a trade secret."
21:43 < Bluestreak> That’s an out that would work often.
21:43 < Kendra> you found the loophole
21:43 < Bluestreak> I say support it an see what happens.
21:43 < srevilak> Section 7 seems like a good way to avoid section 6
21:44 < igel> yeah there is no reason i cannot hook into my car and use
        my cellphone bluetooth to change my computer alarm setting, reset an o2
        sensor, a check enginelight for that matter..
21:44 < srevilak> aka "we can't tell you, because it's a trade secret"
21:44 < jokeefe> Well, but if they make the manuals available to service
        people then it isn’t a trade secret, yes
21:44 < jokeefe> ?
21:44 < Bluestreak> All my pro ACA friends said, when I pointed out the
        flaws, “At least we are doing something.”
21:45 < Bluestreak> So, is it good enough that we support this broadly
        worded version for now?
21:45 < jokeefe> The house bill for the car right to repair had similar
        language - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H4362
21:45 < srevilak> jokeefe: that's the crux of the matter.  If manufacturer
        call it a trade secret, you have to prove them wrong
21:45 < igel> the cd's are thousands+ to purchase, every year.
21:46 < Kendra> From the pov of the software type people, this might be
        problematic, as in the current VW scandal.  If you cannot access the
        code due to a trade secret you mioght not be able to understand the
        underpinnings of a problem to make a repair yourself.
21:46 < igel> so small shops arent able to afford that.. its like the
        apple store or monsanto
21:46 < Bluestreak> I say until we pass it and experience problems we
        can’t say it won’t work.
21:46 < igel> subscription to obtain the right to repair, watch your
        media, plant a seed...
21:46 < jokeefe> Ballot Measure had something similar -
        http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/quest_1.htm
21:46 < srevilak> The bill defines "trade secret" as "anything tangible
        and intangible ... with constitutes ... intellectual property"
21:47 < Bluestreak> LOL That is everything!
21:47 < Bluestreak> I had a brain fart! That’s my intellecutal pooperty.
21:47 < Kendra> It is easy to hide flaws in manufacturing, if there
        is no right to repair, also it takes away transparency if a product is
        defective and it is not known or disclosed
21:48 < jokeefe> Well, we can endorse, but say it doesn’t go far enough
21:48 < igel> yea ur right
21:48 < Bluestreak> “Perhaps is too broadly worded to be of real use"
21:48 < igel> doorbell.. afk
21:48 < srevilak> jokeefe: I can agree with that.  I like the general
        thought, but I do not like Section 7.  Too much loophope
21:48 < srevilak> jokeefe: I can agree with that.  I like the general
        thought, but I do not like Section 7.  Too much loophole
21:48 < Bluestreak> We can agree that we support the ideal.
21:49 < Bluestreak> And hope this bill isn’t just fluff and PR
21:49 < Kendra> It's funny how it really comes down to the lawyere
        being able to find a way to wriggle out of responsibility on the basis
        of wording or ommission.
21:49 < Kendra> I think it needs some amendments but support the concept
21:50 < jokeefe> Does that work for everyone else?  Endorse, but detail
        the problems we find with it?
21:50 < srevilak> hmm - my next question: can you hack away on your own,
        despite a manufacturer's refusal to divulge trade secrets.  Or, do you
        get bit by DCMA?
21:50 < srevilak> s/DCMA/DMCA/
21:52 < srevilak> The bill does have some good things.  On plan reading,
        Section 3 seems to proscribe manufacturer lock-in
21:52 < jokeefe> Section 8 - Section 8. Nothing in this chapter requires
        manufacturers or authorized repair providers to provide an owner or
        independent repair provider access to non-diagnostic and non-repair
        information provided by a manufacturer to an authorized repair provider
        pursuant to the terms of an authorizing agreement.
21:52 < srevilak> jokeefe: Have to wonder where that came from
21:54 < Kendra> They probably are arguing trade secret, but it is a
        racket.  An authorised repair provider sounds like licensing and more $$
        involved. You can probaly hack and apologize later.  I think a lot of
        this is to stave off industrial competition.  I am iin favor, with the
        stipulation that it is probematic and shoudl bee clarified/re-worded in
        areas, so aye
21:54 < igel> a dmca would occur when you share the findings, im
        assuming..
21:54 < jokeefe> Well, it seems to be an improvement over the car bill
        since it allows owners to get parts/tools and not just service people
21:55 < jokeefe> DMCA is federal, just saying
21:55 < igel> if you wrote a bluetooth to odbII app, put it on applestore
        or googleblah
21:55 < igel> yeah it would be state borders, i bet.. that'd be at that
        level may be?
21:55 < Bluestreak> 5 minutes remaining
21:56 < jokeefe> This won’t challenge patent/copyright, but it doesn’t
        need to
21:56 < srevilak> jokeefe: re: DMCA: I think it depends on how DMCA
        defines the relationship between the federal and state statute.
        If there's a discrepancy, who wins?
21:56 < jokeefe> Feds in this case
21:56 < Kendra> Depends on the state, teh industry, tax revenus
21:57 < srevilak> I'm okay with supporting H3383 as a baby step, but
        calling out its weaknesses (sections 7, 8)
21:57 < jokeefe> are others comfortable with that?
21:57 < srevilak> Put another way, seems acceptable as a half-assed effort
21:58 < jokeefe> lol
21:58 < Kendra> in favor, but needs some work, aye
21:58 < Bluestreak> 2nd SR
21:58 < igel> aye
21:58 < Bluestreak> aye
21:58 < jokeefe> aye
21:58 < srevilak> aye
21:59 < jokeefe> any opposed?
22:00 < jokeefe> motion passes
22:00 < jokeefe> srevilak, you want to draft the statement?
22:00 < srevilak> jokeefe: sure, can work on that
22:00 < jokeefe> I can do the get out and contact your state reps/senator
22:00 < jokeefe> thanks
22:01 < jokeefe> we are at time - clearly three bills is too much for
        an hour if we want to get other things done
22:01 < srevilak> since we're at time, motion to adjourn?
22:01 < Kendra> 2nd
22:01 < jokeefe> all in favor?
22:02 < Kendra> aye
22:02 < Bluestreak> aye
22:02 < srevilak> jokeefe: I think some legislative bodies would be
        envious of three bills in one hour :)
22:02 < jokeefe> true
22:02 < Kendra> nite all
22:02 < jokeefe> aye
22:02 < srevilak> aye to adjourn
22:02 < srevilak> will post transcript
</nowiki>

