Cameras on San Diego streetlights turned off until ordinance in place(sandiegouniontribune.com)
sandiegouniontribune.com
Cameras on San Diego streetlights turned off until ordinance in place
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2020-09-09/mayor-orders-san-diegos-smart-streetlights-turned-off-until-surveillance-ordinance-in-place
133 comments
Good experiment to see if this causes crime to increase.
Most criminals didn't know these existed. For that matter, neither did most citizens know that cameras were peering into their backyards and microphones doing machine learning on what people were saying. Sorry I don't have the links to the tech specs handy.
A system like this could be used as a massive phased array microphone to literally listen to anyone between 2 or more poles.
Crime has continued unabated in parts of Chicago that have remote sensing platforms for law enforcement's use.
https://home.chicagopolice.org/information/police-observatio...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-history-of-c...
https://home.chicagopolice.org/information/police-observatio...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-history-of-c...
Why do you think this is a good experiment?
Wasn't one of the two San Diego mayoral candidates, Todd Gloria, on city council when they passed the resolution to install these? Why is there no scrutiny of his part in all of this?
This isn't an excuse, but IIRC they were sold to the city as simple sensor boxes. GE (or whoever it was that made/sold these) added the surveillance capabilities later, ostensibly for internal use but easily receivable via police action
I'm sorry, what? Doesn't a "sensor box" by definition have surveillance capabilities? The only way that sentence makes sense is if you're using some ridiculously narrow definition of "surveillance".
Edit: Fair enough. But in this case, cameras and microphones were included, were they not?
Edit: Fair enough. But in this case, cameras and microphones were included, were they not?
If it only senses light or dark it's difficult to see how that would count as surveillance.
The camera surveillance was there from the outset, SDPD just didn't realize it or start accessing the camera footage until about a year after the nodes went up.
2 sitting councilmembers were also present for the vote to approve. All of them expressed that they had no idea the system would turn into a law enforcement surveillance network. They were sold to us as data gathering devices to improve transit & gather data for climate action. Whether you believe them that they didnt know is up to you. We've done the public records work & the results aren't 100% clear.
FYI, Mr. Gloria recently voiced his support for my group's effort to get these shut down.
"Smart city" solutions are being sold to governments all over the US this way, many of them having a nexus with mass surveillance.
FYI, Mr. Gloria recently voiced his support for my group's effort to get these shut down.
"Smart city" solutions are being sold to governments all over the US this way, many of them having a nexus with mass surveillance.
Don't believe for a second that they had no idea of its potential for law enforcement surveillance; I was one of the people who voiced my concern to them before it was passed.
Would love to get in touch with you, as this work is still ongoing. Email is in my profile.
> the results aren't 100% clear.
Do you mean to say that anyone believes even for a second that a politician (by no means a lowest common denominator) didn't see it coming that a centralised system full of cameras could be used for surveillance? It's just completely mystifying what sort of results need to become clear here. Good faith is impossible in this case.
Do you mean to say that anyone believes even for a second that a politician (by no means a lowest common denominator) didn't see it coming that a centralised system full of cameras could be used for surveillance? It's just completely mystifying what sort of results need to become clear here. Good faith is impossible in this case.
the public hearings on this tech were entirely focused on city planning and climate action. We don't find anything on the historic record where anyone at any committee or council session even asked a question about the situational awareness module.
I'm not defending them, just telling you what we've found. Back room conversations may have occured.
I'm not defending them, just telling you what we've found. Back room conversations may have occured.
Money probably exchanged hands.
"I forgot to ask that question, see it's here in my notes"
"I forgot to ask that question, see it's here in my notes"
I propose a new "law" to add to the ranks of Murphy's, Moore's, and others: "Any technology that can be used for surveillance will be used for surveillance."
(Likely, this phenomenon has already been described, but I'm not sure how to google it...)
(Likely, this phenomenon has already been described, but I'm not sure how to google it...)
If it doesn't exist, we can call it Orwell's Law - Whatever Big Brother is capable of seeing, it is seeing.
Good, that these were even allowed to be installed is a travesty
Hi all, I've been answering questions about this effort over on Reddit [0], but happy to chat on questions about how this is going down here as well.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ipyei8/san_diegos...
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ipyei8/san_diegos...
> The surprise announcement came days after the city floated a plan to hand over the camera management and access exclusively to police
How do I stay up to date on information like this? What can I do as a resident to help the cause?
How do I stay up to date on information like this? What can I do as a resident to help the cause?
Email me please, it's in my profile. You can absolutely help.
Can you just share publicly what people can do to help?
I would love to do that!
