Controversial surveillance program continues to raise eyebrows
SEATTLE -- Seattle police call it a tool against terrorism, but critics are worried that a proposed network of surveillance cameras could be turned against citizens.
A lot of residents say they had no idea a high-tech surveillance system was in the works until they came to Alki Point and saw the cameras mounted above them.
The cameras are meant to watch for terrorists and other criminals, but neighbors want to be sure the lens isn't also pointed at their homes.
Seattle police hope something called masking technology, which would limit the view of the cameras, will ease the privacy concerns.
"Within the cameras field of view, I will draw a box over what is private," said Monty Moss of the Seattle Police Department. "We're going to mask those areas off right away."
Police showed off the system as part of a proposed 30-camera network set up to scan the waterways and keep the Port of Seattle safe from terrorists. But the public isn't sure.
"The government doesn't have the right to surveil us 24/7," one resident said during Wednesday's meeting.
Thirteen cameras have already been installed, and six of them are positioned around Alki.
"What bothers everybody in the community, bar none, is that this was never brought to our attention. We never had a discussion about this," said resident Will Washington.
Council members approved the surveillance system last year with little discussion, but now that the system's full capabilities are clear, they have plenty of questions.
"This is not a 20 question game. It's not, 'Did you ask the right question or ask in the right way'" said Councilman Bruce Harrell. "The police department and the mayor, they have to be forthright with that information."
The cameras will be tied into a wireless mesh network that will give officers in patrol cars the ability to tap into live pictures in case they need to monitor a threat.
Harrell said even though he initially approved the system, he's now working on guidelines to safeguard privacy concerns and limit the use of the new technology.
"We already know people do not like cameras on their homes and so that's a no-brainer," he said. "So, again, we have to be transparent in this process."
The system is not operational yet, but police do have to finish installing the cameras by March 31 or they risk losing the federal grant that's paying for the devices.
A lot of residents say they had no idea a high-tech surveillance system was in the works until they came to Alki Point and saw the cameras mounted above them.
The cameras are meant to watch for terrorists and other criminals, but neighbors want to be sure the lens isn't also pointed at their homes.
Seattle police hope something called masking technology, which would limit the view of the cameras, will ease the privacy concerns.
"Within the cameras field of view, I will draw a box over what is private," said Monty Moss of the Seattle Police Department. "We're going to mask those areas off right away."
Police showed off the system as part of a proposed 30-camera network set up to scan the waterways and keep the Port of Seattle safe from terrorists. But the public isn't sure.
"The government doesn't have the right to surveil us 24/7," one resident said during Wednesday's meeting.
Thirteen cameras have already been installed, and six of them are positioned around Alki.
"What bothers everybody in the community, bar none, is that this was never brought to our attention. We never had a discussion about this," said resident Will Washington.
Council members approved the surveillance system last year with little discussion, but now that the system's full capabilities are clear, they have plenty of questions.
"This is not a 20 question game. It's not, 'Did you ask the right question or ask in the right way'" said Councilman Bruce Harrell. "The police department and the mayor, they have to be forthright with that information."
The cameras will be tied into a wireless mesh network that will give officers in patrol cars the ability to tap into live pictures in case they need to monitor a threat.
Harrell said even though he initially approved the system, he's now working on guidelines to safeguard privacy concerns and limit the use of the new technology.
"We already know people do not like cameras on their homes and so that's a no-brainer," he said. "So, again, we have to be transparent in this process."
The system is not operational yet, but police do have to finish installing the cameras by March 31 or they risk losing the federal grant that's paying for the devices.
Remove all cameras in and near residential homes ,public, and traffic...to much big government!
4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Are the surveillance cameras made in china along with the cement for the floating bridge? Are surveillance cameras already in place in and around the international ports of Seattle, where there is actually a threat?Â
It shouldn't bother you if you have nothing to hide.
Soon they'll be putting cameras everywhere with facial recognition , it just keeps getting worse. Those of you that don't mind this are missing the point, it will bite you some day.
In a Ronald Reagan voice......Seattle Tear those cameras down, the Soviet Union want their policies back.
I remember when we use to condemn russia for keeping its citizens constantly under surveillance, Now here we are. NO lol
That's what Russia said to their citizens.
