Panopticon State: police access to private security cams

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113

Surveillance shift: San Francisco pilots program allowing police to live monitor private security cameras​

The trial would give law enforcement access to live footage by consenting residents, a departure from the city’s previous stance


Last week San Francisco city leaders approved a 15-month pilot allowing police to monitor live footage from surveillance cameras owned by consenting businesses and civilians without a warrant.

The 7-4 decision by the San Francisco board of supervisors was a major loss for a broad coalition of civil liberties groups that had argued the move would give police unprecedented surveillance powers. It also seemingly marked a departure from the progressive stance on surveillance the city’s leadership had previously maintained.

In May 2019, the board had made history by making the city the first to ban the use of facial recognition by any local government agency. At the time, supervisor Aaron Peskin said, the city had an “an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology”.


But more than three years, a pandemic and many protests against police injustice later, some members of the board now say they need to balance concerns for privacy with the need to allow law enforcement officials to “utilize certain technologies to make San Francisco safer”.

Privacy advocacy groups say the shift is part of a larger phenomenon in cities across the US, where fears of both perceived and real increases in crime have prompted police and elected officials to expand the use of surveillance technology, even if there isn’t always clear evidence those technologies are effective at deterring or solving crimes.

In Detroit, the city council is in the midst of a months-long back and forth on whether to expand its contract with gunshot detection company ShotSpotter. And the city of New Orleans this summer rolled back parts of its own pioneering facial recognition ban, allowing police to request the use of the controversial technology.

“People are being told there’s a rise in crime and maybe they’re experiencing some themselves and they want to see something being done about it,” Dave Maass, the director of investigations at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organization, said. “And for elected officials, throwing money at surveillance technology is an easy political thing to do.”

It’s a continuation of tech solutionism, Maass argued: “Vendors come in promising the world with these technologies without talking about the risks or threats and policymakers just swallow it without questioning it.”
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
The police have access to our ring.

guy-opening-door.gif
 

Pinehawk

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2003
20,966
16,180
113
This is the way policing progresses in the future. We’re well on our way. Constant surveillance by those in power. Facial recognition software. Eventually access to your digital data in the name of safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawk_82

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,746
20,215
113
The police have access to our ring.
If the video is stored, or if you haven't opted out of the Neighbors feature.

I opted out of the Neighbors feature, and delete my videos as quickly as possible. If I want to save them, I share them to my PC and then delete them from my Ring storage.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
So am I understanding correctly that some on here are opposed to people having the choice of providing the police access to their video cameras? If so, why?
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
Exactly. This is the effort of people who have something to hide. Pure. And. Simple.
“Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don’t care about freedom of the press because you don’t like to read. Or that you don’t care about freedom of religion because you don’t believe in God.” - Edward Snowden
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
“Ultimately, saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different from saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Or that you don’t care about freedom of the press because you don’t like to read. Or that you don’t care about freedom of religion because you don’t believe in God.” - Edward Snowden
LOL - leave it to you to quote a Russian. Can't make this shit up.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
im literally giving the police the same view they would have if they drove by my house.
LOL - that's my EXACT point. It's simply giving the police access to what can be viewed all the time.
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
LOL - leave it to you to quote a Russian. Can't make this shit up.
Leave it to you to still be duped by neocons into thinking Snowden wanted to be in Russia instead of learning he was deliberately trapped there so they could smear him in the minds of low information people like you.

Acquaint yourself with the facts, they are not in dispute:

 

Pinehawk

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2003
20,966
16,180
113
Don’t hijack the discussion of some people desiring an all seeing police state, with Edward Snowden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminole97

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
In Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle et al. v. Balt. Police Dept. et al, Baltimore community activists sued the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) over its use of several planes to conduct persistent, widescale photographic surveillance. The footage enabled BPD to track the movements of individuals and vehicles near the scenes of serious crimes such as homicides, shootings, armed robberies, and carjackings. An Ohio-based company, Persistent Surveillance Systems (PSS), was contracted to fly the airplanes. They used a “Hawkeye Wide Area Imaging System” that could capture approximately 32 square miles per image per second of surveillance. The cameras photographed approximately 90% of the city for approximately 12 hours a day, and the images were retained for 45 days.