For our effort in SD specifically, we need to add more help and voices to get 2 ordinances passed, to establish oversight of existing & future surveillance technology. Once we are successful at that, we will have a huge amount of work ahead of us to process San Diego's existing inventory of surveillance tech. We need volunteers to help do that work. We need a lot of them, to help keep the workload manageable.
For other cities, you need to get started by challenging an existing surveillance tech & assembling a coalition. Then you can work to establish local oversight of your local surveillance tech.
For our effort in SD specifically, we need to add more help and voices to get 2 ordinances passed, to establish oversight of existing & future surveillance technology. Once we are successful at that, we will have a huge amount of work ahead of us to process San Diego's existing inventory of surveillance tech. We need volunteers to help do that work. We need a lot of them, to help keep the workload manageable.
For other cities, you need to get started by challenging an existing surveillance tech & assembling a coalition. Then you can work to establish local oversight of your local surveillance tech.
In the Reddit thread 's3thcom' writes:
>Surveillance ordinance that will put in stronger rules for how the city acquires and operates this tech ...
Eager to hear how this might shape up. Especially how to break the spyware-vendor/police cabal, and move authority back to local residents and shopowners, and their elected representatives.
>Surveillance ordinance that will put in stronger rules for how the city acquires and operates this tech ...
Eager to hear how this might shape up. Especially how to break the spyware-vendor/police cabal, and move authority back to local residents and shopowners, and their elected representatives.
yeah, that's me. We are well into the process of getting a Surveillance ordinance & provacy advislry commission approved via cith council. Once we have that we can establish oversight of every surveillance technology used by the city. Anything in particular I can tell you?
I came here to get away from reddit!
Valuable discussions can still take place on reddit, particularly smaller or more heavily moderated subreddits.
Speaking for myself, however, it's been over a year since reddit was part of my daily routine.
Speaking for myself, however, it's been over a year since reddit was part of my daily routine.
Sorry about that, just linking because there's a lot of questions answered. Mass surveillance technology should definitely be of interest to the HN crowd. Ubicquia, the company operating the system in San Diego, just landed $300M in VC funding. Modern mass surveillance tech is absolutely a tech startup phenomenon.
Also this, same day, same newspaper:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/202...
>San Diego moves toward repeal of ‘seditious language’ ban police have used during protests
>Rule against anti-authority speech ...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/202...
>San Diego moves toward repeal of ‘seditious language’ ban police have used during protests
>Rule against anti-authority speech ...
Is that a bad thing?
Yea it is - the US has a pretty clear and sane definition of what speech should be protected at a national level. Cities and states have no business trying to muddle the line of what speech should be protected.
So repealing that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?!
Absolutely yea - I guess the comment I replied to could be read as either in favor of the ban or in favor of the repeal of the ban. I read it the former manner but maybe it was intended in the latter manner.
>the US has a... sane definition of what speech should be protected at a national level
The US has a more extreme view of protected speech than almost all of our peer nations. Whether that is "sane" or not is a matter of opinion. Many Europeans would scoff at our campaign finance laws for example.
The US has a more extreme view of protected speech than almost all of our peer nations. Whether that is "sane" or not is a matter of opinion. Many Europeans would scoff at our campaign finance laws for example.
I'm was not familiar with the exact definitions of "protected speech" and "campaign finance laws". Having looked both up, I still fail to see your point. How does our regulation of a candidate's fundraising indicate extreme/nonsensical regulation of protected speech?
Compared to Europe, we don't have any hate speech laws that risk make criminals out of people because of public whim. I will not scoff at that though, because hate speech is only a necessary evil. Do you real feel the range of opinions you can express here is less than what you could express in your average European country?
I think the original definition of protected speech, namely that is inalienable, is the only sane one. How flawed the implementation of that definition is (and truthfully it was flawed from the start) is definitely a problem of course. Any other guarantee would be worthless because very few people will suffer somebody spewing what they view as or want to be lies if they don't have to.
Compared to Europe, we don't have any hate speech laws that risk make criminals out of people because of public whim. I will not scoff at that though, because hate speech is only a necessary evil. Do you real feel the range of opinions you can express here is less than what you could express in your average European country?
I think the original definition of protected speech, namely that is inalienable, is the only sane one. How flawed the implementation of that definition is (and truthfully it was flawed from the start) is definitely a problem of course. Any other guarantee would be worthless because very few people will suffer somebody spewing what they view as or want to be lies if they don't have to.
>How does our regulation of a candidate's fundraising indicate extreme/nonsensical regulation of protected speech?
It corrupts our democracy. A democracy should be one person, one voice, one vote. In our democracy the people with money have an outsized voice and therefore an outsized influence which leads to a government that is more concerned with appeasing the wealthy class minority than the majority of the rest of us.
