Lockport City School District Board of Education 1130 Beatle Avenue, Lockport, New York 14094-5009 Deborah A. Coder Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Management Services. March 6, 2020 Mr. Connor Hoffman Lockport Union-Sun & Journal 135 Main Street Lockport, NY 14094 Re: FOIL Response Dear Mr. Hoffman: Via Email (716) 478-4828 Fax: (716) 478.4832 As the FOIL Officer for the Lockport City School District (“District”), | have received and considered your request dated February 7, 2020 under the Freedom of Information law (“FOIL”). The following are my determinations with regard to the conclusions of the Records Access Office set forth beneath each of your requests. 1. Any communications between Lockport City School District officials and members of Assembly member Monica Wallace's office between the period of January 1, 2019 and February 7, 2020. DISTRICT RESPONSE: The District hereby grants your request. The District is in possession of twenty- eight (28) pages that are responsive to this request and subject to disclosure under FOIL. Accordingly, your request for records is granted, and certain requested records will be provided to you electronically as specifically set forth herein. As referenced above, | hereby certify thet, after a diligent search, we have no other documents that are responsive to your request. If you have any further concerns regarding the District's response to this FOIL request, please contact me to discuss your concerns. Sincerely, QDyGerct i teoQe Deborah A. Coder Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Management Services DAC:Ib Enclosures e__MiceteT rae, SUH aN ARHE Pats Fath in Our Ferre” ‘Wie believe: All people can learn. Schools create conditons for sucoess: academically, socially, emotional, physicaly, and aesthetically. Teaching and learning are the shared responsiviltes of home, school, and community. Cur mission is to assure comprehensive learning for all so ‘that each person wil be alifelong learner.Lockport City School District 180 Beattie Avenue, Lockport, New York 14094-6088 Michelle T. Bradley, Superintendent of Schools (Fie) 478-4838 Fax: (716) 478-4878 January 29, 2020 ase aa Hon. Monica P, Wallace New York State Assembly 2562 Walden Avenue, Suite 102 Cheektowaga, New York 14225 Dear Assemblymember Wallace: Re: Lockport City School District: Facial Recognition (A6787B/S5140A) 1am writing on behalf of the Lockport City School District with regard to the District's implementation of enhanced security measures including facial recognition technology. The District applauds your continuing efforts to develop state-wide guidelines on the use of facial recognition technology in the school setting. However, the District respectfully requests, based on its unique circumstances, that it be excluded from the application of any moratorium on the use of such technology. ‘The Distrit’s implementation of facial recognition technology has been previously approved by multiple New York State entities. The Distrie’s facial and object recognition system has been operational since January 2, 2020, and is currently providing a clearly enhanced level of security in the District's schools. Additionally, the District’s implementation of facial and object recognition technology has resulted from a thoughtful and deliberative process, through which the District has adopted appropriate measures to ensure that privacy interests are recognized and protected. Finally, the District does not believe that many of the concerns that have been expressed with regard to facial recognition are applicable to the Distrie’s particular use of this technology, including with regard to the accuracy of such technology. Under these circumstances, the District’s students, staff and visitors should not be deprived of the additional layer of security provided by the District’s facial recognition system as a result of a moratorium on its use pending further state study. ‘The District greatly appreciated your visit last summer to engage in dialogue with District representatives regarding the AEGIS facial recognition system, Following that meeting, the | District continued to engage in constructive on-going dialogue with State Education Department (“SED”) representatives, which included a meeting with then-Commissioner Elia. As a result, the District further delayed implementation of the facial recognition technology, which was initially scheduled to become operational during September 2018 (As was previously shared with you, the District's implementation of facial recognition technology was specifically approved during November 2017 by both the Smart School Bond Act Review Board and by SED Facilities Planning). Notwithstanding obtaining all legally- required approvals to commence operation of facial recognition technology, the District was committed to carefully considering the privacy concerns raised by you and others, and also responsibly undertook a lengthy initial implementation process to test and refine the system. ‘The District Board of Education has adopted a variety of modifications to the District Policy governing operation of the enhanced security system (Policy # 5685) in order to address a variety of perspectives and concerns expressed by various stakeholders. That Policy (copy enclosed) now “Pride in Our Past; Faith in Qur Future” a ‘We believe: All peopie can learn. ‘Schools create conditions for success: academically, coclaly, emotonaily, physicaly and aesthetically Teaching and learning ave the shared responsiblity of home, school and community ‘Ourmission isto assure compretensive learning for alo tat each person wil be a Ifelong learner.provides that the input of personally identifiable information i database will be solely limited to the following categories: the ABGIS facial recognition system (a) Staff who have been suspended and/or are on administrative leave; (b) Level 2 or 3 sex offenders; (©) Anyone prohibited from entry to District property by court order presented to the