San Francisco OKs Surveillance Plan Allowing Police to Access Private Cameras in Real Time

[quote]San Francisco on Tuesday approved of a new security policy allowing police to access thousands of private cameras in a live feed without a search warrant.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the legislative body for the city, voted 7-4 to test Mayor London Breed’s surveillance camera proposal, which will take effect in 30 days and sunset in 15 months.

Under the policy, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) can access cameras owned by city residents and businesses who give police the OK to monitor them, potentially opening up thousands of private surveillance cameras to officers.

The new policy raises fears of a potentially Orwellian surveillance state.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit organization that defends civil liberties in the digital space, called the new policy a “troubling ordinance” that could have a chilling effect on First Amendment and other rights.

“Make no mistake, misdemeanors like vandalism or jaywalking happen on nearly every street of San Francisco on any given day — meaning that this ordinance essentially gives the SFPD the ability to put the entire city under live surveillance indefinitely,” the organization wrote in a press release.[/quote]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3656738-san-francisco-oks-surveillance-plan-allowing-police-to-access-private-cameras-in-real-time/

🤬

Next will be a law REQUIRING citizens to provide access.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

novaguy2u · 70-79, M

Far out! This sounds like East Germany before the wall came down, or Russia and North Korea today. From an outsider's perspective, the US seems to becoming more authoritarian by the day.

SomeMichGuy · M

@novaguy2u True.

Graylight · 51-55, F

Under the policy, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) can access cameras owned by city residents and businesses who [i]give police the OK[/i] to monitor them, potentially opening up thousands of private surveillance cameras to officers.

The legislation suggests police can monitor the cameras in a live feed for any “significant events with public safety concerns” or in the course of a criminal investigation in which camera access is needed.

Previously, police had to request access to camera feeds based on specific incidents and time stamps after a crime occurs or for a related investigation, and could only access them in real time in the event of imminent danger.

A responsible user will use the cameras for their intended purpose and those cameras will be positioned so as not to compromise any property or people, as is law. We want to be secure, we want police to be the best they can be, we demand safety in our towns and then we panic about volunteering the same footage that could be found from a public camera if one were posted. Can't have it both ways.

joe438 · 61-69, M

That is frightening. Why would a homeowner provide access? You’re probably right - mandatory access is going to be next.

View 3 more replies »

joe438 · 61-69, M

@Graylight what I found in a web search is that the police no longer have to get the homeowners permission to see any Nest footage. They can simply ask Google and Google will provide it without telling the homeowner. True, it’s not the police watching a live feed if your driveway but it’s a long way from a hobeowner telling the police they have a recording and offering it.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@joe438 But that has nothing to do with this legislation. That's a Google issue.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Graylight
[quote]But that has nothing to do with this legislation. That's a Google issue.[/quote]

? They linked together as both dealing with the landscape of LE access to *private* monitoring systems.

Ontheroad · M

As long as it remains at the discretion of the residents and businesses, then it's fine... even good.

As for the idea it will lead to an Orwellian surveillance state, I don't see it. Yes, in some dystopian fantasy future it could, but in reality I don't see it happening. Too many legal hurdles to overcome for that to happen.

View 3 more replies »

Ontheroad · M

@SomeMichGuy I'm assuming, because you didn't state your case clearly, you are referring to collection of metadata by the NSA. First off, I don't do anything over the phone, by text or email that is criminal nor do I belong to any fringe/terrorist, etc., groups... so yeah, I don't really care that the national intelligence agencies are collecting metadata. Secondly, they are doing so in a manner that is “broad in scope” and conducted under the “business records” provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as section 215 of the Patriot Act and 50 U.S.C. section 1861. So, it's legal and until the courts say otherwise or Congress does something about it, it is what it is.

It's only invasive if one is caught up in a sweep for criminal/terrorist activities, and if you are, then I want them to have access to that data. Our freedoms don't come free, there is always a cost and this is one of them. I have real world things to worry about, these theories that big brother is watching is only true if you warrant watching and I'm good with that.

SomeMichGuy · M

@Ontheroad
Then you don't care about encroachment upon privacy, and other rights under the Constitution?

It would be nice is the judicial system never targeted the wrong person, never held or prosecuted or sentenced the wrong person.

Ontheroad · M

@SomeMichGuy I didn't say that, what I said was collecting metadata is legal under section 215 of the Patriot Act and 50 U.S.C. section 1861. I went on to say that (under the authority of the Patriot Act) I have no problem with being swept up in the collection of metadata.

It would be nice if there were no criminals and no terrorists too. Like I said, your freedom isn't free - it has and will always have a cost.

I agree, it would be nice if the justice system was perfect. It isn't and I don't expect it will ever be so.

markansas

voluntary ok
forced is not ,,,if its on private property
just my thought .. mark

Add a comment...