>Do you real feel the range of opinions you can express here is less than what you could express in your average European country?
No, the point is the reverse. We can express ourselves here more than they can in Europe. Even still, I don't think you will find a huge percentage of Europeans who feel they can't legally express themselves. That is because most of the things that are protected here and not in Europe are a net negative on society. I also fail to see how outlawing something like Holocaust denial is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Why do we need to protect speech that is objectively and inarguably incorrect? Defaming a individual person in the US is illegal. Why should defaming an entire class of people through hate speech be legal?
Plus the US doesn't even have universally protected speech anyway. We outlaw plenty of speech from our meager campaign finance laws to threats of violence. There is no binary choice between free speech and no free speech. We are just debating where the line is and the US isn't drawing the line where most other countries are drawing it.
It corrupts our democracy. A democracy should be one person, one voice, one vote. In our democracy the people with money have an outsized voice and therefore an outsized influence which leads to a government that is more concerned with appeasing the wealthy class minority than the majority of the rest of us.
>Do you real feel the range of opinions you can express here is less than what you could express in your average European country?
No, the point is the reverse. We can express ourselves here more than they can in Europe. Even still, I don't think you will find a huge percentage of Europeans who feel they can't legally express themselves. That is because most of the things that are protected here and not in Europe are a net negative on society. I also fail to see how outlawing something like Holocaust denial is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. Why do we need to protect speech that is objectively and inarguably incorrect? Defaming a individual person in the US is illegal. Why should defaming an entire class of people through hate speech be legal?
Plus the US doesn't even have universally protected speech anyway. We outlaw plenty of speech from our meager campaign finance laws to threats of violence. There is no binary choice between free speech and no free speech. We are just debating where the line is and the US isn't drawing the line where most other countries are drawing it.
One person, one vote?
Why should someone get to increase their voting power simply by producing more children to indoctrinate?
In Europe it's illegal to criticize the crimes of religious figures. That's horrific.
Why should someone get to increase their voting power simply by producing more children to indoctrinate?
In Europe it's illegal to criticize the crimes of religious figures. That's horrific.
>Why should someone get to increase their voting power simply by producing more children to indoctrinate?
Are you serious with that one? There are much quicker, cheaper, and more effective ways to enact political change than spending 18 years and the literally hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to raise a child in order to get one more vote.
>In Europe it's illegal to criticize the crimes of religious figures. That's horrific.
I agree. I didn't say other countries were perfect. However many countries do recognize that blasphemy laws are unjust are have repealed or have started debated repealing them. Ireland is one notable example of a country that amended their constitution recently to remove them. And even in the countries who still have those laws on the books, it is extremely rare for them to be prosecuted.
Are you serious with that one? There are much quicker, cheaper, and more effective ways to enact political change than spending 18 years and the literally hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to raise a child in order to get one more vote.
>In Europe it's illegal to criticize the crimes of religious figures. That's horrific.
I agree. I didn't say other countries were perfect. However many countries do recognize that blasphemy laws are unjust are have repealed or have started debated repealing them. Ireland is one notable example of a country that amended their constitution recently to remove them. And even in the countries who still have those laws on the books, it is extremely rare for them to be prosecuted.
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/mike-turner-campaig...
> GOP congressman spent $70K in campaign cash on meals, in 370 food-related expenditures
Once a politician gets used to living fat, off of campaign "contributions", they rather start to enjoy that lifestyle and will bend their morals to keep it.
> GOP congressman spent $70K in campaign cash on meals, in 370 food-related expenditures
Once a politician gets used to living fat, off of campaign "contributions", they rather start to enjoy that lifestyle and will bend their morals to keep it.
It's important to highlight that the ban has been in place for more than a century and is now under harsher scrutiny.
$30 million dollars? Feel like we could have used that money in many better ways...
Lights aren’t exactly cheap either way; even years ago they would be about $100 a pole just for the light, modern LED ones are about that [1] and cities can have thousands of them [2]. For example, the 250,000 lights in NYC at $125 per light (without even considering installation) would get you about $30M.
[1] https://www.edn.com/weighing-the-costs-of-led-street-lights/
[2] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/streetligh...
[1] https://www.edn.com/weighing-the-costs-of-led-street-lights/
[2] https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/streetligh...
Interesting! I guess that makes sense but I definitely would have underestimated that cost.
In this case the cost seemed to apply in part to 3,000 cameras. But solely based on the article, it's hard for me to tell what portion of that $30 million went to upgrades/maintenance and what portion went to the cameras. However it does clearly say it would be another $7 million to maintain the cameras over the next four years.
