Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Help Oppose More Government Surveillance in San Francisco -Hearing Wednesday 1/17
The San Francisco Police Commission is reconsidering the placement of 25 new surveillance cameras in 8 locations throughout San Francisco. Study after study shows that cameras DO NOT reduce crime - they just move crime from one corner to another. Cameras also threaten privacy and free speech rights. Join the ACLU of Northern California, the Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, La Raza Centro Legal, and many others to oppose the installation of more cameras at the police commission hearing on Wednesday, January 17th @ 5:30 PM at SF City Hall, Room 400.
Over a year ago, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice began a video surveillance program with two cameras. That program has now been expanded to over 30 cameras in locations throughout the City with plans for an additional 25 cameras in eight locations. The Mayor’s office has indicated that it plans to seek funding for even more cameras, possibly through grants from the Department of Homeland Security. While originally billed as a pilot program, the program has been rapidly expanded and the City has yet to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the existing cameras.
Video surveillance poses a significant threat to privacy and free speech by allowing the government to track what you are doing and where you are going. Surveillance cameras also impact free speech by chilling protected political and religious expression. The prospect of government surveillance may deter individuals expressing unpopular views from attending demonstrations and speaking out on controversial issues. One of the proposed camera locations is at the corner of 16th and Mission – the site of numerous political rallies including those against recent federal attempts at immigration restrictions. Placement of video cameras may deter similar demonstrations in the future.
Cameras also threaten our right to privacy because camera footage is considered a government record. The California Public Records Act provides for public access to government records, subject to some limited exceptions, none of which apply to records generated by video surveillance cameras in public spaces. This allows the public to access the recordings and has profound implications for privacy.
While such information may appear benign, people could potentially request the information for a whole host of invasive reasons. An untrusting husband or wife wanting to see if their spouse was entering or exiting a home or business that happened to be in range of a camera. An opposing political group that wants to identify members of the opposition who happened to have a rally within eyeshot of the cameras. A candidate for the Board of Supervisors or Mayor who wants to see who is going in and out of a political opponent’s home or office. Privacy rights – even for those engaging in political expressive activity – quickly evaporate under such a system.
Although camera advocates claim that cameras will reduce crime, study after study shows just the opposite. Cameras do not significantly impact the crime rate – especially not violent crime in city centers. The most comprehensive studies have been done in Britain where there are over 4 million cameras and the average person is caught on camera over 300 times a day. There, a comprehensive study of 13 jurisdictions showed that cameras were ineffective in reducing crime or fear of crime.
In the United States, several jurisdictions have used video surveillance cameras, only to be disappointed when crime did not decline. In Maryland, for example, a spokesperson for the State Attorney’s Office told reporters for the Washington Times, that the office has not “found them to be a useful tool to prosecutors...they’re good for circumstantial evidence, but it definitely isn’t evidence we find useful to convict somebody of a crime...We have not used any footage to resolve a violent-crime case.”
One effect that has been demonstrated by some of the camera studies is displacement of crime from one community to surrounding areas. Individuals engaging in criminal behavior may just move to the next corner or a side street, making those areas more dangerous.
Additionally, video surveillance funding takes away money from more effective programs such as improved lighting, foot patrols, and other community policing measures. Improved lighting alone has been shown to reduce crime on average by 20%, including violent crime. Increased foot patrols have achieved similar results.
Please join the San Francisco Bay Guardian, La Raza Centro Legal, the ACLU, Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, National Lawyers Guild, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Idriss Stelley Foundation in opposing the placement of more surveillance cameras in San Francisco.
VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION IN PERSON!
ATTEND THE S.F. POLICE COMMISSION MEETING
SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 400
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17TH @ 5:30 PM
For more information, please call the ACLU of Northern California at 415-621-2493 or visit the ACLU's video surveillance page
DOWNLOAD AND CIRCULATE THE PETITION! Help gather signatures to show the Commission that the community opposes the increased use of surveillance cameras.
Video surveillance poses a significant threat to privacy and free speech by allowing the government to track what you are doing and where you are going. Surveillance cameras also impact free speech by chilling protected political and religious expression. The prospect of government surveillance may deter individuals expressing unpopular views from attending demonstrations and speaking out on controversial issues. One of the proposed camera locations is at the corner of 16th and Mission – the site of numerous political rallies including those against recent federal attempts at immigration restrictions. Placement of video cameras may deter similar demonstrations in the future.
Cameras also threaten our right to privacy because camera footage is considered a government record. The California Public Records Act provides for public access to government records, subject to some limited exceptions, none of which apply to records generated by video surveillance cameras in public spaces. This allows the public to access the recordings and has profound implications for privacy.