Latest revision as of 23:53, 1 February 2018

Review & Decisions

Also, since we backed the car right to repair bill, I wouldn't think there would be any issue with H.3383 – An Act relative to the digital right to repair.

Upcoming Events

  1. 11/15, 3-5pm, 2016 Campaign Planning Meeting, Pizzeria Regina, 353 Cambridge St, Allston
  2. 11/21, 9am-5:30pm, Building Sustainable Security, Harvard Law School, Wasserstein Hall
  3. 11/21-22, 10am-6pm, Boston Anarchist Bookfair, George Sherman Student Center, Boston University
  4. 11/25, 6-9pm, Cryptoparty, Parts & Crafts, Somerville
  5. 12/6, 3-5pm, 2016 Campaign Planning Meeting, Pizzeria Regina, 353 Cambridge St, Allston
  6. Dec. IT Meeting?
  7. 12/30, 6-9pm, Cryptoparty, Parts & Crafts, 577 Somerville Ave, Somerville

Campaigns Status

2016 Campaigns & Policies Update

What tasks should we add?

Also, writing up a doc on using git & commenting on & voting on changes (jokeefe)

MAAPL form (srevilak)

H.2487 & H.2606 Video Game Production Subsidy

Election Bills

Writing position based on our testimony from last year (jokeefe)

Other Bills for consideration

Going to put at least one for discussion at every IRC meeting and just get through them.

PirateCon 2015 Videos (jokeefe)

Ordered them in ease of processing / priority:

  1. Building 3rd party coalitions
  2. Lightning talks
  3. Keynote: How we won Net Neutrality
  4. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and you
  5. Rethinking the City
  6. Income Inequality

Newsletter (Kendra)

  • Design & Feedback
  • Distribution Planning (besides emailing a pdf)
    • Gather list of people to mail it to (?)
    • Gather a list of places to distribute it (?)
    • Decide on the print run (?)
  • Distribute

Tech

see for priorities

  • Bitcoin + Credit card gateway in CiviCRM (srevilak, js0000, Kendra)
  • Improve UI navigation of wiki & expose more wiki bits on blog (Noe, jokeefe)
  • Allow distributed organizing on CiviCRM (and pointers to get started) (Kendra, srevilak, Chris, jokeefe)
  • js0000 and jokeefe will work on building a tool to manage twitter:
  • Forum (or needed now that lists are publicized?)

