'We need to control surveillance technology or it's going to control us'
SEATTLE -- Rise of the machines or the best security money can buy?
The ACLU's Doug Honig says the new wireless camera surveillance system throughout Seattle is troubling.
"We need to control surveillance technology or it's going to control us," he said. "All this is happening with virtually no discussion or debate up front, no public input up front."
The $3 million Homeland Security Grant will go beyond Alki and then expand across the waterfront, in Ballard and I-5 with dozens of cameras.
"It's pretty clear that some of this information will be used way beyond port security," Honig said.
The Problem Solvers have uncovered documents on the city of Seattle's website, including a diagram that appears to break down how the system connects with a number of law enforcement agencies, and even SPD vehicles.
We also found a price proposal, breaking down that $3 million grant, including a line item for "equipment, if needed, for command vehicles and police patrol vehicles to access live video via laptops."
"It says to me, wow, total surveillance," Honig said.
The document also says it's exempt from disclosure and could even reveal "specific system vulnerabilities." But the Problem Solvers found it out in the open on the city's website.
SPD and the Mayor's office would not elaborate further.
From the waterfront, Charlie Beach appreciates photography, but says there should be limits to the power of the lens.
"Every time I see a security camera I think everything that I do is going to be recorded right now," Beach said.
He said it could be an invasion of privacy. Alki resident Michele Mosher goes against the trend.
"technology -- It's the changing world we live in," she said.
She said she would be ok if the cameras were pointed toward people, if it helped solve crime.
"We have had in the summertime some activity with shootings or fights." Mosher said.
She calls it a part of "Big Brother," but agrees it's a new world with new questions.
The ACLU's Doug Honig says the new wireless camera surveillance system throughout Seattle is troubling.
"We need to control surveillance technology or it's going to control us," he said. "All this is happening with virtually no discussion or debate up front, no public input up front."
The $3 million Homeland Security Grant will go beyond Alki and then expand across the waterfront, in Ballard and I-5 with dozens of cameras.
"It's pretty clear that some of this information will be used way beyond port security," Honig said.
The Problem Solvers have uncovered documents on the city of Seattle's website, including a diagram that appears to break down how the system connects with a number of law enforcement agencies, and even SPD vehicles.
We also found a price proposal, breaking down that $3 million grant, including a line item for "equipment, if needed, for command vehicles and police patrol vehicles to access live video via laptops."
"It says to me, wow, total surveillance," Honig said.
The document also says it's exempt from disclosure and could even reveal "specific system vulnerabilities." But the Problem Solvers found it out in the open on the city's website.
SPD and the Mayor's office would not elaborate further.
From the waterfront, Charlie Beach appreciates photography, but says there should be limits to the power of the lens.
"Every time I see a security camera I think everything that I do is going to be recorded right now," Beach said.
He said it could be an invasion of privacy. Alki resident Michele Mosher goes against the trend.
"technology -- It's the changing world we live in," she said.
She said she would be ok if the cameras were pointed toward people, if it helped solve crime.
"We have had in the summertime some activity with shootings or fights." Mosher said.
She calls it a part of "Big Brother," but agrees it's a new world with new questions.
You have no reasonable expectation to privacy in public. We're all photographed and filmed countless times during the course of a normal day. If security cams can help catch someone who stole or broke into a car, help track down a killer or a mugger, everyone would be singing it's praise. Instead, we have crime after crime after crime where the bad guy or bad girl gets away and everyone cries foul. We have police budgets slashed and forces cut to a point where they can barely keep up on a good day. And every time a story about red light or speed cams, the toy drone SPD had, or security cams hits the news, all you tinfoil hat people come crawling out from whatever cave you came from crying about the erosion of privacy, but one whined about the fixed wing and helicopters police use every day. No one cries about the satellite that float overhead with cameras powerful enough to read your ATM or McDonald's receipt. Yet no one cries about the injustice of a 5 year old being frisked and searched before boarding a plane. No one complains about police and government agencies reading our text messages and emails. All without the need for obtaining a warrant first. Yet the mere existence of a camera, somewhere, is an extreme invasion of privacy. Wow, you're all picking the wrong battles. I suggest you all go back to your caves and readjust your tinfoil hats so the nasty government types can't read your thoughts and control your brains...
This is a shameful waste of our tax dollars so we can have our privacy violated. I'd much rather this money go toward training existing police, or putting more police on the streets. I will always vehemently disagree and fight against automated police processes. We do not need Big Brother becoming a reality. It's disturbing that those in charge of these decisions have very obviously never read George Orwell's book, otherwise as soon as someone brought up these types of suggestions they would shut them down then and there.
 @AdamL Methinks your tinfoil hat has slipped...
Not a lot different than what Facebook, advertiser bonus/reward cards do. Every move you make can be tracked in life. Just be careful where you breathe.
