The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday is set to consider a megabill with a key provision that would reduce oversight of surveillance technology in San Francisco.
The proposed change to the city’s administrative code is succinct: The city controller would audit surveillance technology compliance once every five years, rather than annually. Critics say this change could have overwhelming consequences.
“Waiting five years for an objective review of how these technologies are being used is insufficient to confront the rapid development and use of technologies that may be causing harm,” said Lee Hepner, an antitrust lawyer who served as legislative aide to former District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin. While working for Peskin, he helped write the city’s core surveillance technology ordinance, Chapter 19B of San Francisco’s administrative code.
The change is part of 350-plus-page legislation that attempts to clean up city codes by reducing reporting requirements across more than 100 city departments. It also eliminates agencies and funds deemed “defunct.” Supervisors criticized the bill for being unnecessarily long and incomprehensible to the public.
Audits of surveillance technology use are partly meant to ensure city departments are complying with existing privacy law outlined in 19B. At least 22 city units use surveillance technology, including the police, sheriff’s, parks and recreation, and homelessness and supportive housing departments.
Last year’s audit suggested more oversight, not less, could be warranted. Namely, it critiqued the ability of law enforcement agencies to claim oversight exemptions and spotlighted the lack of a city entity formally assigned to monitor surveillance technology use.
Hepner explained that the five-year time frame is too long, not only because AI and surveillance technologies are evolving so quickly, but also because it would legally allow for surveillance data to be erased and statutes of limitation to expire.
The proposed megabill isn’t the first time the city has watered down 19B. Proposition E, approved by San Francisco voters in March 2024, exempts police drones and surveillance cameras from regulations outlined in 19B.
A still-pending bill introduced by Supervisor Matt Dorsey in September 2025 would introduce significant financial barriers to suing city departments under 19B. Critics say these bills are no coincidence and represent a dangerous pro-surveillance shift in city government.
“I’m going to guess that right now, there’s seven votes in favor of that Dorsey bill,” said Tim Redmond, editor of 48 Hills, at a surveillance technology panel earlier this year. He added: “I would say seven members of the board of supervisors will vote to undermine this in the name of public safety.”