In this case the cost seemed to apply in part to 3,000 cameras. But solely based on the article, it's hard for me to tell what portion of that $30 million went to upgrades/maintenance and what portion went to the cameras. However it does clearly say it would be another $7 million to maintain the cameras over the next four years.
For anyone who doesn't want to do the math, that's $10,000/installation and $600/light/year maintenance.
Earthworks / installation costs are probably higher than material costs.
> Smart Streetlight cameras
Your point is valid. In fact, after San Diego missed its last payment, Ubicquia shut down all access to the "smart" data sensors & kept only the cameras running, for police use.
So, we can go ahead and drop the whole Smart Streetlight charade now and just call them surveillance cameras now.
So, we can go ahead and drop the whole Smart Streetlight charade now and just call them surveillance cameras now.
How are these "Smart Streetlights" and not standard CCTV cameras that governments and private entities have been installing for decades? Is this just clever marketing to reduce public outrage?
they have sensors on them that collect environmental data. In fact, the cameras by default are used to generate pedestrian and vehicle data. You have to specifically add the vendor's "situational awareness" module to get a console for viewing raw video footage.
But you're right, Smart city technology is always wrapped up in marketing lingo to obfuscate its surveillance properties.
But you're right, Smart city technology is always wrapped up in marketing lingo to obfuscate its surveillance properties.
"Smart City" sounds a lot cooler than "1984-style surveillance state". Add some light artwork, upbeat music and some stock photos of happy people and you get the population rooting for you. Just like Apple, Google and Amazon do. Yes Apple is better than the other two, no they're not angels.
And really, the safety aspect is easily circumvented for the bad guys. Take a standard corona mask, hoodie and some sunglasses and you're done.
For the rest of us it means living even more in a panopticon than ever before.
And really, the safety aspect is easily circumvented for the bad guys. Take a standard corona mask, hoodie and some sunglasses and you're done.
For the rest of us it means living even more in a panopticon than ever before.
Weren't the cameras in 1984 in private locations as well? I don't think you can argue that cameras in public are tantamount to a 1984 style police state.
They have more than just cameras. They have atmospheric sensors and microphones too. I think some of them also have compute modules to do local inference in the images collected.
In theory they're supposed to be for things like real time pollution monitoring and real time traffic so they can change light timings, that kind of thing.
In theory they're supposed to be for things like real time pollution monitoring and real time traffic so they can change light timings, that kind of thing.
Ah so the city thought if they wasted enough money on their CCTV cameras and got add on features then maybe the populace would let them keep them.
At the same time, the city government is adding explicit surveillance feeds for law enforcement.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county...
Lemon Grove is a different city from San Diego, but youre right that we have a problem at the county level as well.
If you are looking for some entertainment, read the City Attorney's attempt to explain the data that was being collected:
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/stree...
https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/stree...
I particularly like the "What does processed data look like" and they just have a picture of some random hexadecimal digits which is accurate I guess, but that's what all data looks like if expressed in hex.
Which now makes me wonder what the data behind the hex is.
Putting it into a frequency analysis tool [0] doesn't give any special patterns either. 8 bytes are present 3 times, 25 bytes 2 times, and 86 bytes 1 time (total 160 bytes). I inputted a 160 long sequence from hexdumping urandom and I got 5 bytes present 3 times, 27 bytes 2 times, 91 bytes 1 time. Not a statistician but it seems pretty close.
[0]: https://www.dcode.fr/frequency-analysis
09 00 ba 8a b6 f7 42 c8 8f d0 aa 8e bf f5 99 b6 5a f2 42 26
Oc 92 25 4a 14 2f 6d fc ee e7 c3 f3 e7 19 82 a0 14 6f dc 7b
Oc b8 0e 11 e7 5d c5 0d a0 19 bb 97 32 79 13 11 d2 af 8e fc
Oc ee 29 af c6 8d 3c 59 9f 73 23 ab f6 58 22 ae aa fd 30 c5
0e f5 fO d1 1f 31 00 ec 6d e6 7d 53 a9 36 2a 8d Of 46 8e 48
10 76 20 ee ac 87 af 7b 2a ec 85 f8 b9 88 43 60 78 6S a6 ea
13 b8 b8 93 d8 62 25 c2 d2 f4 c7 e4 7a ad 2d lb a6 00 b7 36
1f ca 1c 43 cf 5f c3 5b 7d 3f da 2a 41 6f 6b fb 05 ed ff cc
Putting it into a frequency analysis tool [0] doesn't give any special patterns either. 8 bytes are present 3 times, 25 bytes 2 times, and 86 bytes 1 time (total 160 bytes). I inputted a 160 long sequence from hexdumping urandom and I got 5 bytes present 3 times, 27 bytes 2 times, 91 bytes 1 time. Not a statistician but it seems pretty close.