While such information may appear benign, people could potentially request the information for a whole host of invasive reasons. An untrusting husband or wife wanting to see if their spouse was entering or exiting a home or business that happened to be in range of a camera. An opposing political group that wants to identify members of the opposition who happened to have a rally within eyeshot of the cameras. A candidate for the Board of Supervisors or Mayor who wants to see who is going in and out of a political opponent’s home or office. Privacy rights – even for those engaging in political expressive activity – quickly evaporate under such a system.
Although camera advocates claim that cameras will reduce crime, study after study shows just the opposite. Cameras do not significantly impact the crime rate – especially not violent crime in city centers. The most comprehensive studies have been done in Britain where there are over 4 million cameras and the average person is caught on camera over 300 times a day. There, a comprehensive study of 13 jurisdictions showed that cameras were ineffective in reducing crime or fear of crime.
In the United States, several jurisdictions have used video surveillance cameras, only to be disappointed when crime did not decline. In Maryland, for example, a spokesperson for the State Attorney’s Office told reporters for the Washington Times, that the office has not “found them to be a useful tool to prosecutors...they’re good for circumstantial evidence, but it definitely isn’t evidence we find useful to convict somebody of a crime...We have not used any footage to resolve a violent-crime case.”
One effect that has been demonstrated by some of the camera studies is displacement of crime from one community to surrounding areas. Individuals engaging in criminal behavior may just move to the next corner or a side street, making those areas more dangerous.
Additionally, video surveillance funding takes away money from more effective programs such as improved lighting, foot patrols, and other community policing measures. Improved lighting alone has been shown to reduce crime on average by 20%, including violent crime. Increased foot patrols have achieved similar results.
Please join the San Francisco Bay Guardian, La Raza Centro Legal, the ACLU, Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, National Lawyers Guild, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Idriss Stelley Foundation in opposing the placement of more surveillance cameras in San Francisco.
VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION IN PERSON!
ATTEND THE S.F. POLICE COMMISSION MEETING
SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL, ROOM 400
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17TH @ 5:30 PM
For more information, please call the ACLU of Northern California at 415-621-2493 or visit the ACLU's video surveillance page
DOWNLOAD AND CIRCULATE THE PETITION! Help gather signatures to show the Commission that the community opposes the increased use of surveillance cameras.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is a very important issue as this is a harbinger for a much larger, more powerful police state apparatus. Think Orwell's "1984" people. That's how bad it can be unless you protest and stop this in the early stages. The Federal and State governments are slowly beginning to introduce these Big Brother tactics hoping you don't notice, and they sell it to the general public as a crime fighting measures, but in reality there is something much more sinister about these programs as it does infringe on your privacy rights as well potentially worse implications. Notice how more and more of these are popping up around town. They are putting them all over traffic lights.
Hopefully people will show up in large numbers to say "no" to these civil liberties squashing, pro police state measures. Stop Big Brother in his tracks. Come to this meeting.
Hopefully people will show up in large numbers to say "no" to these civil liberties squashing, pro police state measures. Stop Big Brother in his tracks. Come to this meeting.
time to form a Surveillance Camera Players group?
For more information:
http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html
This message comes from from an e-mail security expert Bruce Schneier sent out today:
Surveillance Cameras Catch a Cold-Blooded Killer
I'm in the middle of writing a long essay on the psychology of security. One of the things I'm writing about is the "availability heuristic," which basically says that the human brain tends to assess the frequency of a class of events based on how easy it is to bring an instance of that class to mind. It explains why people tend to be afraid of the risks that are discussed in the media, or why people are afraid to fly but not afraid to drive.
One of the effects of this heuristic is that people are more persuaded by a vivid example than they are by statistics. The latter might be more useful, but the former is easier to remember.
That's the context in which I want you to read the very gripping story about a cold-blooded killer caught by city-wide surveillance cameras.
"Federal agents showed Peterman the recordings from that morning. One camera captured McDermott, 48, getting off the bus. A man wearing a light jacket and dark pants got off the same bus, and followed a few steps behind her.
"Another camera caught them as they rounded the corner. McDermott didn't seem to notice the man following her. Halfway down the block, the man suddenly raised his arm and shot her once in the back of the head.
"'I've seen shootings incidents on video before, ' Peterman said, 'but the suddenness, and that he did it for no reason at all, was really scary.'"
I can write essay after essay about the inefficacy of security cameras. I can talk about trade-offs, and the better ways to spend the money. I can cite statistics and experts and whatever I want. But -- used correctly -- stories like this one will do more to move public opinion than anything I can do.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2755037
Surveillance Cameras Catch a Cold-Blooded Killer
I'm in the middle of writing a long essay on the psychology of security. One of the things I'm writing about is the "availability heuristic," which basically says that the human brain tends to assess the frequency of a class of events based on how easy it is to bring an instance of that class to mind. It explains why people tend to be afraid of the risks that are discussed in the media, or why people are afraid to fly but not afraid to drive.
