San Francisco Legislators Approve Bill Giving Cops Live, On Demand Access To Private Security Cameras
from the what's-yours-is-ours dept
If you don’t like people making “People’s Republic of California” jokes, maybe don’t do stuff like this:
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.
This proposal first surfaced late in July. It was correctly, and incisively dismissed as a bunch of authoritarian horseshit by intrepid Techdirt contributor [checks byline] Tim Cushing shortly thereafter.
Whoever this “Tim Cushing” is, he definitely has his finger on the pulse of… um… horseshit. Whoever’s voting on regional Pulitzer prizes is asleep at the wheel.
Anyway, the pitch was this: some city officials, led by Mayor London Breed, decided the best way to protect the city from temporary statistical anomalies (read: crime rate bumps in a few key areas) was to give cops on-demand access to cameras operated by San Francisco residents.
The ends will justify the means, said none other than Mayor London Breed in her [checks URL] Medium post:
We also need to make sure our police officers have the proper tools to protect public safety responsibly. The police right now are barred from accessing or monitoring live video unless there are “exigent circumstances”, which are defined as events that involve an imminent danger of serious physical injury or death. If this high standard is not met, the Police can’t use live video feed, leaving our neighborhoods and retailers vulnerable.
These are the reasons why I authored this legislation. It will authorize police to use non-City cameras and camera networks to temporarily live monitor activity during significant events with public safety concerns, investigations relating to active misdemeanor and felony violations, and investigations into officer misconduct.
And that is what the city legislature has now approved: cops tapping into private cameras in real time for a plethora of reasons, very few of which justify this sort of heightened third-person scrutiny. Sure, there’s the always-popular “public safety” excuse for government incursion, which can sometimes get courts to ignore constitutional violations.
But it’s followed up with even worse excuses. “Significant events” means cops will decide what is or isn’t “significant.” And it won’t be limited to investigating and prosecuting serious crimes. As Mayor Breed freely notes, on-demand access to cameras owned and operated by residents will be used to curb the most frightening of urban menaces: misdemeanants.
Forget it Jakes of all makes and models in the San Francisco areas, it’s New Chinatown.
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.
Yikes. But also apparently of no concern to the officials voting to make this law. The San Francisco PD supports it, of course, claiming it’s a force multiplier when it comes to investigating crimes. And the mayor has already made it clear Orwellian surveillance is preferable to whatever’s happening to crime rates under her watch.
The obvious point is this: if the SFPD demanded the erection of cameras everywhere people might be, people would revolt. The co-opting of private cameras, while obviously controversial, allows the SFPD to do the Orwellian thing, but without appearing to be the bad guy. Instead, the buck is held by the city council, which has decided people can’t control the things they own. All of it belongs to the government, which will use this unprecedented access to… well, who knows at this point? But the access is there. All that remains is to see how frequently it’s abused.
Filed Under: doorbell cameras, london breed, police, san francisco, sfpd, surveillance
Companies: amazon, ring
Comments on “San Francisco Legislators Approve Bill Giving Cops Live, On Demand Access To Private Security Cameras”
insert lyrics to California Uber Alles here, but replacing Jerry Brown with Gavin Newsom
Great, San Francisco becoming a bunch of Yahtzees.
How long do you figure before the FBI gets access through the SFPD and starts running facial recognition scans (which the SFPD totally isn’t doing themselves)?
I am sure they will amend the bill in a few months, to make it an “opt-out” program.
Re:
as I understand the bill, it is already opt-in: “with the owners permission”.
Re: Re:
In which case the bill accomplishes absolutely nothing because without it there would be nothing preventing them from simply asking a homeowner ‘Hey, can we check the footage from your cameras?’
Re: Re: Re:
And in some cases, they don’t even need to.
Amazon already sells access to the police, and for other cameras, it’s not hard to get a live feed… as long as users don’t change the default password or use one for their online cameras.
Re: Re: Re:
No cause for concern then.
Re: Re: Re:2
It normalizes a practice that should be frowned on.
Re: Re: Re:2
Try, then they can scrap it and stop wasting taxpayer money on performative nonsense and it won’t cost them a thing but it will clear out the legal code of at least one worthless waste of space.
How?
How are the police going to access my private camera feeds? Both of mine send the wireless video encrypted. Are they just talking about Ring doorbell cameras that stream to the cloud? Or the camera on my laptop/phone?
People's repubic of berkeley...
I always heard it as the people’s republic of berkeley…California isn’t about to take over PG&E.
Re: People's Republic of Everywhere in the State
Around 1990 to 1995 it was The People’s Republic of Davis, because the police in the city of Davis arrested a woman for snoring too loud. If I remember correctly she was charged with disturbing the peace after neighbors called in a complaint.
Edit: Found link
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1994/02/14/Californian-woman-in-court-for-snoring/6088761202000/
I wonder if I set up a camera pointed directly at a “F**k the Police” sign if I would then be arrested for “subversive” behavior..
