City leaders raising questions about Seattle surveillance plan
»Play Video
SEATTLE -- New surveillance cameras along Seattle's waterways have fired up both sides of the privacy debate, and now the City Council is calling for change.
The KOMO 4 Problem Solvers have uncovered how the program started -- a program that some members of the council didn't know had been in the works for a year.
The camera system passed both a subcommittee and the full council unanimously. Now nearly a year later, some city leaders are beginning to ask tough questions.
The cameras have their critics.
"These cameras should not be able to look at anyone's residences, they should not invade anyone's privacy," said Councilman Bruce Harrell.
Harrell supports the 30-camera surveillance system -- at least in theory.
They're meant to root out terrorism, but Harrell and Councilman Tim Burgess are concerned there's more going on.
"It seems like it extended well beyond that," Burgess said.
The Problem Solvers dug into public records to see how the cameras were approved in the first place. At a May 2 meeting of Harrell's Public Safety Committee, Seattle Police officials explained how first responders could view live video on the way to a scene and keep and eye on the port.
The discussion lasted 11 minutes.
"They've made a very compelling case that there's activity that we need to be concerned about," Harrell said.
The ordinance passed unanimously both in committee and in the full council, but now Harrall and Burgess are raising questions.
"When is the council made aware? What protocols and rules do we have for surveillance?" Burgess said.
Harrell, too, has questions about how the cameras will be used.
"There was no discussion that the cameras would be able to rotate and there were no restrictions mentioned at all," he said.
But as far back as March of last year, records show the council was told the cameras would show "real time data and video" for "fixed and mobile first responder assets." Records also show that the Seattle Police Department had a proposal ready to go last February.
The city held a conference for potential vendors months before the council singed off on the system.
Even now, both Harrell and Burgess say that isn't the problem.
"I didn't see anything that stuck out as an abnormality in that process," Burgess said.
Harrell doesn't believe the process was rushed, but does think there was a lack of clear communication as to how the cameras would be used.
Mayor Mike McGinn wasn't available to comment on the story, but has said he doesn't want the system activated until there is more public vetting. The Seattle Police Department didn't make anyone available to speak about the cameras.
Harrell has called for a meeting next Wednesday to bring police back to the table and create regulations for the cameras.
The KOMO 4 Problem Solvers have uncovered how the program started -- a program that some members of the council didn't know had been in the works for a year.
The camera system passed both a subcommittee and the full council unanimously. Now nearly a year later, some city leaders are beginning to ask tough questions.
The cameras have their critics.
"These cameras should not be able to look at anyone's residences, they should not invade anyone's privacy," said Councilman Bruce Harrell.
Harrell supports the 30-camera surveillance system -- at least in theory.
They're meant to root out terrorism, but Harrell and Councilman Tim Burgess are concerned there's more going on.
"It seems like it extended well beyond that," Burgess said.
The Problem Solvers dug into public records to see how the cameras were approved in the first place. At a May 2 meeting of Harrell's Public Safety Committee, Seattle Police officials explained how first responders could view live video on the way to a scene and keep and eye on the port.
The discussion lasted 11 minutes.
"They've made a very compelling case that there's activity that we need to be concerned about," Harrell said.
The ordinance passed unanimously both in committee and in the full council, but now Harrall and Burgess are raising questions.
"When is the council made aware? What protocols and rules do we have for surveillance?" Burgess said.
Harrell, too, has questions about how the cameras will be used.
"There was no discussion that the cameras would be able to rotate and there were no restrictions mentioned at all," he said.
But as far back as March of last year, records show the council was told the cameras would show "real time data and video" for "fixed and mobile first responder assets." Records also show that the Seattle Police Department had a proposal ready to go last February.
The city held a conference for potential vendors months before the council singed off on the system.
Even now, both Harrell and Burgess say that isn't the problem.
"I didn't see anything that stuck out as an abnormality in that process," Burgess said.
Harrell doesn't believe the process was rushed, but does think there was a lack of clear communication as to how the cameras would be used.
Mayor Mike McGinn wasn't available to comment on the story, but has said he doesn't want the system activated until there is more public vetting. The Seattle Police Department didn't make anyone available to speak about the cameras.
Harrell has called for a meeting next Wednesday to bring police back to the table and create regulations for the cameras.
Correction: Â The source linked to in the Examiner.com report makes it clearer that it was surveillance cameras throughout the Puget Sound area that the Puget Sound Anarchists are claiming they destroyed, not necessarily the recently installed ones along the waterfront.