One of the effects of this heuristic is that people are more persuaded by a vivid example than they are by statistics. The latter might be more useful, but the former is easier to remember.
That's the context in which I want you to read the very gripping story about a cold-blooded killer caught by city-wide surveillance cameras.
"Federal agents showed Peterman the recordings from that morning. One camera captured McDermott, 48, getting off the bus. A man wearing a light jacket and dark pants got off the same bus, and followed a few steps behind her.
"Another camera caught them as they rounded the corner. McDermott didn't seem to notice the man following her. Halfway down the block, the man suddenly raised his arm and shot her once in the back of the head.
"'I've seen shootings incidents on video before, ' Peterman said, 'but the suddenness, and that he did it for no reason at all, was really scary.'"
I can write essay after essay about the inefficacy of security cameras. I can talk about trade-offs, and the better ways to spend the money. I can cite statistics and experts and whatever I want. But -- used correctly -- stories like this one will do more to move public opinion than anything I can do.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2755037
For more information:
http://www.schneier.com/index.html
As the City faces a growing crime problem, the Mayor’s Office and the Police Department want to install security cameras at nine major “high-crime” intersections in San Francisco to monitor “suspicious” activity. With a federal government that is increasingly hostile to our basic civil liberties in the post 9/11 era, it’s easy to see why many would find the idea of police-run security cameras offensive. But if you live near these areas – and have had enough of the escalating homicides, robberies and vandalism – it’s a totally different story. “Normally I agree with the ACLU,” said a resident of the Aranda Hotel on Turk Street, “but I suggest they try living in my neighborhood.” Meanwhile, safety advocates question if these security cameras would really deter crime and make us safe – while civil liberties champions question if a darker agenda is at hand.
In the Tenderloin, there have been 233 reported incidents of criminal activity in the past year within 100 feet of Ellis and Jones Streets. There have also been 307 reported incidents within 100 feet of Turk and Taylor. Both of these intersections have been slated to have security cameras installed, and it appears from public testimony that most residents support the idea. “The cameras are needed because they might capture clear evidence of shootings, rapes and robberies,” said Tenderloin resident George Dias. “Frequently, eyewitnesses are too frightened to testify against violent gangsters, because they have to live in the neighborhood with them if the prosecution is not successful.”
But many of these residents will support just about anything at this point that will help fight crime, whether or not its effectiveness has been tested. Many of these same people support police foot patrols and better street lighting -- proposals that have a stronger track record of deterring crime. Security cameras, on the other hand, have not been proven to prevent crime: studies in the United Kingdom, for example (where cameras are used extensively) have not shown a decrease in crime as a result of their proliferation. Any noticeable decrease in crime has been statistically insignificant, and “all changes might be attributed to chance” rather than the presence of cameras.
But even if there’s no evidence that they prevent crime, neighborhood residents support them because they feel that it would help the police solve crimes. It’s a somewhat cynical argument – one that has resigned itself to the fact that criminal activity will happen no matter what, and that we just need to punish those who do it. “There is very little evidence that these cameras work to reduce crime,” wrote Dias in an op-ed in the Chronicle this week, “but it’s worth a try.” Or as Police Commissioner Joe Marshall described it, the cameras are like a “placebo” – the mere existence of the cameras (whether or not they work) makes them feel safer.
More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4094#more
In the Tenderloin, there have been 233 reported incidents of criminal activity in the past year within 100 feet of Ellis and Jones Streets. There have also been 307 reported incidents within 100 feet of Turk and Taylor. Both of these intersections have been slated to have security cameras installed, and it appears from public testimony that most residents support the idea. “The cameras are needed because they might capture clear evidence of shootings, rapes and robberies,” said Tenderloin resident George Dias. “Frequently, eyewitnesses are too frightened to testify against violent gangsters, because they have to live in the neighborhood with them if the prosecution is not successful.”
But many of these residents will support just about anything at this point that will help fight crime, whether or not its effectiveness has been tested. Many of these same people support police foot patrols and better street lighting -- proposals that have a stronger track record of deterring crime. Security cameras, on the other hand, have not been proven to prevent crime: studies in the United Kingdom, for example (where cameras are used extensively) have not shown a decrease in crime as a result of their proliferation. Any noticeable decrease in crime has been statistically insignificant, and “all changes might be attributed to chance” rather than the presence of cameras.
But even if there’s no evidence that they prevent crime, neighborhood residents support them because they feel that it would help the police solve crimes. It’s a somewhat cynical argument – one that has resigned itself to the fact that criminal activity will happen no matter what, and that we just need to punish those who do it. “There is very little evidence that these cameras work to reduce crime,” wrote Dias in an op-ed in the Chronicle this week, “but it’s worth a try.” Or as Police Commissioner Joe Marshall described it, the cameras are like a “placebo” – the mere existence of the cameras (whether or not they work) makes them feel safer.
More
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4094#more
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network