Administrative

  • Media
    • Updated media list (noe)
    • Nov. - 2016 Elections
  • Blog posts
    • Local/regional contacts (jokeefe) - Regional page up. Working on local pages.
  • Materials

Tasks: Wiki list, PiratePad version.

Helping with BINJ CCTV camera mapping project

Looking for someone to work on this.

Upcoming Events

  1. 11/15, 3-5pm, 2016 Campaign Planning Meeting, Pizzeria Regina, 353 Cambridge St, Allston
  2. 11/21, 9am-5:30pm, Building Sustainable Security, Harvard Law School, Wasserstein Hall
  3. 11/21-22, 10am-6pm, Boston Anarchist Bookfair, George Sherman Student Center, Boston University
  4. 11/25, 6-9pm, Cryptoparty, Parts & Crafts, Somerville
  5. 12/6, 3-5pm, 2016 Campaign Planning Meeting, Pizzeria Regina, 353 Cambridge St, Allston
  6. Dec. IT Meeting?
  7. 12/30, 6-9pm, Cryptoparty, Parts & Crafts, 577 Somerville Ave, Somerville

Every Thu., Digital Fourth meeting, 11:20am-1:30pm, Voltage Cafe, Third Street, Cambridge

Participants

  • bestpiggy (olivia Píñeyro, Boston)
  • Bluestreak (Lucia Fiero)
  • jokeefe (James O’Keefe, Somerville)
  • JTIII (Joe Thornton, Boston Ma)
  • srevilak (Steve Revilak - arlington, MA)
  • Kendra (Kendra Moyer, Michigan)
  • igel (william fleurant arling[Cton)
  • aquaticonions

Observers

  • davidd
  • Pharyngeal

Summary

Body camera legislation. ACLU's model legislation for municipalities is https://aclum.org/app/uploads/2015/09/ACLUM-Model-Municipal-Body-Camera-Policy-9-16-15.pdf. There are similarities between this and the proposed Boston legislation, but the two are not identical.

We vote in favor of supporting H.2170 (6-0).

BPCAT’s Boston Police Body Camera Use & Procedure ordinance. Vote in favor of supporting (4-0).

H3383. We identify some positive points, but some significant limitations (sections 7 & 8). Vote to endorse as a small step forward, while calling out limitations. Passes (6-0). Steve to draft statement.