[0]: https://www.dcode.fr/frequency-analysis
It's way too little data to get anything useful out of unless it was intentionally seeded. I am a bit sad it didn't decode as "Yea we know this is just hex but it looks fancy" since that would've been a pretty good get from whoever prepared images for the document.
Also yea - it's probably not going to text decode trivially since there are random null bits in the middle. My guess is that it's some random data from an image off the camera - but it could also be a snippet of environmental information.
Also yea - it's probably not going to text decode trivially since there are random null bits in the middle. My guess is that it's some random data from an image off the camera - but it could also be a snippet of environmental information.
The article title is missing the key word "camera". "Smart Streetlights" just sound like they intelligently control when the lights turn on and off, and saying that they would be turned off sounds like San Diego would be plunged into darkness at night.
My original title was "orders city's surveillance camera network shut down." HN likes to defer to original headlines, which is understandable.
Thats understandable, but the edit also left out the 'surveillance' bit from the original
> But the Smart Streetlights were more than lights. They included streetlight-mounted cameras and technologically advanced sensors with the ability to turn video images of cars and people into valuable data the city could use — thus the “smart” in Smart Streetlights.
Ok, we put the cameras back in the title above.
> while it was not part of the initial plan, police later began to review the raw camera footage to help solve serious or violent crime
Once the technological hurdles are overcome, the social barriers are more a matter of "when" not "if". Having dumb streetlights is much more of a protection against surveillance, and less of a temptation, than having streetlights capable of it, but guarantees "that we don't intend surveillance". It's a lot harder to sneak $30 million dollar expenditures through a city budget than a memo in the police department about fully using capabilities that already existed anyways...
Once the technological hurdles are overcome, the social barriers are more a matter of "when" not "if". Having dumb streetlights is much more of a protection against surveillance, and less of a temptation, than having streetlights capable of it, but guarantees "that we don't intend surveillance". It's a lot harder to sneak $30 million dollar expenditures through a city budget than a memo in the police department about fully using capabilities that already existed anyways...
A german saying that translates to "where there's a trough, the pigs will gather" is sometimes is more apt than "build it and they will come".
I always find these stories interesting, because, frankly, these cameras I'm sure DO help catch criminals very effectively.
However, they also allow very effective privacy violations of course.
Because of this there's no perfect outcome (and opinions across the board).
However, they also allow very effective privacy violations of course.
Because of this there's no perfect outcome (and opinions across the board).
I'm surprised that the powers-that-be are greedy enough to not involve the judicial branch. Lock the video away until there is a warrant! It's not like your right to privacy in your home or phone calls extends past a warrant.
There are much better ways to reduce criminality that don't violate our privacy. As long as those solutions haven't been tried seriously, as they have worked in other countries, then there is no justification for this.
Maybe start with that obvious little thing.. People not having guns means people not being shot at chicken restaurants, hence less crimes to solve. It does really work here in Europe even though it's not perfect - yes some criminals still have guns. But the big effect is someone being spotted on the street with a gun = insta-arrest + jail time for possession.
I know proposing it is political suicide there, but when I see what BLM have accomplished in awareness I did think some spontaneous movement like that would happen too in the gun debate, after the xx'th senseless mass shooting.
Also, the other obvious thing (also starting to bite Europe in the backside in all fairness), is the huge income equality leading to crime life.
I know proposing it is political suicide there, but when I see what BLM have accomplished in awareness I did think some spontaneous movement like that would happen too in the gun debate, after the xx'th senseless mass shooting.
Also, the other obvious thing (also starting to bite Europe in the backside in all fairness), is the huge income equality leading to crime life.
what prompted the chicken restaurant bit of your comment?
The source article. In particular this passage:
"They hailed the cameras as a game-changer, and said the images helped to identify the suspected gunman who shot three employees, killing one, last year at an Otay Mesa Church’s Chicken"
"They hailed the cameras as a game-changer, and said the images helped to identify the suspected gunman who shot three employees, killing one, last year at an Otay Mesa Church’s Chicken"
thank you sorry i missed that bit
> I always find these stories interesting, because, frankly, these cameras I'm sure DO help catch criminals very effectively.
Data from the UK disagrees with this hypothesis.
They found that CCTV camera usage had no correlation with crime reduction.
Data from the UK disagrees with this hypothesis.
They found that CCTV camera usage had no correlation with crime reduction.
I'm a San Diego resident that was falsely accused of a serious offense a few years ago. Surveillance footage from a restaurant saved me from prosecution.
