Residents speak out against controversial surveillance program
SEATTLE -- Seattle city leaders say they don't want any more surprises when it comes to surveillance cameras, and on Wednesday a council committee made that clear by approving strict new guidelines for how the technology can be used.
The cameras are meant to protect the port from terrorists, and many people support that effort. But what they don't support is the cameras that went up in near Alki Beach without notice, and that's what a proposed ordinance would stop.
The problem, according to many who oppose the cameras, is there does not appear to be any guarantee that the surveillance system won't be used to peer into homes.
"There must be oversight by departments other than the ones who are doing and using the surveillance," said Allegra Searle-Lebel.
Seattle police used a $5 million federal grant to purchase the 30-camera network, and documents show a city council committee approved the proposal with little debate.
City leaders now say police didn't fully disclose the privacy issues the program raises.
Councilman Nick Licata wasn't part of the committee that approved the system, but he said he won't let it happen again.
"Nip it in the bud situation. We do not want to see the past repeated," he said.
Licata and Councilman Bruce Harrell are co-sponsoring an ordinance that would require city departments to get council permission before buying any new surveillance equipment.
They say the police department's efforts to introduce drones, followed by the waterfront security cameras, convinced them that more privacy protections are needed.
"No more surprises. Let us know what you have planned. And before you go forward, let us know what you are going to do with the equipment," Licata said.
The ordinance would also require city departments to provide guidelines for how long images could be kept and who would have access tot hem. Some camera critics say even those new restrictions don't go far enough.
"It's just too much surveillance going on in the public square as it is," said Harriet Walden.
Many of the cameras are already installed along the waterfront, but Mayor Mike McGinn said none will go operational until these privacy concerns are sorted out.
The cameras are meant to protect the port from terrorists, and many people support that effort. But what they don't support is the cameras that went up in near Alki Beach without notice, and that's what a proposed ordinance would stop.
The problem, according to many who oppose the cameras, is there does not appear to be any guarantee that the surveillance system won't be used to peer into homes.
"There must be oversight by departments other than the ones who are doing and using the surveillance," said Allegra Searle-Lebel.
Seattle police used a $5 million federal grant to purchase the 30-camera network, and documents show a city council committee approved the proposal with little debate.
City leaders now say police didn't fully disclose the privacy issues the program raises.
Councilman Nick Licata wasn't part of the committee that approved the system, but he said he won't let it happen again.
"Nip it in the bud situation. We do not want to see the past repeated," he said.
Licata and Councilman Bruce Harrell are co-sponsoring an ordinance that would require city departments to get council permission before buying any new surveillance equipment.
They say the police department's efforts to introduce drones, followed by the waterfront security cameras, convinced them that more privacy protections are needed.
"No more surprises. Let us know what you have planned. And before you go forward, let us know what you are going to do with the equipment," Licata said.
The ordinance would also require city departments to provide guidelines for how long images could be kept and who would have access tot hem. Some camera critics say even those new restrictions don't go far enough.
"It's just too much surveillance going on in the public square as it is," said Harriet Walden.
Many of the cameras are already installed along the waterfront, but Mayor Mike McGinn said none will go operational until these privacy concerns are sorted out.
so does the 5 million fund the control room where all the camera's are controlled and monitored from?? Does it fund a few persons to do this monitoring? is this person a policeman who is trained to recognise crime or potential for crime? Does this fund for 1 year or 10? and what happenes after that? Does it cover insurance for the camera's if they are damaged or stolen (i know, just had to ask in case someone figures ourt how to hack them, then feed the police bogus feed, then steals it, heck 160 K a camera, thats a lot of camera. ) There are way too many questions besides the privacy of people walking down the street, getting monitored for no reason. I can see there are a lot of sites out there that show how to hack the camera feed..... I guess that will teach the police to follow protcol.........
"We the People"...are spying on ourselves? (and paying for it) Why do politicians turn against their voters? Do they think they know more? When did our government become "them" and not us? Genghis Khan, Rome fell from within. The world is waiting to see us implode. Why are we spying on each other?Are we as paranoid as the rest of the "dog eat dog" world? We've lost all personal freedom in exchange for dependency and "security". Nick Licata wants the mayorship, he'll tell you anything you want to hear. (the current McSchwinn also)
Seattle is such a dump. Sewage being spilled is the perfect gift for that city. Lets obstruct police in everyway possible with bogus claims, NACCP, ACLU et al and let the gangs and liberals take over.
Now you know why tourism is dropped.
In other news Rand Paul is entering his 11th hour of his filabuster. At least someone still cares about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
This is what it has become, Patriot Act I, to Patriot Act II, to domestic spying of basically all citizens, to we can kill you with a drone within the United States, but only if we really really have to.
Where does it end? It doesn't. And people need to wake up fast because this isn't a Bush or Obama issue - this has gone on through two Administrations now. Clearly there is something far more sinister at play, and it is still out of sight.
What up dog? Seattle is paying thru the nose to put cameras on everyone?
Maye it's time for Seattle's residents to jump ahead a few years and be fitted with training collars.Â
When the Mayor or whoever sees or hears something in real time that they don't like, they could just zap these people accordingly.
Progressives and other cradle to grave types ARE demanding for more government by the minute in Seattle, so just give it to them!
It's funny that the SPD wants more surveillance cameras but they don't want us to have the footage from their own cop cams. If the SPD things this is such a good idea, they should start by making the footage from their cop cams public.
About these cameras...
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/360/f/4/v_for_vendetta_wallpaper_by_cainag-d5p8pot.jpg
A move in the right direction. Thank you to those working to protect the privacy of Seattle residents. The government must only do things that the majority of citizens approve of, when that boundary is overstepped it must be corrected.
5 million for 30 cameras? that's $16,666 per cam. I have cameras on my property that deliver excellent capture quality and it cost me just about $900 each. Who do I goose to get a sale like this?
@komoispropaganda you math is a bit off. 5 million would spend down at 160 thousand per camera, not 16 thousand.
@komoispropaganda I can't tell the exact model, but the enclosure itself could be over $1,000...
http://estore.dotworkz.com/D-Series-Camera-Enclosures-s/2.htm
And I would guess that the camera inside is ~$1,500 - $2,000 or more... Then you have networking, cabling, the cost for the installer to climb the pole, the cost of the cabling specialist to install the wiring, etc., etc...
Now I am not justifying the cost, and most of the cost is probably going to be on the server-side for the 24/7 NVR, but it is not hard to imagine where the money went.