Minutes

21:00 < jokeefe> ahoy
21:00 < srevilak> hi jokeefe
21:00 < bestpiggy> hey all
21:01 < JTIII> hello
21:01 < Bluestreak> hi bestpiggy
21:01 < Bluestreak> hi JTIII
21:03 < jokeefe> ahoy Kendra
21:03 < jokeefe> agenda -
        https://masspirates.org/wiki/November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting
21:03 < jokeefe> ids - James O’Keefe, Somerville
21:03 < srevilak> Steve Revilak - arlington, MA
21:03 < Bluestreak> Lucia Fiero
21:04 < Kendra> Hi All, Kendra Moyer, Michigan
21:04 < JTIII> Joe Thornton, Boston Ma
21:04 < bestpiggy> olivia Píñeyro, Boston
21:04 < jokeefe> Review & Decisions
21:04 < jokeefe> H.2170 – An Act promoting the use of body-worn cameras
        by law enforcement
21:05 < jokeefe> Boston Police Body Camera Use & Procedure ordinance
21:05 < jokeefe> Links at the agenda
21:05 < jokeefe> Discussion?
21:05 < jokeefe> ahoy igel
21:05 < igel> yaar
21:05 < jokeefe> just doing ids - agenda -
        https://masspirates.org/wiki/November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting
21:06 < igel> william fleurant arling[Cton
21:06 < igel> k
21:07 < jokeefe> Discussing the Body Cameras bills
21:08 < jokeefe> Opinions or is everyone reading the text?
21:08 < srevilak> I have question about
        http://issuu.com/ccyancey/docs/aclum_boston_city_council__ordinanc?e=11811396/14739898
21:08 < srevilak> issuu.com only shows me the first page of six.
21:09 < srevilak> and The URI implies that it's Yancey's bill.  He lost
        his seat last week
21:09 < Kendra> I think the past few days have proven that the body
        cameras, or any camera obviously provides a fully picture of particular
        situations.  The little boyt just killed in Louisiana caught on tape
        and it led to the officer's arrest.  Also people have lied against the
        police, accusing them of unnecessary force,  and been caught by the body
        camera recently.  Perfect example of a double edge sword.  If nothing
        else people are fo
21:09 < srevilak> Guess I'm wondering if the bill is in limbo (and is
        there another source for the bill text)
21:09 < Bluestreak> one sec
21:09 < Bluestreak> https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2170
21:09 < Bluestreak> BRB
21:10 < srevilak> Bluestreak: H2170 is the state bill -- I was asking
        about the boston bill
21:10 < jokeefe> Not sure, srevilak
21:10 < igel> film the police
21:11 < srevilak> I support H2170 (largely based on Alex's summary)
21:12 < jokeefe> My guess, srevilak, is that even with Yancy out, they
        will find others to bring their ordinance to a vote
21:13 < Bluestreak> Sorry, distracted by teen asking for food
21:13 < igel> yeah its no surprise complaints decreased in nyc when the
        video doesnt lie
21:13 < jokeefe> no worries
21:14 < srevilak> The OCR errors (aka extraneoue numbers) in
        https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H2170 make it rather amusing
21:16 < jokeefe> The data retention policy of the Boston ordinance is
6 months.
21:16 < Kendra> They have passed this in Detroit.
21:16 < jokeefe> nothing about FOIA’ing the video though
21:17 < srevilak> jokeefe: yes there is
21:17 < Kendra> I think it is long overdue, but there is obviously
        resistence.  I think is will become the status quo over time due to the
        amount of lawsuits and liability issues.
21:17 < srevilak> sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(2) cover relationship to
        public records law
21:18 < srevilak> All audio-visual recordings that are captured during
        an interaction between a 116 individual or individuals and an officer
        or officers are exempt from public disclosure 117 under 4 MGL 7(26)(a)
        and shall be kept confidential absent a court order.
21:18 < srevilak> This exception does not apply to individuals filmed
        in a police interaction, and their 119 legal representatives shall have
        the right to inspect and copy such recordings.
21:19 < Kendra> laws always have a loophole
21:19 < igel> i find this unreal
21:19 < Kendra> It's all about the loophole
21:19 < igel> mm
21:19 < Bluestreak> Unless there is a complaint, right?
21:20 < Bluestreak> The whole point is to be able to access the video
        if there is a complaint filed.
21:20 < srevilak> I think 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(2) are reasonable.  If you're
        filmed, you can get a copy, and your lawyer can get a copy
21:21 < jokeefe> That covers H.2170.  I was thinking about the Boston
        Ordinance & its FOIA coverage
21:21 < jokeefe> thanks for pointing out the section
21:22 < jokeefe> anything else anyone wants to bring up?
21:23 < srevilak>
        https://aclum.org/app/uploads/2015/09/ACLUM-Model-Municipal-Body-Camera-Policy-9-16-15.pdf
        is the ACLU's model legislation for municipalities
21:24 < srevilak> Since I can only see first page of