I know that this is a minority opinion, but I'm in favor of cameras in public places. There will always be the potential for abuse even with strong restrictions, but I think the benefits are worth it.
I know that this is a minority opinion, but I'm in favor of cameras in public places. There will always be the potential for abuse even with strong restrictions, but I think the benefits are worth it.
I agree with you. If we could have this technology in the same context as warrants, I'd be happy.
I offer that if you believe this, perhaps you haven’t read many search warrant applications.
Do you think we should ban search warrants?
I think the determination of probable cause should be audited much more heavily, with a lot more in the way of penalties for judges for clearly wrong answers.
I also think the fact that there is essentially no consequence whatsoever for police plainly lying in warrant applications is a major oversight.
100% of the applications for granted warrants I’ve read have had clear factual errors in them, sworn under penalty of perjury (ha!).
We don’t even track what percentage of warrant applications contain perjury (~100% in my estimation), much less what percentage of those so swearing face consequences as a result (~0% in my estimation).
The system is broken.
I also think the fact that there is essentially no consequence whatsoever for police plainly lying in warrant applications is a major oversight.
100% of the applications for granted warrants I’ve read have had clear factual errors in them, sworn under penalty of perjury (ha!).
We don’t even track what percentage of warrant applications contain perjury (~100% in my estimation), much less what percentage of those so swearing face consequences as a result (~0% in my estimation).
The system is broken.
If I can summarize: search warrants should not be banned but we should enforce the checks and balances that justify their existence in the first place.
I agree with that 100%. I dk believ that is orthogonal to using warrants on public surveillance. Maybe politically it might be a nice lever, though: we will authorize surveillance with this new system in place for all warrants.
I agree with that 100%. I dk believ that is orthogonal to using warrants on public surveillance. Maybe politically it might be a nice lever, though: we will authorize surveillance with this new system in place for all warrants.
Unfortunately, warrants aren't a sufficient safeguard against abuse of technology. Law enforcement is well known to use evidence laundering techniques to work around procedural safeguards.
I imagine we could come up with some way to handle this. For example, put the storage as a responsibility in the judicial branch.
I assume I’m always on camera, as car dash cams and house doorbell cameras become more and more common.
The idea that more authoritarianism will keep us safe is an enticing idea. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why should you care?
As mentioned elsewhere, there are better ways to reduce criminality than a "guilty until proven innocent" view that comes with rising mass surveillance and authoritarianism.
As mentioned elsewhere, there are better ways to reduce criminality than a "guilty until proven innocent" view that comes with rising mass surveillance and authoritarianism.
Completely disagree. It's not that there will be the potential for abuse. There will be abuse, full stop. I do not want to live in an authoritarian police surveillance state, thanks.
You're lucky that in this case it helped you maintain your innocence, but that use will be in the tiny tiny minority. The actual solution to your particular problem is proper due process and rooting out police sloppiness and prosecutorial overreach, not adding features to our society that make it easy for those in power to violate people's civil rights.
You're lucky that in this case it helped you maintain your innocence, but that use will be in the tiny tiny minority. The actual solution to your particular problem is proper due process and rooting out police sloppiness and prosecutorial overreach, not adding features to our society that make it easy for those in power to violate people's civil rights.
There will be both cases of abuse and cases of immense benefit. Your entire comment focuses just on the small likelihood and low incidence of negative outcomes while ignoring the fact that actual criminals will be more likely to be apprehended using this technology. Painting this as a feature to violate civil rights is sheer hyperbole. This solution to identifying and locating suspects is a lot cheaper than the alternative, which is to simply have vastly more police officers on patrol.
>There will be abuse, full stop
Can you give an example of this abuse?
Can you give an example of this abuse?
I think the ACLU has a great set of examples: https://www.aclu.org/other/whats-wrong-public-video-surveill...
Police databases have been routinely abused so I don't see how the watchers can be trusted with more information when they have zero oversight and ability to manage what they already have :/
Police databases have been routinely abused so I don't see how the watchers can be trusted with more information when they have zero oversight and ability to manage what they already have :/
If we go to the level of one time a cop did a bad thing with this tool then yeah everything will be abused. I'm more interested in cases where the police as a organization abused CCTV.
I think the ACLU has a great set of examples:
https://www.aclu.org/other/whats-wrong-public-video-surveill...
You asked for an example, and they provided it. Then you moved the goal post
Because the first goal post was meaningless. If that's the level we're looking at then we can't even give cops sticks because at least one of them is going to beat an innocent person with it.
> Because the first goal post was meaningless.
I think that's debatable. If an individual can abuse the system in a way that undermines the intent of the system, we need to think carefully about what it is that we're actually building.
