Surveillance Technology Annual Report 2023 — File 24-0145

Surveillance Technology Annual Report Submitted by the Mayor’s Office, February 5, 2024 Pursuant to Sec. 10‐66 of Article III of Chapter 10 of the Somerville Code of Ordinances Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development 1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: The drone has been used to take pictures and videos focused on public spaces, and street intersections. Drone footage is recorded only from 100 ft or higher, so no sound of conversations of any kind is captured. Images and videos include residents only if they are in public spaces and in most cases, they are not identifiable due to the distance. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: No data from the drone has been shared with law enforcement or any other entity outside of OSPCD. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: None 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: Division or Unit (if applicable): Planning, Preservation & Zoning Compliance Officer: Alan Inacio, Senior Accountant, OSPCD Submitted by: Sarah Lewis, Director of Planning, Preservation, & Zoning Date: 1/16/24 Surveillance Technology: Video/Photography Drone

None 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Yes. The videos and images collected have been a helpful resource in OSPCD’s planning efforts. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: None 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: No ongoing costs, only staff time in utilizing it. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: Since the purpose of this technology is not to track individuals in any capacity or to be utilized in any law enforcement effort, and since this technology has been used consistent with the stated purpose and with the City’s Surveillance Technology Use Policy to capture aril-view images of public spaces for planning purposes, we do not believe this technology has a negative impact on the civil rights and liberties of individuals or groups. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None

Parking Department 1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. Division or Unit (if applicable): Parking Department, Compliance Compliance Officer: Suzanne Rinfret, Director of Parking Submitted by: Suzanne Rinfret, Director of Parking Date: 1/29/24 Surveillance Technology: Application Function for Collecting License Plate Images

7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: This technology was not used, and the city no longer has a license for the application.

Somerville Fire Department 1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: The cameras provide live information only. They are used for Fire Department operations only and not for surveillance purposes. The cameras were documented as being used during 257 responses in the report period (1/1/23 – 12/31/23). All uses were for fire department related activities. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: No data is collected or stored. It is viewable only to the user at the time of use. No data is stored or transmitted to any other party. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: None 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: None 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Yes. The cameras are a great benefit to the Department. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: Division or Unit (if applicable): Fire Department Compliance Officer: Chief Charles Breen Submitted by: Chief Charles Breen Date: 1/16/24 Surveillance Technology: Thermal Imaging Cameras

None 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: The purchase of one camera, repairs, replacement batteries, and the purchase of lanyards resulted in a $10,049.88 cost to the Department which was covered by budgeted funds. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: Since the technology is not intended for law enforcement purposes or intelligence gathering, does not store data, and is only deployed in emergency response situations where it is deemed necessary to protect life or property, we do not believe this technology has a negative impact on the civil rights and liberties of individuals or groups. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: N/A

Somerville Police Department 1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: This technology has been used to provide emergency services to individuals who have initiated a 911 call. For a landline 911 call, Advanced/Next Gen 911 has provided the name/s of the individual/s who procured the landline and its location. For Cellular based 911 calls, Advanced/Next Gen 911 has provided callers locations based on cell tower locations. During the course of the previous year, we have also requested cellular providers ping subscribers phones to get a more accurate location of the caller. The reasons for these requests include the fact that the caller may be in imminent danger, the caller is a potential suicide risk, or the caller is the victim of an ongoing crime. The texting feature of the 911 system also allows access to the location of the phone that sent a 911 text. This technology does not capture images and does record the voice communications of the caller and the E911 operator. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: During fiscal year 2023, E911 audio recordings were shared a total of 193 times with the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office to assist in the prosecution of criminal and/or civil cases originating in Somerville. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: None. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: Advanced/Next Gen 911

None. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Advanced/Next Gen 911 has been highly effective in helping the SPD provide Emergency Services. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: During fiscal year 2023 there were 19 public records requests for E911 tapes. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: The E911 services budget for fiscal year 2023 was $1,297,215. Funding for E911 technology services and personnel is obtained from a variety of sources to include direct municipal funding and various state grants. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: None. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: Covert device cameras are hidden in household devices such as an alarm clock, smoke detector or computer speaker. These cameras may also be used in public areas. Under current law a warrant would be required for these devices if they captured entrances to homes and other places where there would be an expectation of privacy. During fiscal year 2023 the SPD did not use any covert device cameras. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: Technology was not used. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: Technology was not used. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: Technology was not used. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Technology was not used. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: Covert Device Cameras