District, (@) Anyone believed to pose a threat based on credible information presented to the District; and (e) Schoo! security and law enforcement personnel (in order to be able to distinguish law enforcement responders from anyone in the above categories) Notably, the Board modified the Policy so that no student data will be created or ‘maintained by the operation of the District's facial recognition system, Although the District continues to believe that it is in the best interests of safety end security to include all individuals in the database (including students) who meet the narrow definition of “credible threat,” the Board adopted this Policy amendment in further deference to concerns raised by SED and others regarding student data privacy, and also to obviate any concems based on Education Law § 2-d. ‘Through these Policy modifications, the District has substantially narrowed the categories of individuals to be placed in the ABGIS database, In addition, the Policy has been amended in several other ways to allay concerns regarding system operation, which ineludes (a) a commitment to notify and consult with SED/Chief Privacy Officer prior to any future changes to database categories, (b) narrow definition of the type of information to be maintained in the security system database as a result ‘of an alert, (¢) development of controls, such as encryption, to ensure the security of all alert ‘communications, and (4) expansion of the appeal process to challenge inclusion in the database. By letter dated November 27, 2019, SED affirmed that the District had effectively addressed any issues relating to Education Law § 2-d. Upon receiving that notification, the District began final preparations for the implementation of the facial recognition system, and the AEGIS system became operational on January 2, 2020, in conjunction with the return of students and staff from recess. It is important to recognize the limited nature of the District’s use of facial recognition technology. The AEGIS system does not retain any biometric or other data during its operation except under circumstances where (a) the system issues an alert due to the matching of an image captured by a District camera with the photo of an individual placed in the AEGIS database consistent with the categories set forth above, (b) the alert is reviewed and validated by a trained District security officer, and (c) the security officer forwards the verified alert to an appropriate District administrator, and that administrator further validates the alert. No action is taken with respect to the subject of the alert unless ‘and until each of these verifications is provided. ‘As a further matter, the District does not believe that the concerns expressed by you and others regarding the general accuracy of facial recognition systems apply to the District’s particular system. First, the two levels of human review and validation of any alert generated by the facial recognition system, as described above, serve to almost entirely mitigate any consequences of an initial system misidentification, Accordingly, the risk of misidentification based on a system alert is no greater than a misidentification occurring, for example, after the District responds to a report based on personal observation that an individual within one of the applicable categories is allegedly on District property “Pride in Our Past; Faith in Our Future” Worst ‘Alpaca can ara. Schools ewate condiions for eucaess: academicaly, socally, evalionaly, physically and aesthetically “Teaching and lesming are the shared responsiblity of home, schoo! end community. ‘Ourmisslon Ist assure comprehensive leering for al so that each person wil bea iflong leamer(Based on the accuracy of the AEGIS system, as demonstrated below, the District is confident that an alert from the AEGIS system is actually less likely to result in misidentification than a report based on. personal observation), The algorithm utilized in the District's AEGIS facial recognition system (the “id3_003” algorithm), as developed by SN Technologies Corp., was tested for accuracy by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”), The NIST cybersecurity framework has been adopted by New York State as the data security and privacy standard for educational agencies (see, 8N.Y.C.RR. Part 121). The relevant portions of the NIST report dated July 31, 2019 (the “NIST Report”) confirming the accuracy of the AEGIS system algorithm are enclosed. As verified by an Independent Account’s Report issued by Freed Maxick (also enclosed), although the NIST Report recognized slight differences among genders and racial groups, the accuracy of the ABGIS facial recognition system as to all categories is better than 99.99%. Stated another way, a false match (i., a system alert generated as a result of a false match between a security camera image and an image placed in the AEGIS system database pursuant to District Poliey) is expected to occur less frequently than 1 out of every 10,000 faces matched, Further, as described above, no action will be taken solely in response to a system alert generated as a result of a false match. To the contrary, all AEGIS facial recognition system alerts are subject to at least two additional levels of human verification. As you know, the AEGIS system also provides the District with object recognition capability, specifically with regard to the display of any firearm in the District’s schools. Although your legislation does not appear to apply to or prohibit the use of object recognition technology, itis important to recognize the necessary interaction between the District’s fuctal and object recognition capabilities. IF the District was tragically confronted with an active shooter, the AEGIS system, upon identifying the firearm, also immediately captures and then tracks the individual's face. Accordingly, if the individual conceals or discards the firearm, the AEGIS system will still allow responding law enforcement officers to track the