San Francisco Bets Big On Surveillance, Blankets City With 400 Automatic License Plate Readers
from the New-London,-California dept
There’s nothing more urbane than omnipresent surveillance, apparently. London is considered one of the classiest places on earth, what with its wealth of history, iconic landmarks, and… thousands and thousands of surveillance cameras. It’s also home to knife crime, pervasive racism, and soccer hooligans, with plenty of residents exhibiting all three of these traits simultaneously.
San Francisco apparently feels it should be the London of the West. Or at least the West Coast, seeing as New York City has been vying with London for the title of “Most Surveillance Cameras Per Capita” for years now.
The latest addition to San Francisco’s surveillance armada is hundreds of automatic license plate readers provided by yet another controversial surveillance tech company.
San Francisco police will soon have access to a network of 400 license plate cameras scattered throughout the city.
On Thursday, Mayor London Breed signed the legislation allowing SFPD to begin installing the Flock Safety camera system, seen here in a company video posted to social media.
Chief Bill Scott said the cameras will help track down criminals.
“70% of crimes nationally are committed using vehicles or have vehicles involved in those crimes,” said Scott. “So, that should tell you how important this type of technology is. Because, it’s not limited to organized retail theft. It’s violent crime, it’s other types of crimes.”
Sure, there’s some truth to this statement. A bus or an Uber is not a reliable getaway car. But does that justify setting up 400 cameras in San Francisco capable of creating a pretty comprehensive map of residents’ movements?
Then there’s the vendor. Flock has been a bit problematic ever since its inception. Its first customers were gated communities and homeowners’ associations who felt they needed to be able to keep an eye on every car traveling in and out of “their” neighborhoods.
Since then, Flock has aggressively courted law enforcement agencies, hoping to become another consumer brand with a lot of cops on board, much like Amazon’s Ring doorbell cameras. The thing about shifting focus from high-end neighborhoods to striking massive deals with cop shops is that nothing much changes when it comes to who’s being targeted.
HOAs and gated communities love to keep unwanted people out. Law enforcement agencies deploy ALPRs to target cities’ least desirable residents. You can add tech to the cop, but you can’t take the inherent bias out of the business of policing.
Take Tulsa’s police force, which recently bought a flock of cameras after a one-year trial. Comparing the map of camera placement with a map of the racial makeup of the city shows cameras are placed exclusively in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods with none in the wealthy and white midtown neighborhoods. This creates a cycle in which more surveillance in Black and Brown neighborhoods leads to more reports of crime and therefore continuous justification of camera usage.
That’s the same law enforcement agency that’s apparently letting Flock Safety write its press releases for it. Flock’s PR wing is more than happy to produce statements for law enforcement and provides it public sector customers with “Public Information Officer Toolkits” that contain boilerplate for press releases that ensure Flock is credited for its important contribution to public safety. Local news agencies often publish these statements with few alterations, turning their publications into extensions of Flock’s marketing wing.
San Francisco’s police chief claims this rollout won’t create a “surveillance state.” (His exact words, btw.) But those erecting surveillance states rarely consider what they’re doing to be the creation of surveillance state. And even if they do see the surveillance state aspects, the last thing they’ll do is acknowledge this publicly.
Meanwhile, there’s hardly any evidence a massive network of ALPR cameras will do much more than allow law enforcement agencies to maintain a massive database of people’s movements.
Oakland police have had automated license plate readers on 36 patrol cars since 2008 and acknowledged that they got no investigative leads from the license plate readers in 2022, according to the most recent annual report. In that same time period, 34 stolen cars were recovered but no arrests were made.
[…]
BART launched a pilot program of license plate readers – 7 mobile and 2 fixed – at the MacArthur BART parking garage in May. The goal was to catch people breaking into cars and stealing catalytic converters. To date, no arrests have been made. However, BART noted in its annual report that 288 parking citations have been handed out during the pilot phase.
[…]
In response to a public records request, Tiburon said it had no records to disclose regarding arrests or costs relating to its automated license plate readers. However, Tiburon did provide numbers of cars recovered since 2010, when the town installed the cameras: 57 cars were recovered in 13 years – roughly four cars were recovered annually.
Is that sort of success really worth shelling out $2,500-3,000 a camera, plus thousands of dollars in “maintenance” fees? It’s not like it’s cheap. Piedmont, California — an affluent city with only 11,000 residents — is paying $100,000 in maintenance fees annually to service 39 cameras. The network being set up in San Francisco is ten times that size, which means it likely will be paying at least $1 million a year to Flock just to keep its ALPR network active.
This ALPR network isn’t going to solve San Francisco’s crime problem. While it may score the occasional win, about the only thing residents are guaranteed is that their plate/location records will be stored for extended periods of time and accessed improperly by officers because that’s just what they do when they have access to people’s personal data. And when it fails to do the job the city is paying it to do, it will just move on to the next advancement in surveillance tech, having learned nothing from this experience.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, alpr, license plate readers, license plates, london breed, san francisco, sfpd, surveillance
Comments on “San Francisco Bets Big On Surveillance, Blankets City With 400 Automatic License Plate Readers”
The Real Question
The question is – will the cameras be used for anything? Car theft is an endemic crime. Swapping license plates, also. Doing the analysis to find “criminal cars” requires manpower. Who decides what manpower is assigned to what crimes? Which crimes will be left unexamined because it doesn’t fit their budget or crime priorities? “Sure we could track your stolen car, but we have better things to do with our manpower”.