Technology was not used. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: Technology was not used. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: Technology was not used. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: There are 4 GLX Cameras affixed to traffic poles throughout the city. These cameras are owned and operated by the City of Somerville and were initially procured in order to monitor traffic conditions related to the GLX construction project. These cameras are used to monitor traffic and if applicable investigate crimes committed within the city. These cameras capture video only, with no audio capture capabilities. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: The SPD did not share data from GLX Security cameras. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: No complaints. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: None. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Technology has been effective in monitoring traffic, investigating motor vehicle accidents and investigating crimes. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: GLX Cameras

During fiscal year 2023 there were a total of 8 public records requests for GLX/Homeland security cameras. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: The only costs associated with the GLX cameras is when a camera needs to be moved. During the course fiscal year 2023 no cameras were moved. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: None. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: GPS monitors are placed into “bait” bikes or packages. This type of technology is deployed in times of upticks in bicycle or package thefts. The GPS tracks the stolen item leading police to its location and the individual(s) who stole the property. During fiscal year 2023 the SPD did not use any GPS and monitor devices. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: Technology was not used. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: Technology was not used. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: Technology was not used. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Technology was not used. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: Technology was not used. Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: GPS and Monitor

7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: Technology was not used. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: Technology was not used. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: On October 26, 2023, the Somerville City Council approved the purchase of a license for the Grey Key Digital Forensics Analysis Tool (DFAT) by the Somerville Police Department (SPD). Prior to this date, the SPD did not own this technology. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office owns a License for the Grey Key DFAT and allowed the SPD to use this technology to access certain electronic devices. The devices accessed would only be accessed in accordance with a duly issued search warrant or consent from the owner of the device. The type of data extracted from the digital devices includes, but is not limited to, digital pictures, videos, text messages, call logs and any other data which would normally be stored on a digital device which could be used in a criminal investigation. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: During fiscal year 2023, Grey Key software was utilized to recover evidence in 25 Criminal Investigations on a total of 28 devices. The data obtained from these devices has been shared with the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office. The type of data disclosed includes digital pictures, videos, text messages, call logs and any other data which would normally be stored on a digital device which could be used in a criminal investigation. This information was obtained and disclosed under a valid search warrant or consent from the device owner in the furtherance of criminal investigations. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: No complaints. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: Grey Key

None. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Technology was effective in accessing devices with either a valid search warrant or consent from the owner of the device. During fiscal year 2023, Grey Key software was utilized to recover evidence, pursuant to a search warrant, in 25 Criminal Investigations on a total of 28 devices. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: None. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: None. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: None. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: There are approximately 30 working Homeland Security Cameras affixed to traffic poles throughout the city. These cameras are owned and operated by the City of Somerville and were initially procured with funding from the federal government. These cameras are used to investigate crimes and monitor roadways in the case of a public emergency. These cameras capture video only, with no audio capture capabilities. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: The SPD received 16 requests for Homeland Security Camera footage from the District Attorney’s Office. All 16 requests were for video footage and were directly related to criminal investigations. 1. Middlesex District Attorney – Video Footage – 12 Criminal Investigations 2. Cambridge Police – Video Footage – 1 Criminal Investigation 3. Medford Police – Video Footage – 2 Criminal Investigation 4. Massachusetts State Police – Video Footage – 1 Criminal Investigation 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: No complaints. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: None. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: Homeland Security Cameras

Technology has been effective in monitoring traffic, investigating motor vehicle accidents and investigating crimes. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: During fiscal year 2023 there were a total of 8 public records requests for Homeland Security/GLX video footage. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: The only costs associated with the Homeland Security cameras is when a camera needs to be moved. During the course Fiscal year 2023 no cameras were moved. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: None. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: Pole cameras are fixed position, stand-alone cameras that are used during the course of an investigation. Pole cameras are installed in public areas where there is no expectation of privacy. These cameras capture video only, with no audio capture capabilities. The SPD does not own this technology but has used it in the past with the cooperation of other law enforcement agencies. During fiscal year 2023 the SPD did not use any pole cameras. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: Technology was not used. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: Technology was not used. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: Technology was not used. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Technology was not used. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: Pole Cameras