Re:
In general, that is a possibility when you demand the erection of things…
Re: Re:
“…when you demand the election of things.”
You had to drag porn into the discussion…
Re: Re: Re:
I do enjoy double entendres, but get your mind out of the thin blue gutter.
Even if the gutter is hilarious, and it is in this case.
Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn’t say it was dragged, so much as it was yanked. 😁
Re: Re: Re:2
Repeatedly?
Re: Re: Re:3
Something, something; rhymes with banker.
Misleading headline
Very disappointed to see that the headline is misleading and leaves out a key detail. The police can access live feeds from private cameras “if the camera owner gives permission.” Obviously the permission aspect is relatively insignificant, given the average citizens willingness to give up their privacy, but this is still a cheap attention grab – there’s a huge difference between being able to access at will without permission and having to ask for permission.
Re:
Should the whole story be in the headline or what
Re:
You don’t really understand how police operate, do you.
Re:
ie, find out the model of the camera, fake the paperwork to get a warrant to uncover the IP address (in both IPv4 and IPv6 flavors) and hit up sites that stream unsecured internet-connected cameras…
Or buy access from Amazon of it’s a Ring camera.
Or, as I like to say, legitimizing actual practice.
Re:
The camera owner, but not the people in view of the camera. They get no say.
Re: Re:
Which is how it’s always been. When you’re out in public, you have no legal or reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re: from the we forgot it was optional department....
just wait until the blue lies mafia forgets about the “opt in” option and start demanding access to your cameras!
That Tim Cushing Guy
Way to tell him off, Tim!! Also kudos on making an otherwise odious and serious invasion of privacy topic be more fun to read because of your note 🙂
I’m sure a nuclear bomb would make a fantastic force multiplier when it comes to stopping criminals, but that doesn’t mean I want my (or any) police department using them.
Just Add Twitter Support
Login to your Twitter account to have Twitter report your every location when your face is recognized on the private cameras.
Dystopia for cheap
Why pay for a bunch of cameras to constantly watch the public’s every move when you can simply ‘borrow’ any cameras they put up at your whim?
Measure
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:0a324683-af23-3061-9312-cd81c16fbad4
Here is the actual measure if anyone cares to read it. The best part of this argument is that SF has been and still is a very progressive city. This pilot has an end date and can be cancelled at anytime. The idea the very progressive Board would just go full police state is patently ridiculous. Anyone that lives here can attest to that.
The measure is pretty clear in it’s scope and what is actually allowed. I know, I know, no one cares about the details….
If examples like “jaywalking” are all they can can come up with in a city that doesn’t even arrest for traffic warrants, they are grasping at straws. Street crime is at an all time high, due in part to the previous DA’s refusal to prosecute. And while the new DA isn’t any cops wet dream, at least they are doing more. This is meant as a testing tool to see if it offers any real benefits.
Is there room for abuse? Yes, which is why it has an end date. Knowing the Board and their need for control over everything, they are likely to build continuing requirements to be renewed.
Re:
SF doesn’t report ‘street crime’ rates, so can I get a source? I’m curious what data is included in that, given that overall property and violent crime is down significantly compared to early 90s peaks.
Re:
Here is a study suggesting tough on crime policies in Sac saw crime increases, while reduced incarceration in SF saw falling crime rates. http://www.cjcj.org/news/13312
And one about how increased incareration has limited effect on crime rates, and has a correlative link that appears to suggest that in certain cercumstances increased incareration drives factors which increase crime in a region. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-prison-paradox_02.pdf
Cool, we’re down to…. checks notes six years on real life catching up to dystopian videogames. It’s like some horrifying version of Moore’s Law making cyberpunk fiction obsolete.
Re:
It’s reality in…
Oh wait, large parts of Asia and considered a good thing in China AND Russia.
private security cameras = oxymoron
Just the cams, ma'am
Just ’cause the po-po’s in my network, snooping my cams at will, I’m sure they’d never ever think to poke about and scan any of the other stuff I’ve got up and running …
the chamber echos
How many of you all have actually BEEN in SF lately? I haven’t really taken to walking the awful parts of town in recent years (I was in the city a week ago) but as one who recently moved back to the area, my friends, colleagues, and the local news reports are BLEAK. Many major cities in the US are experiencing some REAL issues with violent crime, aggressive homelessness and deteriorating economic prospects. A few minutes Googling hard numbers isn’t too difficult to unearth plenty of stats at increasing public safety concerns. It appears the citizens of SF have decided that they are willing to help the city take action to the streets that have made life there increasingly untenable….
Re:
So, your typical day in SF/NYC/Chicago/large urban city in America then. /s
HOw much crap on securtiy cam?
Lets see.
Standard house will probably have 3-4 camera around.
Business and industrial Tons of camera’s.
Lets Down load all of last weeks Video.
I hope you got Room for that.
That Tan Cushions guy should get a raise
I like reading his stuff.
P65
People who fail to hand over video footage to police, are known to the state of California to cause cancer.