Here's the Puget Sound Anarchist announcement:
http://pugetsoundanarchists.org/content/17-security-cameras-disabled-and-destroyed-puget-sound-regionÂ
This source says the cameras were destroyed by local Anarchists:
http://www.examiner.com/article/anarchists-strike-back-against-seattle-s-expanded-surveillance-camera-network
Do you think this is a hoax? Â Disinformation? Â An attempt to get some publicity? Â
it would be awesome if vigilantes don  Guy Fawkes masks, grab some (non-lethal) paint ball guns, load em with acrylic paint.. and just shoot up the camera domes.. and leave a V in red spray paint near the scene. WAR IS PEACE. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!!Â
How is this going to be paid for again?
@Nitroxman Grant from Homeland Security.
The federal government is broke too
None of this we do really matters. We will just end up killing ourselves altogether unless something from space takes another crack at us. Seriously, we are a bleep and a huge mistake ---- all things will take care of itself. We are not good creatures!
@whenudieitsdone Self depricate much?
@TheBronze @whenudieitsdone NO just none of it matters
The UK has more video cameras than citizens, this lead to a mistake where police executed an innocent man on the subway there by shooting him while he was laying down on the ground, motionless and not resisting, more than 4 times in the head. The courts never held anyone responsible.Â
This is what cameras lead to.Â
They can have their cameras with certain caveats WHEN but NOT UNTIL they escrow all dash-cam and personal-cam recordings with an INDEPENDENT third-party agency and stop stonewalling (or are denied the very ability to stonewall) requests for records.
At the moment, SPD and indeed all law enforcement has been taking the attitude that they can collect information on everybody and everything, use that information every way they wish to, and not submit to oversight from anyone.Â
THIS MUST BE STOPPED! NOW.We better get a hold of this type stuff now because with the pace of technology, pretty soon the government will be able to see right through our clothes and into our cars and houses.Â
Of course, my tinfoil hat will protect me.
@scared_citizen Actually, according to this study a tinfoil hat might not protect you, and may possibly assist the government in monitoring you.
@scared_citizen
Basically the conclusion states: Â "The helmets amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example,[3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations.
It requires no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the current helmet craze is likely to have been propagated by the Government, possibly with the involvement of the FCC. We hope this report will encourage the paranoid community to develop improved helmet designs to avoid falling prey to these shortcomings."
Actually, those technologies already exist. In fact, use of thermal imagers by LE is severely restricted here. Cars have cameras installed (ever watch an insurance commercial?). That data is accessible by LE. Body scanners at airports. How long until they are put in other places, including train stations, or bus stations, or seaports?
I am curious as to how many of the pro-camera people are anti-drone people...
@ButtercupSprinkles I'm not anti-drone or anti-camera.  I think both can be used to solve and, in some cases, prevent crime.  However, I'm DEFINITELY against government abuse and want to see strict controls applied over both technologies.  At this point we have a government that has been deceptive about both and haven't put any controls into place.
Additionally, the state is going to install a GPS tracker in your car to follow your every movement. Â They'll have you on camera, on your phone, and in your car. Â Big Brother isn't coming. Â He's here.
@NWFreeman @ButtercupSprinkles What I'd like to see is a law that makes it *explicitly* legal to video and audio record any public employee during the work day in any public area, and any non-sensitive government building. So, if you want to take a movie of someone in the permitting department sitting on their but for hours, or being a pin-head during an inspection, or video your interaction with the cops when they pull you over, it's all good, and any attempt to delete, destroy, or intimidate a citizen for their doing so gets prosecuted under suppression of civil rights laws. They get their cameras IF AND ONLY IF we get ours, too.
I don't have an issue with the cameras being in a public place, but I do have an issue with the city leaders, who didn't seem to have a problem with them until citizens began questioning and complaining about the way they were installed with no public input. Â
@KRM66 My problem is they always turn into a revenue stream. They approve something under the guise of 'protecting the children' because who would argue with that? Next thing you know, they are using them to check everyone's tags, insurance and cholesterol levels....
So wait, the council voted on it and approved it. Spent the money. It was installed. And only now they are asking questions about how it works, what it cando, how it will be used? I am going to suggest you ask the questions first before you vote and approve something like this.
Hey, the UK is covered by CCTV cameras to combat crime. They regulated guns away too. Seems like a good plan, right?
And look what that gets them. More terrorist attacks, more crime. Crime didn't go away. It was made tougher, stronger, more attuned. Dumb criminals are either weeded out or made smarter by bureaucrats. Crime waits for no one.
@Watcher3 It's a great idea, especially when you look to see how low their violent crime rates are....OH WAIT!
Our own government are the terrorists, always attacking and bypassing the Constitution.
I personally have no issues whatsoever with these cameras. If I am in a PUBLIC place, I have NO expectation of privacy. Â If the paranoid types know they are there, maybe they will think twice before committing a crime. Â All that being said, if the city has nothing to hide, why don't they just agree to stream all the video LIVE to the Internet? Â That would give the public oversight on how they are using them.