        http://issuu.com/ccyancey/docs/aclum_boston_city_council__ordinanc?e=11811396/14739898,
        can't tell if they're similar
21:24 < jokeefe> hello aquaticonions
21:24 < igel> i was just reading that related doc
21:24 < jokeefe> agenda -
        https://masspirates.org/wiki/November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting
21:25 < jokeefe> talking BodyCam legislation
21:27 < jokeefe> I think the share some common language, but aren’t
        identical
21:27 < srevilak> (ACLU model legislation addresses public records law
        in section 5(f) and 5(g)
21:28 < jokeefe> ACLU defines Subject, but Boston bill doesn’t
21:29 < jokeefe> Is anyone seeing anything that convinces them that we
        shouldn’t support either of these pieces of legislation?
21:29 < Bluestreak> No.
21:29 < Bluestreak> pe
21:29 < srevilak> I support H2170, abstain on the Yancey bill (because
        I'm unable to read the whole thing)
21:30 < igel> the hardware spec
21:30 < igel> 640 x 480
21:31 < jokeefe> Not seeing anyway to download the yancey bill, but I
        can see all of the pages
21:32 < jokeefe> Ok, not seeing any reason we shouldn’t put it to a
        vote, closing discussion
21:33 < jokeefe> All in favor of supporting H.2170 - An Act promoting
        the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement?
21:33 < srevilak> aye, in favor
21:33 < Bluestreak> aye
21:33 < bestpiggy> aye
21:33 < Kendra> aye
21:33 < igel> aye
21:34 < jokeefe> aye
21:34 < jokeefe> any opposed?
21:35 < jokeefe> motion passes
21:36 < jokeefe> All in favor of supporting BPCAT’s Boston Police Body
        Camera Use & Procedure ordinance, say aye, opposed say nay
21:36 < igel> aye
21:36 < Kendra> aye
21:36 < Bluestreak> aye
21:37 < jokeefe> aye
21:38 < jokeefe> motion passes
21:38 < jokeefe> Discussion of
        https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/House/H3383 - An Act relative to
        the digital right to repair
21:39 < jokeefe> Do we need discussion?
21:40 < Bluestreak> "Owner", a person or business who lawfully acquires
        a digital electronic product purchased or used in the commonwealth.
21:40 < Bluestreak> LOL
21:41 < srevilak> I like section 2(2)
21:41 < igel> hheh..
21:41 < igel> High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP), is a
        form of digital copy protection developed by Intel Corporation[1] to
        prevent copying of digital audio and video content as it travels across
        connections. Types of connections include DisplayPort (DP),....
21:41 < jokeefe> So if someone steals an iPhone, they cannot get it
        repaired except at an Apple Store
21:41 < igel> you are free to watch what we tell you
21:41 < igel> err allow you to watch
21:42 < Kendra> I agree that there should be accessible options for people
        to repair items they own without involving the government or manufacturer,
        within reason
21:42 < srevilak> Section 7 gives me pause.  "Nothing in this chapter
        shall be construed to require a manufacturer to divulge a trade secret."
21:43 < Bluestreak> That’s an out that would work often.
21:43 < Kendra> you found the loophole
21:43 < Bluestreak> I say support it an see what happens.
21:43 < srevilak> Section 7 seems like a good way to avoid section 6
21:44 < igel> yeah there is no reason i cannot hook into my car and use
        my cellphone bluetooth to change my computer alarm setting, reset an o2
        sensor, a check enginelight for that matter..
21:44 < srevilak> aka "we can't tell you, because it's a trade secret"
21:44 < jokeefe> Well, but if they make the manuals available to service
        people then it isn’t a trade secret, yes
21:44 < jokeefe> ?
21:44 < Bluestreak> All my pro ACA friends said, when I pointed out the
        flaws, “At least we are doing something.”
21:45 < Bluestreak> So, is it good enough that we support this broadly
        worded version for now?
21:45 < jokeefe> The house bill for the car right to repair had similar
        language - https://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H4362
21:45 < srevilak> jokeefe: that's the crux of the matter.  If manufacturer
        call it a trade secret, you have to prove them wrong
21:45 < igel> the cd's are thousands+ to purchase, every year.
21:46 < Kendra> From the pov of the software type people, this might be
        problematic, as in the current VW scandal.  If you cannot access the
        code due to a trade secret you mioght not be able to understand the
        underpinnings of a problem to make a repair yourself.
21:46 < igel> so small shops arent able to afford that.. its like the
        apple store or monsanto
21:46 < Bluestreak> I say until we pass it and experience problems we
        can’t say it won’t work.
21:46 < igel> subscription to obtain the right to repair, watch your
        media, plant a seed...