^That.
Watch out thieves lol your on camera you wont get to far, watch out Americans you might be arrested if you cross the street and not in a cross walk lol
are you ok with the government coming in your house to see if you have the right fruits and vegtables in your house? and no junk food, are you ok with the government coming to your door to see if your faith is with God or the government that if your faith is with God the government might cart you away?? the fact is not if we are doing anything wrong or right , the fact is the government wants control of everything we do, go ect....
plan *
wait till they see what porn magazine you just bought at the newsstand along with the 2 snickers bars you bought along with the news paper to cover your magazine you plant to read at work lol
that basicaly is your freedom going away ! lol
the government is not looking for nose diggers, there looking for ppl that might go against the government so they can have us shot and killed,
Its not about whos doing what bad, its about CONTROL, Government CONTROL!! and i dont want that in my life someone huvering over our backs 24-7 but heck thats the future to come like anyone cares what Americans want any more
wait till they hear what cable can do with their box's inside your home!
You can't go snooping around people's houses, but if you're out in the public there's no reason to believe you've got privacy. You go kissing your loved one on the sidewalk, someones going to watch. Same with crime. You commit a crime in the public, someone should be watching. Cameras could solve a lot of crimes on the streets.
@SargeMcC You're so gullible. Don't you realize how much of your, your family, and the rest of this nation's privacy you give up with each of these "to protect you" and "it's for your own good" steps our government takes? Once they are installed, they will not come down and that's one more step to being into every aspect of your life. If we give all over to our government we will have no where to turn for protection.Â
@Unsheepled @SargeMcC Â
Please watch this video all the way through.
It is not just about guns, but about what happens when a people allow the government to gradually erode the freedoms, in the name of safety. Heed the warnings!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mKdBxpKqUvs
Â
Down with Big Brother.
Paranoid much?
Give up your privacy.....they'll be coming after your freedom next.
You're literally condoning 1984. Have you not read the report by the department of justice about Seattle pd? They're not to be trusted. Besides, Seattle for its size is one of the safest cities in the country, there are more murders in one day in some of our cities than there are in a while year in Seattle. The money that would be spent on those cameras could go to help poor people, it would be a much better use of it. Same goes for a couple hundred billion that goes into the military.
I care, the ACLU cares, many many many of us care. When does it stop? I'll tell you, it won't with attitudes like yours.
If you're doing nothing wrong and you have nothing to hide then who cares?! It's not like they're in your house or car. Just smile and wave hi! Maybe people will start acting nicer
I'm sure people would wish there were cameras "rolling" when a crime takes place...but it'll be too late when people vote them out because of their fears. What privacy are you afraid of sharing in public?
Wow... I didn't know that Seattle police consider Alki Point as a hot spot for terrorism. Other parts of the city ... maybe, but Alki Point? Ya, right, I can see that ....."wise" decision.Â
When do we get to vote on a new mayor (to have him replace bad leadership in the SPD?)
Give them something worth looking at. Drop trousers and moon away, paint a face on it a la Bart Simpson.
And, everyone start using your cell phone cameras to record every single move the Seattle police, mayor and city council make. It's legal, when they're in public.
I'm watching the news right now and listening to the angry citizens of W.Seattle (Alki) complain about the cameras. The city  installed them and they WILL be used for spying on people, why wouldn't it be. We are being conditioned to think cameras will be used for Elliot Bay surveillance and that Red Light cameras are for tickets only. Just wait, cameras will be used to watch people on a daily basis as used to give the people fines. (I give it 10 years until it's fully implemented) and we won't care as a society because we will be sold on a "study" saying it's for our "safety" Mayor McGinn is telling the people of Seattle what they want to hear. Insurance companies are offering cameras to be mounted on the dash-board of your vehicle. One day surveillance cameras will be in our homes and it will be sold to us as a way to keep us safe. Sad, but I believe this is the future we are looking at in the United States.
Oh yeah Seattlites, how's the thought of getting charged a fee to ride your bicycle around working out for you? Just curious.
that's the thought process...unfortunately, they install these things with altruistic words of intent...then they use them against the people.
Federal dollars.... Remember the Patriot Act? Now look where we are and who's running the show now?