> we can't even give cops sticks because at least one of them is going to beat an innocent person with it.
Considering the debate around police violence in America right now, I think it's amusing that we're using this as an example of a ridiculous proposition. Maybe not sticks, no, but the level to which our police are armed is definitely under scrutiny.
I think that's debatable. If an individual can abuse the system in a way that undermines the intent of the system, we need to think carefully about what it is that we're actually building.
> we can't even give cops sticks because at least one of them is going to beat an innocent person with it.
Considering the debate around police violence in America right now, I think it's amusing that we're using this as an example of a ridiculous proposition. Maybe not sticks, no, but the level to which our police are armed is definitely under scrutiny.
That's a red herring. However if you must engage the literal nature of the phrasing which captures the wisdom from experience...what are your thoughts on PRISM?
people abuse pickup trucks (isis installs machine guns in truck beds). Should we ban pickup trucks?
> You're lucky that in this case it helped you maintain your innocence, but that use will be in the tiny tiny minority.
What's your data source for this prediction? Are you saying that wrongful arrest and prosecution is a negligible problem?
> The actual solution to your particular problem is proper due process and rooting out police sloppiness and prosecutorial overreach, ...
Easy for you to say. Proper due process would have cost me a year or more of hell plus a lot of money. As for "police sloppiness and prosecutorial overreach", that's pounding on the table and has nothing to do with this discussion on cameras.
> ... not adding features to our society that make it easy for those in power to violate people's civil rights.
Cameras show when civil rights are violated.
What's your data source for this prediction? Are you saying that wrongful arrest and prosecution is a negligible problem?
> The actual solution to your particular problem is proper due process and rooting out police sloppiness and prosecutorial overreach, ...
Easy for you to say. Proper due process would have cost me a year or more of hell plus a lot of money. As for "police sloppiness and prosecutorial overreach", that's pounding on the table and has nothing to do with this discussion on cameras.
> ... not adding features to our society that make it easy for those in power to violate people's civil rights.
Cameras show when civil rights are violated.
> Proper due process would have cost me a year or more of hell plus a lot of money.
This is the REAL problem and not the camera.
"Innocent until proven broke" needs to be fixed.
This is the REAL problem and not the camera.
"Innocent until proven broke" needs to be fixed.
We could have public cameras, with a robust public process and oversight by city council. That's possible. If the public wanted that, the ordinance we are working to pass would allow it.
Unaccountable mass surveillance without any oversight is just incompatible with our form of government. That's what's getting stopped here.
Unaccountable mass surveillance without any oversight is just incompatible with our form of government. That's what's getting stopped here.
Thank you. Too many people immediately think all ‘surveillance’ is equally bad which makes things easy but it just isn’t the case. There are kinds of surveillance that can be extremely beneficial and compatible with democratic principles. Surveillance that is heavily regulated with lots of oversight CAN sometimes be a good thing.
People are against most types of surveillance because eventually a bad actor will come along and misuse the technology.
It's not that they can't be used for good things - it's their potential for misuse.
It's not that they can't be used for good things - it's their potential for misuse.
> eventually a bad actor will come along and misuse the technology
Isn’t that is the entire concept behind separation of power. If we can’t trust democratic principles how can we trust any power or technology? The potential for misuse can apply to all power, big and small.
Isn’t that is the entire concept behind separation of power. If we can’t trust democratic principles how can we trust any power or technology? The potential for misuse can apply to all power, big and small.
Democracy and separation of powers are not infallible.
> If we can’t trust democratic principles how can we trust any power or technology? The potential for misuse can apply to all power, big and small.
Exactly, we inherently DONT. That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights - to prevent abuse of the system.
Also I'm not buying the "all technology can be misused" argument. It's MUCH easier to be tempted into spying on a political opponent with cameras than it is to nuke them.
> If we can’t trust democratic principles how can we trust any power or technology? The potential for misuse can apply to all power, big and small.
Exactly, we inherently DONT. That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights - to prevent abuse of the system.
Also I'm not buying the "all technology can be misused" argument. It's MUCH easier to be tempted into spying on a political opponent with cameras than it is to nuke them.
> That is why we have a constitution and bill of rights - to prevent abuse of the system.
Right exactly, and the powers those guard are far greater than the sorts of surveillance being discussed here.
Right exactly, and the powers those guard are far greater than the sorts of surveillance being discussed here.
Minorities are often falsely identified by 'witnesses.' Camera footage is only going to exacerbate this problem. "Looks like him"
Man, I'm so conflicted. I used to be 100% in favor of _responsible_ surveillance technology. Even came up with a few ways to do it that would cryptographically enforce whatever rules we set on it, so that abuse is difficult. I've made a few comments in the past as such.