Technology was not used. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: Technology was not used. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: Technology was not used. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: ShotSpotter is a gunshot detection service that utilizes 35 sensors installed in the city’s coverage area to identify and locate gunfire. Sensors detect noises suggestive of gunshot and trigger only when 3 different sensors detect a gunshot-like sound at the same time to determine location. ShotSpotter records gunshot-like sounds and does not record video. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: During Fiscal year 2023 we received 16 ShotSpotter activation notices. This information was shared with: 1. Middlesex District Attorney’s Office – ShotSpotter Activation Data – 5 Criminal Investigations 2. Massachusetts State Police – ShotSpotter Activation – MSP Jurisdiction **(When a ShotSpotter Activation occurs and is confirmed, that info is included in our weekly crime bulletin, which is supplied to surrounding Police Departments) 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: No complaints received. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: No internal audits conducted. 5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: Division or Unit (if applicable): Police Department Compliance Officer: Lt. S. Sheehan Submitted by: Chief Charles Femino Date: 12/21/23 Surveillance Technology: ShotSpotter

During Fiscal year 2023 we received 16 ShotSpotter alerts and a total of 24 shell casings were recovered. ShotSpotter has been effective in achieving its identified purpose. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: There were 0 public records requests received for ShotSpotter data during fiscal year 2023. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: ShotSpotter is paid for by the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: None. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: None.

Somerville Public Schools 1. A description of how surveillance technology has been used, including whether it captured images, sound, or information regarding members of the public who are not suspected of engaging in unlawful conduct: The Guardian Indoor Active Shooter Detection System is a dual-mode system of sensors; 10 sensors placed strategically throughout Somerville High School that detects gunfire and reports that a gunshot has occurred immediately to all registered members of the notification system. GIASDS detects an acoustic bang and infrared flash of gunfire, which eliminates false alerts to other sounds in the environment. GIASDS has no ability to record human voice and the GIASDS installed at SHS has no capability to capture images. The GIASDS device itself is currently active and key staff are receiving notifications via text and email. 2. Whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with local, state, and federal, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, any legal standard(s) under which the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure: No information was shared with any other local, state, or federal entity when the system was triggered during the aforementioned incident. 3. A summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, if any: Since its approval by the City Council, Somerville Public Schools has not received any complaints or concerns regarding GIASDS from the community. 4. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the surveillance use policy, and any actions taken in response other than to the extent that such inclusion would violate the privacy rights of an employee of the city: No incidents have occurred that would violate the privacy rights of City employees or surveillance use policy. Division or Unit (if applicable): Somerville Public Schools Compliance Officer: Chad Mazza, Assistant Superintendent of Operations Submitted by: Richard Melillo, Special Assistant to the Assistant Superintendent of Operations Date: 1/29/24 Surveillance Technology: Guardian Indoor Active Shooter Detection System (GIASDS)

5. Whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purpose: The purpose of this technology is to detect gunshots. No gunshot events have occurred that are a threat to student safety. 6. The number of public records requests received by the city seeking documents concerning surveillance technology approved during the previous year: To our knowledge, the city has not received any public records requests related to this technology. 7. An estimate of the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source(s) of funding will fund the technology in the coming year, if known: There are no maintenance fees for the first 5 years. This coverage is from 2022-2027. Once the free maintenance fee window expires, SPS will fund the annual maintenance fee of approximately $2,500. 8. Whether the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities in the city are disproportionately impacted by the deployment of the surveillance technology: The GIASDS Technology does not affect the civil rights and liberties of any communities or groups, including communities of color or other marginalized communities. The GIASDS is simply a dual mode shooter detection system that responds to high decibel sound and infrared muzzle flash; a disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides. 9. A disclosure of any new agreements made in the past 12 months with non-city entities that may include acquiring, sharing, or otherwise using surveillance technology or the surveillance data it provides: There are no new SPS agreements with any non-city entities.