Most of you have heard of 1984, but few if any have read it. Do yourself a favor and check it out or download to your e-book. This is where we are today. Before doing that, don't even try to justify this "Big Brother" crap.
Any organization that spouts they have the defining answer and direction to society's ills should not be trusted.
Any one that needs align themselves with such an organization because they can't think or decide for themself is fool.
The ACLU is as dangerous as any hate group.
Especily to the safety and security of the public.
This is why a surveillance state is dangerous: when the scales tip from reactive review of a crime for evidence to proactive review looking for a crime to prosecute.  Combine that with all the "little laws" that exist but are now only enforced in happenstance will surely be enforced constantly.Â
Â
I have no problem with cameras in the hands of private parties, on private property. In those cases, the choice to use the footage to prosecute (civil or criminal) is related to harm to that private party. However, when the State runs the cameras, then they have a direct path to prosecute crime "against the state", which is rather significant body of law now.
Â
This blog section does a really good job of explaining how this happens, and subsequent pages are excellent too.
Â
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/29326904495/16-a-problems
Â
And here's a book to describe the damgers also:
Â
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360460169&sr=8-1
Â
Â
 @georgef The cartoon illustration of criminal law in your first link is hysterical.  I couldn't stop laughing particularly at the end when Lady Liberty threw down her scales of justice and was peeking out from underneath her blindfold lol.
This is one of the reasons that I support the ACLU..even if they are annoying and wrong about 3/4 of the time, at least they get it right when it comes to this kind of creepy 1984 kind of stuff!
 @sometimesright I support almost all of the ACLU activities. They've done a lot of good works over the years. Being a libertarian for over 30 years I appreciate the help of any organization that tries to preserve our inalienable rights.
Yea..but then some gang thugs shoot a girl to death in Pioneer Square and a lot of people say "If we had just had some better pictures of the shooters car.."
1984
I have said for many years we should have more cameras watching all the streets, like England. If you know every time you go to a public place ( street, park, City Hall, etc) you are on camera, crime will fall. What is the worse that could happen? People would think twice before going to Walmart in their pajamas, fewer people will pick their nose in public, people might be nicer to others.Â
 @dmw2913 That is an extremely shortsighted point of view. The government intrudes into our daily lives enough as it is. With an insane number of laws on the books, you'll find yourself being guilty of crimes nobody has ever even heard of and couldn't possibly know about. There's also a large possibility that the cameras capture an event without context, and police dispatched to the scene over-react and someone winds up shot dead over something silly like two friends who were horsing around being misinterpreted as an assault. We do not need cameras watching our every move, and apathetic people like you are why so many of our freedoms have been trampled on or are in the process of being revoked.
@dmw2913
The UK is seeing an alarming rise in violent crime. Their gun confiscation and âBig Brotherâ surveillance cameras have done nothing but deprive their citizens of their basic liberties.  Socialists need this crap for total control over law abiding citizens. They know it does nothing to reduce crime. Â
Â
 @dmw2913 I'll still pick my nose..I don't care.
Pick your nose if you wish. But it better not be on the five o'clock news.
I can see this would be a great tool to aid police since they can't be everywhere at once. However there needs to be a place where police and the government will not be allowed to cross the line with their agendas. I don't see that it will do any harm to make sure there are rules that have to be followed. If the government and police aren't abusing this system there will be no problems for either side.
 @Jatok Except your asking a group to regulate itself, that never works. It has to have oversight from an outside independant source and the best source would be from the public.
@Blindman What you say is so true. Self regulation very seldom if ever works.
Since it's an invasion of privacy, time to take the dash cams out of the cop cars.
 @Common Sense You have an expectation of privacy in public?
@leftcenterright Nope but if we're going to whine and cry over a few cameras and toy helicopters might as well take them out of cop cars.
Perhaps you should be concerned about the âhockey pucksâ on the freeway that know where you are.  Possibly it should make us feel safer; I believe England has the most surveillance cameras. When I get gas at night, at a self service station, I always make sure Iâm in a camera spot.
Cameras are a violation of the 4th Amendment. Â Allowing constant breaches in your liberty for the sake of "security" is the complete loss of liberty....welcome to the police state.
Â
@Patriot1: Your understanding and mine regarding the 4th Amendment is at odds. The 4th Amendment says nothing about "liberty." It says that the government can't invade my privacy without a warrant. Walking down the street, driving on the freeway, or shopping at the mall is anything but private. What I do or have in my car, home, or on my person is. Cameras at this point in time do not invade that personal space. Having said that, yes, we do need to set down some rules so everyone knows what can and cannot be done.
 @usnrbb There are no expectations of privacy in public, but it's not unreasonable for us to expect that we are not under constant surveillance by our government every time we step foot outside our front doors. We should not feel as if people are watching our every move for a chance to fine or arrest us, especially considering the insane number of laws that even the lawmakers themselves are oblivious of. Keeping society safe is a great goal - but not at the expense of surveillance 24/7.