True, the cameras should not be positioned or capable of peeking in windows...but elsewhere only crooks should fear them. If your purse is stolen, or car broken into, or daughter assaulted won't people be saying why isn't there video, we need to be safe! Can't have it both ways. If you aren't breaking the law, what's the big deal. We want to feel safe, isn't this the cheapest easiest way to deter crime? Would you prefer paying for dozens of armed guards, wouldn't they be watching everyone's movements? Big brother is watching, but society made that a requirement.
How to protect your privacy: 1) close your drapes. 2) get dressed before you leave the house. 3) Don't break the law.
Of course they got a federal grant for this, the feds and this president are all about control!! Give it time, we'll lose all our privacy rights, won't take long.
Redlight cameras weren't supposed to be used for anything other than redlight tickets, but their records are requested for other things. Don't get me wrong, tracking down a felon and doing it above board in a open courtroom is one thing and I don't have a problem with that. But if cameras are everywher and how their records are used becomes a closed room secret--that IS a problem.
Just the way these were installed, under the guise of the Port needing them for Elliot Bay security - yet they all rotate 360 degrees- should be a hint. Then the police want access - this is McSpinn and Diaz at work in their usual way - it should have been given a thorough set of public hearings with specific criteria and rules adopted as a result before any installation. Why they didn't should worry everyone
SMILE, your on Candid Camera.......
Why are the local police worried about terrorists? Another safety device? Go ahead keep trading your freedom for safety.
@Dwayne Edward Mattson -- Why are the local police worried about terrorists?
Regardless of whether these cameras exist or not, terrorist activity IS something that must be on the minds of ALL police forces. Not at a rabidly fearful level, but being aware of the high potential targets that a terrorist might attack and keeping a reasonable eye on them by - yes - even the local police is the prudent thing to do.
Terrorist strikes are rare in this country (which is wonderful), but the reason that is true is BECAUSE the various police forces and other organizations at the federal level are vigilant in this realm and are good at what they do. Â
Arm yourself, kill the criminal. Then call 911.
Say someone commits a crime and nobody is around wouldn't a camera be a good idea.
Scott, No one said 911 will come running to help thats stupid and neive. But Criminals are less likely to commit the crime in the first place....yes, I am a victim and would have loved to have a witness, 'cameras' to help catch the ........how many times have we heard how kid snatchers were identified from being picked up on security cameras? Yes....I feel safer! and I DON'T THINK SOMEONE IS WATCHING THESE CAMERAS 'ALL' THE TIME but they prove to help catch 'CRIMINALS'..... only a criminal would not want a witness to his crimes.
Well if its not thieves its the TSA stealing out of your luggage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h47Uai4a4qE
Cameras will not stop or limit crime, cameras are a silent witness so I'm curious as to how cameras make you safer when you are being mugged, murdered, raped? What also makes you think that someone is watching these cameras?
I bet shes also okay with drones flying overhead.
You might consider it "modern", but this isn't the UK: we have a constitution and bill of rights. I don't need cities and coounties to protect me......I have the US Armed forces to protect me.
Funny how nobody has complained that police can run your plates when they are behind you and pull you over for what they find....even though the registered owner may not be driving.
What's even more asinine about the complaints about these cameras in public places is:
1) People post nearly everything and quite often the most intimate details of thier lives on facebook, twitter, etc. etc. They feel no shame, nor any reluctance to share the details of thier lives - and don't give it a second thought.
2) People with cell phone cameras (and others) are EVERYWHERE. They are around you all the time. AND they are frequentely filming or snapping pictures.
3) People willingly sign up to give thier grocery store the right to record every private detail of what they purchase - and willingly give the tracking information (thier phone number) to the grocery store every time they buy ANYTHING, all so that they can get the 'safeway club price' (or it's equivelant at other grocery stores).
There's hundreds of ways that you willingly give away your right to privacy every single day.
Because of the many ways that people are willingly giving away thier privacy, you have little expectation of privacy when you're in public -or otherwise.
The same people who scream about thier right to privacy willingly give that right up constantly.
@FormerMarineSgt Â
Also wanted to point out that one is voluntary, the other is not.
@FormerMarineSgt Â
The main difference is civilian vs government use of surveillance.