individual. This is critical in an active shooter scenario, where seconds can very literally ‘mean the difference between life and death. ‘The District traly hopes that that the Legislature is not informed solely by the perspectives of those who are inalterably opposed to facial recognition technology, without any effort to balance those perspective with critical considerations of school safety and security, For instance, in its letter to SED dated August 8, 2019, the New York Civil Liberties Union acknowledged that, notwithstanding the many effective policy revisions the District has adopted to address privacy concems, it is opposed to facial recognition technology under virtually any circumstances. However, as reported by Comptroller DiNapoli, New York's public and charter schools reported over 32,000 violent and disruptive incidents during the 2017-18 school year. Of course, not all such incidents involve circumstances for which an individual would have been entered into the District's facial recognition database. Nonetheless, the Comptroller's report underscores the regularity with which school districts must confront safety threats, including, tragically, those involving zctive shooters. Indeed, in late August 2019, the District received notice from local law enforcement authorities that an individual placed in the New York State Intelligence Center (NYSIC) School Violence Monitoring Program — who was assigned the highest “Level 1” threat priority — appeared to have moved in to the Lockport community. These are the type of real-world security issues the District must be prepared to respond to, and the AEGIS system without question enhances its ability to effectively do so. ‘The District has the facial recognition system fully installed and operational, and has thoughtfully refined and narrowed its use of the system to address any legitimate privacy concerns. The Distriot does not believe that there is any valid basis on which it should be prevented from utilizing this available, approved and operating technology to enhance the safety and security of the District’s students, staff and visitors, and to respond to real world threats such as that specifically indicated by the “Pride in Our Pasty Faith in Our Future? el eet contora besten: cade, asda, arohstcay Teaching are ning ee th shard reaper of homo, che! and commun. Courmisson sa aes comretensivearing for ats ta each parson we a lon are ily, physNYSIC referral. Nonetheless, the District applauds state review of facial recognition technology in the schools, and would be pleased to provide whatever support it can to such efforts, including sharing the results of our AEGIS system’s operation and the implementation of the Distriet’s Policy which carefully balances privacy and security concems. Thank you for your consideration, and please let me know if there is any other information that we can provide or if you would be interested in another visit to the Lockport City Schools for a presentation and to personally observe the operation of the District's facial and object recognition system, Superintendent of Schools Ce: Board of Education School District Attorney Hon, Robert G, Ortt Hon, Michael J. Norris Hon, Brian P. Kavanaugh Enclosures: Policy 5685 Independent Account’s Report NIST Report “Pride in Our Past; Faith in ur Future” “Wis Baliave: All people can lear. Schools create conditions for success: academically, socialy, emotionally, physically and aesthetically, ‘Teaching and laarning are tho shared responsalty of hora, school and commun. COurmission iso assure comprehensive leasing for algo that each parson wil boa Ifelong leaner.2020 5685 LofS ‘Non-Instructional/Business Operations SUBJECT: OPERATION AND USE OF SECURITY SYSTEMS / PRIVACY PROTECTIONS Scope ‘The Board of Education is responsible for protecting the overall safety and welfare of the District's students, staff, properties, and visitors as well as deter theft, violence and other criminal activity on District property. The purpose of this policy is to establish parameters for the operation of security systems and protection of privacy. In order to further this purpose, the Board has authorized the implementation of security systems, including, but not limited to the Raptor visitor management system, DS Control Point for the District’s CCTV security cameras, and the AEGIS object and facial recognition system. The Board further recognizes the importance of safeguarding privacy consistent with law with respect to the operation and use of these security systems for the safety and protection of our school community. In no event shall a District student be placed in the AEGIS system database. Hardware and Software Security cameras are only placed in public or common areas, such as building entrances, stairwells, hallways, cafeterias, parking lots, auditoriums, gymnasiums or playgrounds, and not in private areas such as locker rooms, bathrooms, ot other similar areas in which the District recognizes that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or in classrooms. The District will annually notify District parents that security cameras are being utilized on District property for this purpose and in the manner set forth in this Policy, Access cdware Systems Scourity data is protected in several ways. Hardware systems stored in the District are protected with access controls to data closets by a fob system that limits access and tracks entry. A second level of security will limit access to the hardware rack. School building Head Custodians will have access to the closet for emergency situations but not access to the rack where the security hardware is stored. Those with authorized access to security hardware systems may include the following titles, as well as any other individual specifically designated for this purpose by the Superintendent of Schools (with notice to the Board of Education President): Director of Technology, Data Security, and Communications Technology Supervisor Director of Facilities,