Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join Similar Worlds today »

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.
Graylight · 46-50, 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.
Graylight · 46-50, F
@joe438 The footage must be requested pursuant to a particular incident. It's not a guy sitting in a screening room.

That's [i]all [/i]they're asking for - the ability to skip the formality and bureaucracy of a subpoena and simply make the direct request of the homeowner. Nothing else at all changes.
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 · 46-50, F
@joe438 But that has nothing to do with this legislation. That's a Google issue.
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.
Ontheroad · 61-69, 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.
markansas · 61-69, M
voluntary ok
forced is not ,,,if its on private property
just my thought .. mark
[quote]cameras owned by city residents and businesses who give police the OK to monitor them,[/quote]
Yea.........good luck with that

 
Post Comment
 
16,069 people following
Politics
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Politics
Associated Groups Category Members