Uncle Sam is not your uncle. He is your brother. Big brother.
Who is, or who care what Doug Honig says about anything.
Why does the media give these talking heads so much air time.
Let the people decide with a vote, if you feel cameras and so called drones
with limitations make you feel more secure then "yes" if not the "no'.
Having the ACLU do my talking or thinking scares me more any street
corner camera or remote controlled helecopter.
Â
Â
 @gooddog You're under the assumption that we live in a democracy where we actually get to vote on things that matter to the public. We don't. Thats why there always have to be limitations to government by the governed.
"The Problem Solvers have uncovered documents on the city of Seattle's website, including a diagram that appears to break down how the system connects with a number of law enforcement agencies, and even SPD vehicles."
Â
Yes please publish those documents for the world to see so every terrorist wanting to infiltrate our coastline can get a blueprint to come in.
Â
The same thing happened in Mumbai. You think they won't try it here in gun free Seattle?
If you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about. Â If someone commits a crime, they are great tools for catching the criminal. Â If your car got stolen, or a friend or relative of yours got robbed or attacked, these cameras may record the act and help find the guilty person. Â Hard to deny a crime that you are clearly shown doing. They may help to cut the crime rate too. Â We can't afford enough police to keep people safe. Â The camera's are better than nothing.
 @Kristie Treibel This kind of thinking pisses me off. Apathetic to the point you'll let the government stick its nose into everything you do. You have NO idea how many laws you break on a daily basis, because the sheer number of them is asinine. So your assumption that you're doing nothing wrong is in fact flat out ignorant. I guarantee you that you ARE doing something wrong at some point during the day. You want cameras to be there every time you break some obscure law? You're already heading down a slippery slope with your apathy. Why not let the government have infrared cameras that see through walls? If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem, right? Why not let them put cameras in every room inside your home? If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem, right? You cannot be apathetic and let the government intrude into normal mundane and innocent activities like walking down the street without fear of surveillance cameras watching your every move, without opening the door to MORE surveillance.
WE NEED MORE CAMERAS LIKE THESE EVERY WHERE WHO CARE,S IF THEY SEE YOU WALKING DOWN THE STREET OR DOING ANYTHING ELESE YOU WOULD DO IN PUBLIC . SEATTLE,S TRASH WEED SMOKING ADDITUDE THAT YOUR BEING WATCH IS JUS PARINOID..
 @SUN_RUNNER Another oblivious ignorant apathetic person who has no clue what Pandora's box is all about.
I am glad the ACLU is so proactive in keeping the criminal element incarcerated and free of tawdry public surveillance.
I feel safer already. In fact, I have stolen Mayor M's sign from his front lawn that says, "This House Proudly Gun-free" and stuck it on my neighbor's lawn.
Its a shame that we can't trust our authority figures enough to allow these nice crime fighting tools. But I would rather deal with the criminals than have a camera on me all the time. People should pickup some paintball guns and shoot all these cameras they can find. The masters of the universe will waste more money cleaning the lenses that the system itself costs.
They should put the cameras in the police offices and allow only the publlc to control them. That would be a more useful application of these cameras.
We must also measure something like this on how it could be used against us. The Nazi`s in WW2 would have loved this technology as they had laws against assembly in public places. Today it could be used by thieves to see if homeowners have left their homes. Or by stalkers wanting to stalk someone.
Perhaps one day the government would want us to wear personal recording devices to ensure we were following all the laws. We must weigh the good with the bad.
@Mark 5: You have pointed out the very need for some basic ground rules regarding cameras, their usage, and archiving what they saw. We all want to keep as much of the good and get rid of as much of the bad as we possibly can.
 @Mark 5 just how would a thief be able to see inside your home unless you have a public feed? and why would government want us to record their mistakes? in some states it is against the law to film police officers even in your front yard. just check out you tube.
 @32jim2  @Mark 5 Not really illegal to video cops in public. Its just that a couple areas have passed unconstitutional laws that will take a few years to get repealed. If cops can video tape you in public then we can tape them in public.
as long as we citizens can use the cameras just like the traffic cams then i'm all for it. we are the government so we should be able to monitor the cameras also.
@32jim2 "We are the government"? You maybe, not me. I have to pay for all of my health care.
 @Nightshift  well we were the government until the politicians stopped listening to us. after all it is "We the People" not "We the politicians".
 @Nightshift i did write it first as "we own the government" but i figured someone wouldn't like that either, so i changed it to "we are the government"
Watch the Movie EyeBorgs on netflix. Â
 @OttoMobile I did! GREAT movie if not entirely realistic.
I do not have an issue with PRIVATE entities' security cameras keeping an eye on their PRIVATE property, but this is most Orwellian indeed. For about the second time in my entire life, I actually agree with the ACLU.
Sounds like guilty consciousness to me. Sorry folks our society is full of dirt bags.. get rid of them then the camera's.