Upset
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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 · 51-55, F
@joe438 People not only are happy to provide their own security footage when a crime is committed; they demand footage be found. No need to reframe a normal everyday occurrence.
joe438 · 61-69, M
@Graylight I can see that, but do I want the doorbell camera I have sending videos to the police every time I get an Amazon delivery? Isn’t it enough that if a murder happens in my driveway I can just send them the video afterwards?
Graylight · 51-55, 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 · 51-55, F
@joe438 But that has nothing to do with this legislation. That's a Google issue.
@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.