PSS contractors analyzed the surveillance data seven days a week so PSS could report the tracks of vehicles and people at crime scenes, which show where they went to and came from as well as the tracks of the people with whom they met. The images were magnified so that each person or vehicle was visible, but represented only by a dot or blob on a map. Facial geometry, license plate numbers, and vehicle make and model were not visible. On account of public pressure and the opposition of the newly-elected mayor, the program was discontinued, but the Baltimore police retained 14% of the captured imagery data, or 265 hours of coverage, for use in 200 cases.

The BPD argued that the case against it was moot because the surveillance program had not been renewed, and most of the images from it had been disposed of. The Court rejected this argument, noting that 14% of the images had been retained, were being used in pending cases, and could be used in new cases.

The Court ruled that “because the AIR program enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements . . . accessing its data is a search, and its warrantless operation violates the Fourth Amendment.” The Court applied the Fourth Amendment even though the surveillance at issue was not continuous (it did not occur at nighttime or in bad weather), and even though the “dots on a map” collected in this program were not of identified persons at the time of collection. It noted that locations are “so unique and habitual” that even a few data points can be enough to identify an individual. As a result, particularly when combined with other data that PSS put at the fingertips of Baltimore police, such as license plate reader information, gunshot detection data, and the “CitiWatch camera network,” the information collected was individually identifiable. Indeed, such identification was a purpose of the program.
 

Pinehawk

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2003
20,966
16,180
113
The cell phone companies are the only thing preventing the government from knowing where you are at every minute. As well as everything else about you on your phone.

Couple bad laws written by idiots, with a Trump like figure leading the way, and we might be in a bad spot.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

B1GDeal

HR Heisman
Jan 21, 2005
7,573
8,932
113
What freedom is lost by this? What privacy is lost? Unless you are out in your yard or driveway doing something stupid there’s nothing to be seen. As mentioned it’s no different than the police doing a drive by. It’s not like someone is going to sit and watch your house… unless you are a drug house or unibomber or something. This simply allows police to later go look at video from an area at a certain date/time to see if a suspect drove by or to get a timeline or description.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
18,746
20,215
113
People have cameras in places that give a much different view than what could be seen by a person. one of my neighbors has cameras mounted high up to view another neighbor's yard and house, over the privacy fence. The offending neighbor is afraid the other neighbor's dogs will kill her cats.

There are youtubes and tik toks of similar neighbor disputes. One in particular has a camera pointed at a teenage girl's second floor window.
 

hawkland14

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Feb 26, 2013
7,784
7,988
113
What freedom is lost by this? What privacy is lost? Unless you are out in your yard or driveway doing something stupid there’s nothing to be seen. As mentioned it’s no different than the police doing a drive by. It’s not like someone is going to sit and watch your house… unless you are a drug house or unibomber or something. This simply allows police to later go look at video from an area at a certain date/time to see if a suspect drove by or to get a timeline or description.
Yikes.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
Leave it to you to still be duped by neocons into thinking Snowden wanted to be in Russia instead of learning he was deliberately trapped there so they could smear him in the minds of low information people like you.

Acquaint yourself with the facts, they are not in dispute:

Leave it to your ignorance to not know he was granted citizenship by Putin.

JFC
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
Can't answer I see. This issue comes up from the "muh freedom" crowd and lasts until there is a crime near them that can't be solved or prevented without cameras. The City of Dubuque developed an extensive system of cameras throughout the city and did not advertise it because they knew there would be kneejerk backlash. They let the system run and it helped law enforcement solve many crimes, including some very big ones. Once the public started learning of the success the requests came in to have cameras in their neighborhoods.