Tech is not a replacement for actual police work. It’s simply a tool.
Reminds me of when Toronto put in photoradar. The radar vans parked on expressways or main streets were incredibly obvious, people slowed down in those spots; yet the excuse was, they took cops off traffic patrol, so aggressive driving, lane changes, tailgating, etc. were no longer being caught.
If the police have ALPR trails of where cars were, but do nothing about it much of the time, it’s a waste of money and time. I’m betting they did not allocate extra money for the manpower to deal with the results.
Re:
They also quickly learned that the “real” speed limit was 113 km/h, not 100 as posted.
Since more than 98% of crimes nationally are committed by people wearing shoes or have shoes involved in those crimes, installing hundred of “Automatic Footprint Readers” would be a better idea.
Maybe it’s their next step.
It’s not just the $1M they will spend on the cameras.
Los Altos Hills installed 40+ cameras a couple years ago. The direct cost of the cameras is about $120k/year. The indirect cost in cops following up on every hit/false alarm is $400k/year. So far, burglary rates (the ostensible reason they were installed in the first place) haven’t changed. If anything, burglary rates have gone up since the cameras were installed. When the contract came up for renewal, city staff argued that although burglary rates had gone up since they were installed, it was important to keep them up so that town residents could see that the city was doing something about burglaries.
Palo Alto Post did a story late last year that between Los Altos and San Mateo there were almost 200 ALPR cameras, and no apparent change in any crime stat.
So expect SF to spend upwards of $5M/year. And nothing will change.
Re:
This. Right. Here. It has nothing to do with crime, nothing to do with privacy and surveillance, it’s not even about the inevitable kickback scheme. It’s about elected officials following Rule One of politics: Do Something, and be seen doing it.
Did you know: 100% of crimes in California involve the chemical DHMO[0]. In fact, it’s so important to criminal activity, that no crime has been attempted in the last 50 years that made any effort to exclude it from the crime.
Also: What percentage of car usage, in California, is involved in criminal activity? I would be willing to bet that it’s less than 0.01% of all car usage (probably a LOT less).
[0] Also know as dihydrogen-monoxide. See https://dhmo.org/facts.html (and for anyone lost, wikipedia, for goodness sakes be sure to get a thorough education on the topic, lol)
Re:
Unfortunately, I need dihydrogen monoxide to live, so I can’t do without it. Or were you referring to the fact that the bodies of criminals (and everyone else) each contain about 70% dihydrogen monoxide?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Theyre Doing It Wrong
There’s numerous pro-police youtube channels, featuring constant dashcam videos where police stop a car based on a license plate hit and make an arrest. Also, from the same article linked, nearby Piedmont arrested 248 and recovered 375 stolen vehicles on account of the ALPRs. Clearly, Oakland is doing something wrong. Everyone else can seem to get results.
Re:
They do not meed an ALPR for that, they have in car computers where they enter the number they read into a query and get back details, alternative they ask the dispatcher for a number check.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Technically true, but they’re rolling down a street, and the reader is checking all the parked cars at the side of the road, plus oncoming traffic. Vast multiplier, such that they would only get a small fraction of what they do with manual checks.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s a poor excuse for a massive increase in surveillance.
Re: Re: Re:
“Vast multiplier, such that they would only get a small fraction of what they do with manual checks.”
So, you admit that manual checks lead to vastly more arrests than the use of ALPR.
Those cameras can be defeated with infrared LEDs which can overwhelm cameras and prevent your plate from being read.
Just slap a couple of those around your plates
Problem solved
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means
San Francisco’s police chief claims this rollout won’t create a “surveillance state.” (His exact words, btw.)
Well of course, what could possibly be surveillance state-ish about setting up literally hundreds of cameras capable of tracking your every movement while driving around the city?
Re:
I think he means that the state part. I think he’s denying the “state” has any direct authority over him/his “department” (A view that… many people may find surprising at best).
Re: Re:
Now that I could believe, police departments do seem to think that they’re above the law and beholden to no-one so seeing the surveillance system as his rather than the state’s would make the statement technically accurate.
Good. Hopefully they’ll catch (and prosecute) some of the corrupt politicians who exploit SF for their own depraved ends!
Well then, I guess smart criminals will use neither motor vehicle nor cell phone whilst committing their nefarious activities.
Re:
They already use shell corps to do tax evasion.
And they’re rich enough to “tell” Law Enforcement that it’s their problem.
So it’s not aimed at the rich.
Re: Re:
hmmmmm,
who is rich?
Re:
Either that or use infrared LEDs to prevent the cameras from getting their plate numbers.
I an sf Giants fan and I intend to use those on my plates when going to Oracle Park to see a Giants game
If the city of San Francisco does not like that, tough. I refuse to bow down to the surveillance state.
London breed and her ilk can go $-— to themselves if they don’t like me using an infrared LED setup to foil their plate readers.
When I go to SF to go to steinhardt aquarium or to a Giants game I intend to use use those
If London Breed and her ilk do not like that they can go flag off
criminals will just steal more cars to use in crimes
And these cameras will accomplish nothing.
The myth of fingerprints
APLRs would be ideal for BOLO and Amber alerts. Tracking fleeing felons. Provide evidence. Eliminate high speed chases. Find stolen cars and license plates. Reduce the number of patrol officers while still maintaining safety.
I know originally DNA only proved OJ had blood, but how do you feel about it now? Fingerprints?