21:46 < jokeefe> Ballot Measure had something similar -
        http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/quest_1.htm
21:46 < srevilak> The bill defines "trade secret" as "anything tangible
        and intangible ... with constitutes ... intellectual property"
21:47 < Bluestreak> LOL That is everything!
21:47 < Bluestreak> I had a brain fart! That’s my intellecutal pooperty.
21:47 < Kendra> It is easy to hide flaws in manufacturing, if there
        is no right to repair, also it takes away transparency if a product is
        defective and it is not known or disclosed
21:48 < jokeefe> Well, we can endorse, but say it doesn’t go far enough
21:48 < igel> yea ur right
21:48 < Bluestreak> “Perhaps is too broadly worded to be of real use"
21:48 < igel> doorbell.. afk
21:48 < srevilak> jokeefe: I can agree with that.  I like the general
        thought, but I do not like Section 7.  Too much loophope
21:48 < srevilak> jokeefe: I can agree with that.  I like the general
        thought, but I do not like Section 7.  Too much loophole
21:48 < Bluestreak> We can agree that we support the ideal.
21:49 < Bluestreak> And hope this bill isn’t just fluff and PR
21:49 < Kendra> It's funny how it really comes down to the lawyere
        being able to find a way to wriggle out of responsibility on the basis
        of wording or ommission.
21:49 < Kendra> I think it needs some amendments but support the concept
21:50 < jokeefe> Does that work for everyone else?  Endorse, but detail
        the problems we find with it?
21:50 < srevilak> hmm - my next question: can you hack away on your own,
        despite a manufacturer's refusal to divulge trade secrets.  Or, do you
        get bit by DCMA?
21:50 < srevilak> s/DCMA/DMCA/
21:52 < srevilak> The bill does have some good things.  On plan reading,
        Section 3 seems to proscribe manufacturer lock-in
21:52 < jokeefe> Section 8 - Section 8. Nothing in this chapter requires
        manufacturers or authorized repair providers to provide an owner or
        independent repair provider access to non-diagnostic and non-repair
        information provided by a manufacturer to an authorized repair provider
        pursuant to the terms of an authorizing agreement.
21:52 < srevilak> jokeefe: Have to wonder where that came from
21:54 < Kendra> They probably are arguing trade secret, but it is a
        racket.  An authorised repair provider sounds like licensing and more $$
        involved. You can probaly hack and apologize later.  I think a lot of
        this is to stave off industrial competition.  I am iin favor, with the
        stipulation that it is probematic and shoudl bee clarified/re-worded in
        areas, so aye
21:54 < igel> a dmca would occur when you share the findings, im
        assuming..
21:54 < jokeefe> Well, it seems to be an improvement over the car bill
        since it allows owners to get parts/tools and not just service people
21:55 < jokeefe> DMCA is federal, just saying
21:55 < igel> if you wrote a bluetooth to odbII app, put it on applestore
        or googleblah
21:55 < igel> yeah it would be state borders, i bet.. that'd be at that
        level may be?
21:55 < Bluestreak> 5 minutes remaining
21:56 < jokeefe> This won’t challenge patent/copyright, but it doesn’t
        need to
21:56 < srevilak> jokeefe: re: DMCA: I think it depends on how DMCA
        defines the relationship between the federal and state statute.
        If there's a discrepancy, who wins?
21:56 < jokeefe> Feds in this case
21:56 < Kendra> Depends on the state, teh industry, tax revenus
21:57 < srevilak> I'm okay with supporting H3383 as a baby step, but
        calling out its weaknesses (sections 7, 8)
21:57 < jokeefe> are others comfortable with that?
21:57 < srevilak> Put another way, seems acceptable as a half-assed effort
21:58 < jokeefe> lol
21:58 < Kendra> in favor, but needs some work, aye
21:58 < Bluestreak> 2nd SR
21:58 < igel> aye
21:58 < Bluestreak> aye
21:58 < jokeefe> aye
21:58 < srevilak> aye
21:59 < jokeefe> any opposed?
22:00 < jokeefe> motion passes
22:00 < jokeefe> srevilak, you want to draft the statement?
22:00 < srevilak> jokeefe: sure, can work on that
22:00 < jokeefe> I can do the get out and contact your state reps/senator
22:00 < jokeefe> thanks
22:01 < jokeefe> we are at time - clearly three bills is too much for
        an hour if we want to get other things done
22:01 < srevilak> since we're at time, motion to adjourn?
22:01 < Kendra> 2nd
22:01 < jokeefe> all in favor?
22:02 < Kendra> aye
22:02 < Bluestreak> aye
22:02 < srevilak> jokeefe: I think some legislative bodies would be
        envious of three bills in one hour :)
22:02 < jokeefe> true
22:02 < Kendra> nite all
22:02 < jokeefe> aye
22:02 < srevilak> aye to adjourn
22:02 < srevilak> will post transcript
Retrieved from "http://masspirates.org/wiki/index.php?title=November_9th,_2015_IRC_Meeting&oldid=5147"