@K. Coleman It's not the public spaces I'm concerned about.  These cameras can be aimed at people's homes and into their windows.  At this point, SPD hasn't put ANY controls into place about how they're going to protect people's privacy in places where they DO have a legal right to privacy.
Actually, there have been some court decisions, in Seattle, that state that you DO have an expectation of privacy in public places, to include parks.
These cameras have too big of an abuse potential. Â
I agree that cameras are invasive. Surveillance cameras should not be installed as a matter of regular course. They should be available for specific, temporary needs, such as specific investigations, then, they should be removed.
I suspect that the city council was all for the cameras, quietly, until they got caight, now, they are backpedalling and trying to shift all blame on the PD. That supposition would be reasonable considering the track record of the council.
Terrorism? Yeah I think you're seriously gonna have to elaborate on your definition of "terrorism."
I believe the real governing forces lie outside of the purview of our representatives - both locally and nationally. Â Special interests are a leading candidate. Ironically the reps are always in the spotlight when problems occur rarely the special interests.Â
Sorry the government needs to be restrained. I would rather live with dangerous freedom then live in peaceful slavery.
@Exiled_Patriot That is one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard. You say that because you've never lived in a dangerous society.
@Papio @Exiled_Patriot Um you don't get the point do you? you must be really sucking on the teet of big brother. I would rather have zero cammera's less government more freedom for people more open to carring firearms openly. less cops less nanny state. What you want is a feeling of security in exhange for a police state.
I have, and I agree with him. If you are willing to give up your freedoms for security, you deserve neither.
What is the issue? People need to learn what privacy REALLY is. Before my current job I worked as a private investigator. To get my license I had to learn the laws. Even in your home, if your blinds are open and someone walking on a public road or path can see in then there is no expectation of privacy.Â
The cameras are fixed. As long as they don't use super zoom lenses or infrared then there is no issue. Its not like you won't know they're there. They are pretty obvious.
When you live in the city you give up certain things, one of which is privacy. People going to whine because they live in a high rise apartment and their neighbors can hear their conversations?
So sick and tired of the liberal crap that is spewed in Seattle. Seriously people? There are other issues that are far more important than this crap. People wonder why we are going down the crapper.Â
No, living in the city certainly does NOT mean you give up your privacy. Especially where the government is concerned. There are more restricions on government agents that on private investigators. I guess you didn't learn as much of the law as you claim...  I bet your tune would change if YOU had one of these aimed at YOUR place...
@ButtercupSprinkles Do you have a problem with a police officer standing on the corner of your street looking around? Afraid you might get caught doing something illegal?
@ButtercupSprinklesI happen to know a lot of police officers. All I know support cameras in public areas. They are perfect for capturing suspects committing and leaving crimes. Can you honestly say there is an expectation of privacy on a public street? Are you saying that there should be windows of opportunity for criminals when an officer is not standing on a street corner. Would you be okay with permanently posting an officer at a certain point? Also, I doubt you are a police officer. Perhaps you are a warehouser with the QM, or perhaps Loss Prevention with Macy's? Â Perhaps you actually got to FTO but washed out. Maybe a mock scene at the academy was too strenuous and you broke a nail.
@ButtercupSprinkles Until you get the implants you mean! ;)
Your analogy is completely irrelevant. A Police Officer (BTW, I AM one) , does not have recording ability, enhancements like night vision or thermal vision, and zoom. A Police Officer is not going to be there 24/7. He will be there only when needed. A Police Officer and a remote camera are NOT the same animal.Â
Try again.
That is a flawed analogy. A Police Officer (which I AM) is not capable of extreme zoom, enhanced vision, and recording. A Police Officer is not going to be standing on your street corner 24/7, rather, if he is there, it is because there is a problem. A Police Officer is not a security guard.Â
I am a LE government employee, but, I oppose Big Brother practices and tactics..
@seattleemt The cameras aren't fixed (says so in the article) and nearly every single model of security camera has low light, infra red detection capability and even more have audio capability. Something else, all of the security cameras also has their own electronic web page. A simple network hack and a weak password on the camera (or failure to change the default) means that just about any tech head can view and operate the cameras without the police knowing who.
From the article: "They're meant to root out terrorism."
I wasn't aware that terrorism was a big problem along Alki, or anywhere in Seattle for that matter!
@Fooey Patooey!Â
I'm sure they will send you a memo before they try anything.
idiot.
@Fooey Patooey! Â
Surveillance cameras in Seattle: they either guard against terrorism or protect our children from unsafe drivers. Can't argue against that, right?Â
And what does Johnathan Hilstrand have to do with this article? His photo is used on the main page, inferring that he is a city leader...