Cameras at Cal Anderson
Forum » Crime / News and announcements » Cameras at Cal Anderson
Started by: CharletteCharlette
On: 1209855319|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Number of posts: 4
rss icon RSS: New posts
Summary:
Safety or Violation of Privacy? What are your thoughts?
Unfold All | Fold All | +More options
Fold
Cameras at Cal Anderson
CharletteCharlette 1209855319|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Mayor Greg Nickels despite the Seattle City Council's objections installed three video surveillance cameras installed at Cal Anderson Park.
I don't believe the Capitol Hill Community ever got a say in any of this.
Is there a violation of privacy involved?
From Capitol Hill Times:
…."It's not solving the crime problem in any sense," said Doug Honig, communications director for the Washington state American Civil Liberties Union. He said if anything video cameras move crime rather than reduce it. ..The problem with video cameras is that they record the innocent activities of citizens," Honig said. "When people are out in public, they should have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Reply  |  Options
Unfold Cameras at Cal Anderson by CharletteCharlette, 1209855319|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Fold
Re: Cameras at Cal Anderson
daniel_rizzutodaniel_rizzuto 1209864462|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

I'm a bit confused. Did you just say that you expect privacy when you are out in public? Is that not a contradiction?

Reply  |  Options
Unfold Re: Cameras at Cal Anderson by daniel_rizzutodaniel_rizzuto, 1209864462|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Fold
Re: Cameras at Cal Anderson
CharletteCharlette 1209875442|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

Yes, residents should expect a level of privacy in public parks. I agree with the ACLU and
will repost what the ACLU of Washington said:

"The ACLU of Washington opposes installation of video surveillance cameras in our city park for three reasons:

1) People living in a free society have the reasonable expectation that they can be present in public spaces without the fear of government surveillance or tracking.

2) Video cameras are not discrete: they constantly record the innocent, lawful activities of people enjoying our public spaces along with the few illegal acts of the smallnumber of individuals who commit crimes in view of the cameras.

3) Research has shown that video surveillance does not stop or deter crime and is awaste of resources that could be spent on more effective alternatives that reducecrime and protect our privacy, such as community policing.Additionally, the current proposal fails to ensure that the privacy of innocent park users willbe protected if the cameras are installed. The proposal lacks accountability, fails to preventthe misuse of recorded images, and does not provide for an independent third partyevaluation of the effectiveness of the project in reducing crime.

1) Ensure Accountability - Watch the WatchersVideo cameras can be misused by the operators to monitor specific classes of people such asyoung people, people of color or pretty woman. The City must require clear guidelinesgoverning access to the archived video footage such as requiring a court order or warrantprior to viewing. The City must also require a reliable mechanism for monitoring andauditing who accesses the cameras in real time, who accesses the recorded and stored video images and to ensure that such access is lawful and not abused.
- April 22, 2008
To:Members of the Seattle City Council Parks and Seattle Center Committee
Fr:Jennifer Shaw, Legislative Director, ACLU of Washington
Re:Video Surveillance Cameras in City Parks: Council Bill Number 116188

Reply  |  Options
Unfold Re: Cameras at Cal Anderson by CharletteCharlette, 1209875442|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Fold
ACLU Opposes Proposal for Surveillance Cameras in Parks
CharletteCharlette 1212689364|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover

This issue is on the front page of the ACLU Washington's web site.

According to the ACLU the recent guidelines voted in by the Seattle City Council states the community should have a 30 day comment period before cameras are installed.
Obviously Cal Anderson park is grandfathered in but I believe the community should have a say.

If you don't mind the cameras installed, by default you don't have to do anything.
If you do mind, recommend you check out the ACLU's site which has drafted a citizens letter to send to the council.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/
Either way, this is an effective way of getting your voice heard.

ACLU Opposes Proposal for Surveillance Cameras in Parks
"Installation of police surveillance cameras would put the activities of law-abiding park users under the watchful eye of government and would not deter crime. A proposed Seattle ordinance lacks safeguards against misuse.
The police surveillance cameras will record people’s lawful activities in Seattle city parks, including attendance at political rallies and Pride events, and associating with friends. People are less free to act, speak, and associate with others when their activities are under the watchful eyes of the government.
Instead of spending valuable city resources on cameras, the city should focus on more effective alternatives that reduce crime and don’t intrude on our privacy, such as community policing and better lighting in parks.
… We need lights, not cameras - read our Technology & Liberty Blog. Take action! Email the Seattle City Council now."

Will the cameras deter park attendance? For some they already have.
Despite the safety guidelines and assurances we all know there is room for abuse.
Capitol Hill and Cal Anderson park should not be used as guinea pigs for cameras that violate civil liberties and at the very least the community should have had a say.

Reply  |  Options
Unfold ACLU Opposes Proposal for Surveillance Cameras in Parks by CharletteCharlette, 1212689364|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
New Post
page_revision: 19, last_edited: 1245817966|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z (%O ago)
EditRate (0)TagsDiscuss History Files Print Site tools+ Options
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License