I was very much in the "few bad apples" camp until recently. But the protests have made it abundantly clear that my understanding of the situation was wrong. The last thing we want to do is give more tools of control and abuse to corrupt systems.
It's not that I don't agree with you or that I even disagree with my old belief in responsible surveillance technology. But we (America) clearly need to do a _lot_ of work reforming law enforcement and public health first and foremost. Augmenting those systems can only come after.
I was very much in the "few bad apples" camp until recently. But the protests have made it abundantly clear that my understanding of the situation was wrong. The last thing we want to do is give more tools of control and abuse to corrupt systems.
It's not that I don't agree with you or that I even disagree with my old belief in responsible surveillance technology. But we (America) clearly need to do a _lot_ of work reforming law enforcement and public health first and foremost. Augmenting those systems can only come after.
>But the protests have made it abundantly clear that my understanding of the situation was wrong.
That was revealed by wide spread video surveillance, though.
That was revealed by wide spread video surveillance, though.
It was revealed by wide spread video camera availability.
This is distinct in that the people present control access to the footage and whether or not the footage is taken instead of some surveillance body controlling access and footage always being taken.
Some professor coined this sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
This is distinct in that the people present control access to the footage and whether or not the footage is taken instead of some surveillance body controlling access and footage always being taken.
Some professor coined this sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
I am in the camp of all these can benefit society provided we have rules in place governing who can use it, how they can use it, and retention.
The same applies to facial recognition. The technology will improve and it behooves us to be making sure that when it does end up in daily life we made sure it does behave in the best interest of all. This means making sure mismatch issues don't get brushed aside or hidden and its all out in the open to see how it works.
The next major privacy concern may not have a Snowden type in place with everyone standing outside the doors stamping their feet refusing to play.
Don't fool yourself into believing a few cities and even states declaring that it is not allowed, that has never stopped the intelligence community before and certainly won't going forward. Too many will buy into the idea that even a law at Congressional level will do anything but so many exclusions exist and so much is permitted under completely innocent sounding legislation you can never be sure.
The same applies to facial recognition. The technology will improve and it behooves us to be making sure that when it does end up in daily life we made sure it does behave in the best interest of all. This means making sure mismatch issues don't get brushed aside or hidden and its all out in the open to see how it works.
The next major privacy concern may not have a Snowden type in place with everyone standing outside the doors stamping their feet refusing to play.
Don't fool yourself into believing a few cities and even states declaring that it is not allowed, that has never stopped the intelligence community before and certainly won't going forward. Too many will buy into the idea that even a law at Congressional level will do anything but so many exclusions exist and so much is permitted under completely innocent sounding legislation you can never be sure.
Interesting point. Anecdotally I had a brown friend walk out of my house in SF late one night, walk to the end of the block, and then get detained by police for supposedly stalking/threatening a women. Would have been trivial to prove they had the wrong guy if there were cameras readily available.
Are you confident the "good" video would.be released?
> I'm in favor of cameras in public places.
Then turn your own phone on and continuously upload your video and data to a lockbox.
If you want to be continuously surveilled, you have the technology to do it to yourself for a fairly cheap price nowadays (see: arrest recording apps). It also has the advantage that it is WAY more likely to exonerate you than some random CCTV that just so happens to be able to provide an alibi.
Don't force ME into that situation via government fiat, thanks.
Then turn your own phone on and continuously upload your video and data to a lockbox.
If you want to be continuously surveilled, you have the technology to do it to yourself for a fairly cheap price nowadays (see: arrest recording apps). It also has the advantage that it is WAY more likely to exonerate you than some random CCTV that just so happens to be able to provide an alibi.
Don't force ME into that situation via government fiat, thanks.
Just need to add face recognition and you basically have China's playbook... Scary.
How about making them all accessible to the public? Maybe with a 12 hour delay.
Great idea!
Now the snoopy old lady across the road can actually follow you around town at all hours.
Now the snoopy old lady across the road can actually follow you around town at all hours.
I don’t get why people are against cameras. We have limited police resources and need to enable them to locate wanted criminals easily. Betting on police randomly spotting a suspect with their eyes while on patrol is a bad bet. We can do better and this technology is the way.
I don’t see what is the problem if the footage from this camera is made available to the general public all the time including law enforcement authorities. Open access to information is better and can have a positive impact.
Are cameras like this open-access for anyone? In that case, great data source for image analytics AI startup.
I wonder how these sorts of decisions would stand up if put to a ballot initiative. Has there ever been an instance of the public voting on cameras and surveillance technology in their towns?