Seattle City Council restricts video surveillance
SEATTLE (AP) - The Seattle City Council says police and other departments must obtain the council's approval before using certain cameras and drones for surveillance.
The council passed an ordinance Monday in response to concerns over 34 cameras that were installed across the city without public notice. The council says it will review camera operations and data management to protect the public' privacy and civil liberties.
An exemption in the new law allows police to use surveillance technology under a search warrant.
The council passed an ordinance Monday in response to concerns over 34 cameras that were installed across the city without public notice. The council says it will review camera operations and data management to protect the public' privacy and civil liberties.
An exemption in the new law allows police to use surveillance technology under a search warrant.
Who is afraid of cameras if you are not going to do something wrong?
If I remember correctly, a big issue w/ the red light cameras was the Washington State Constitution does not allow for the government to take images of the driver's face (thus the reason you can beat almost any red light camera ticket). How do these cameras comply with this exact same issue? It appears to me that anything gathered from these cameras will have to be thrown out & open the city to a State Constitution violation lawsuit to boot.
Of course, I could be wrong on this....
Who's paying for this? Maybe the taxpayers need to restrict the Seattle City Council from spending the taxpayers hard earned tax dollars!!
You know I do not like the big brother feel myself. If abused could be horrible. If really used for law enforcement I see a lot of good. It can help you the citizen against police brutality, run plate for stolen cars, monitor drug activity , catch a murderer just to name a few. A slippery slope that needs checks and balances for sure.
Whose to say the city council isn't going to use the camera's. After all they approved the installation without the publics knowledge. They need to just take them down.
Having lived in Seattle for my entire life, except for Viet Nam tours, thug hugger comments such as from @Thepriest make me realize how far this city has slipped.
I honestly cannot see the objection to surveillance cameras unless of course you are engaged in criminal activity. Personally I would like to see a high resolution picture of car prowlers and muggers.
@GOATCUTTER Most people don't really care until they start getting BS tickets for things the cameras were never intended for. They put them in, realize criminals just go elsewhere and they aren't doing any good. To justify the cost, they start sending out speeding tickets, checking plates, jaywalking tickets and for using an aerosol can in a manner other than directed. I've seen their footage, you can't read a license plate from over 50 feet.  Look at what happened in England. They put cameras every dang where and they are fed up with it.
@Xirxious What is BS about a ticket for tagging (aerosol can use as you describe)? There is an offense where property owners are victimized twice - once for the tag and again for the cost of cleaning it up.
Who does the council think we are? Do they really expect us to believe that the cops will get approval to use the camera's? Who is going to make sure that they are not using them when they are not supposed to? I know they will hire a consultant for $250 an hour for 3 months to recommend to the council what should be done. Then the police union will sue the city saying they can't do their job with these restrictions. They will also claim it is for the officers safety or something like that. Any body have a pellet gun?
@Thepriest The VP say's a shotgun is better.  In this instance, I agree!