Feeds

San Francisco expands public surveillance

Public smackdown over civil liberties

Internet Security Threat Report 2014

In a controversial decision that pits civil libertarians against urban dwellers fed up with crime, San Francisco officials have agreed to almost double the number of surveillance cameras on city streets.

Following four hours of heated debate, the San Francisco Police Commission voted 5-0 in favor of adding 25 new cameras in eight locations throughout the city's roughly 50 square miles. Currently there are 33 cameras in 14 sites.

Wednesday night's debate, which included about 100 speakers, is playing out in cities across the US, as technological advances make it easier to monitor everyday people coming and going in public. While surveillance is a fact of life in countries such as the UK, it runs counter to the sensibilities across the pond, where a fierce expectation of privacy has been a part of the national psyche for 200 years.

"What's going to stop the government from adding more and more cameras until they're in our homes, they're in our back yards, they're in our basements and they proliferate just as they were in the novel 1984 where tyrannical government reigns supreme?" one San Francisco resident asked the commission.

Plenty of people spoke in favor of the cameras, however. One resident, who lives at an intersection where cameras are planned, said a recent shooting near her home remains unsolved. "If we would have had the camera, at least we would have seen who was running away," she said.

Several civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, argue there is no evidence that cameras deter crime. They pointed to statistics that showed an increase in illegal incidents at half of the locations where monitoring has been implemented. They also contend that such programs are open to abuse by crooked law enforcement members.

In approving the expansion, commissioners said they wanted police officials to explore ways to turn cameras off during political demonstrations. They also pushed for a policy that would see video destroyed rather than simply stopping the maintenance of it.

Under a city ordinance that approved the cameras, footage may not be maintained for more than 14 days. An internal police policy originally called for video to be stored for 72 hours, but this was changed to seven days. Opponents say the video could be obtained by citizens opposed to US immigration laws and protesters under California's open records act. ®

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk

More from The Register

next story
WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
Tabloid splashes, MP resigns - but there's a BIG copyright issue here
Spies, avert eyes! Tim Berners-Lee demands a UK digital bill of rights
Lobbies tetchy MPs 'to end indiscriminate online surveillance'
How the FLAC do I tell MP3s from lossless audio?
Can you hear the difference? Can anyone?
Google hits back at 'Dear Rupert' over search dominance claims
Choc Factory sniffs: 'We're not pirate-lovers - also, you publish The Sun'
While you queued for an iPhone 6, Apple's Cook sold shares worth $35m
Right before the stock took a 3.8% dive amid bent and broken mobe drama
Inequality increasing? BOLLOCKS! You heard me: 'Screw the 1%'
There's morality and then there's economics ...
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Intelligent flash storage arrays
Tegile Intelligent Storage Arrays with IntelliFlash helps IT boost storage utilization and effciency while delivering unmatched storage savings and performance.
Beginner's guide to SSL certificates
De-mystify the technology involved and give you the information you need to make the best decision when considering your online security options.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops
Balancing user privacy and privileged access, in accordance with compliance frameworks and legislation. Evaluating any potential remote control choice.