Cameras make us safer. If you're doing something around your home that you shouldn't be doing or that you're ashamed of, stop doing it rather than trying to get people to stop seeing it.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Pinehawk

hawkland14

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Feb 26, 2013
7,784
7,988
113
Can't answer I see. This issue comes up from the "muh freedom" crowd and lasts until there is a crime near them that can't be solved or prevented without cameras. The City of Dubuque developed an extensive system of cameras throughout the city and did not advertise it because they knew there would be kneejerk backlash. They let the system run and it helped law enforcement solve many crimes, including some very big ones. Once the public started learning of the success the requests came in to have cameras in their neighborhoods.

Cameras make us safer. If you're doing something around your home that you shouldn't be doing or that you're ashamed of, stop doing it rather than trying to get people to stop seeing it.
When did leftists become so anti civil liberties? This reads like a Bush Republican from 2002 as the Patriot Act was in full force. It is so odd that people are willing to give up their protections that are guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
When did leftists become so anti civil liberties? This reads like a Bush Republican from 2002 as the Patriot Act was in full force. It is so odd that people are willing to give up their protections that are guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.
LOL - not a leftist and there is nothing that is anti civil liberty about this. That's just another bogus message from the far right propaganda that rubes like you lap up.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
LOL - not a leftist and there is nothing that is anti civil liberty about this. That's just another bogus message from the far right propaganda that rubes like you lap up.
Yes, the ACLU is a ‘far right’ organization peddling propaganda.
Very erudite observation.
What more needs to be said about the issue if we can just label the opposition and avoid discussion?
 

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
12,047
19,792
113
LOL - not a leftist and there is nothing that is anti civil liberty about this. That's just another bogus message from the far right propaganda that rubes like you lap up.
In general, it's not a right to privacy issue for the neighbors if its a tradition Ring camera at the front door or security camera pointing out to the street. The neighbor does not have a right to privacy in the front yard, walking the street, or doing something in public. The issue becomes when a the police believe that your neighbor is doing something illegal--but does not have cause to obtain a search warrant--so they ask if you can mount a camera in a position where its recording happenings in the backyard or through a bedroom window.....then the government if violating the 4th Amendment
 

seminole97

HR Legend
Jun 14, 2005
19,490
19,923
113
In general, it's not a right to privacy issue for the neighbors if its a tradition Ring camera at the front door or security camera pointing out to the street.
The courts have thus far had the sense to look at the bigger picture and recognize it’s that brand and then this brand and the other combined creating a panopticon for warrantless surveillance.

I’m sure the people posting here get a warm and fuzzy feeling when a cop pulls up behind them on the road. I’d bet they think to themselves, ‘whew, now I’m cloaked in the protective gaze of the law for the rest of my journey. This is awesome! I wish my whole life felt like this moment.’
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
LOL. You're about as leftist as they come.
Nope. Before Trump I voted for more republican candidates than Democrat. You and your brethren have gone so far right it just looks that way to you. It's because you're a rube who has fallen for the propaganda.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pinehawk

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
In general, it's not a right to privacy issue for the neighbors if its a tradition Ring camera at the front door or security camera pointing out to the street. The neighbor does not have a right to privacy in the front yard, walking the street, or doing something in public. The issue becomes when a the police believe that your neighbor is doing something illegal--but does not have cause to obtain a search warrant--so they ask if you can mount a camera in a position where its recording happenings in the backyard or through a bedroom window.....then the government if violating the 4th Amendment
But that's not what this is talking about. That is a completely different situation.
 

RileyHawk

HR Legend
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2002
37,203
22,896
113
The courts have thus far had the sense to look at the bigger picture and recognize it’s that brand and then this brand and the other combined creating a panopticon for warrantless surveillance.

I’m sure the people posting here get a warm and fuzzy feeling when a cop pulls up behind them on the road. I’d bet they think to themselves, ‘whew, now I’m cloaked in the protective gaze of the law for the rest of my journey. This is awesome! I wish my whole life felt like this moment.’
More word salad nonsense from you. This is about using cameras that people are using for their own security. It's entirely within their right to share that with anyone they want. Just something else that the party of small government wants to control for people.