The Sacramento County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is raising concerns that the city’s plans to use surveillance cameras in public locations would intimidate participants in peaceful protests and create potential for racial profiling. On Tuesday, the City Council will decide whether to approve a $615,000 in federal grant that would be used to install security cameras and related equipment at various sites in the city. The Sacramento County ACLU chapter has fought with the cit... KathleenHaley thsas comment-14844 2009-10-02T20:58:52Z 2009-10-02T20:58:52Z Yes, because that might teach you that it is perfectly legal to photograph people in public places without consent. ( There are exceptions, though. If subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy, don't photograph them. For example, don't photograph someone in a restroom or locker room). . thsas 2009-10-02T20:58:52Z Davi Rodrigues comment-14736 2009-10-01T00:28:17Z 2009-10-01T00:28:17Z Well, maybe you two can enlighten me. Where can I obtain this technology? Davi Rodrigues 2009-10-01T00:28:17Z Mark comment-14733 2009-09-30T23:15:19Z 2009-09-30T23:15:19Z I'm torn on this issue. I'm never keen on anything that will take away a person's right to privacy. On the other hand, as a small business owner I've had to deal with constant vandalism which cost me money, time and energy. No one seems too upset about my my rights being violated. Do I not have the right to live in a safe, clean attractive, environment and to not have people break my windows, tear out my plants, throw garbage around? Unfortuntely, our modern American culture encourages such anti-social behavior. I hate the idea of cameras..BUT... since Americans can't seem to control themselves what choice do we have? Mark 2009-09-30T23:15:19Z bbbbmer comment-14699 2009-09-30T13:49:06Z 2009-09-30T13:49:06Z Maybe if cameras had been present at St. Hope, we would have found out the truth about the child sexual abuse allegations against Kevin Johnson, and what went on behind the scenes during the eight days it took to finally report the allegations to the Sac PD, which continues to cooperatively deny that any mishandling took place... bbbbmer 2009-09-30T13:49:06Z dteunion comment-14697 2009-09-30T12:45:56Z 2009-09-30T12:45:56Z Wake up! dteunion 2009-09-30T12:45:56Z Marion Millin comment-14689 2009-09-30T02:03:48Z 2009-09-30T02:03:48Z Kathleen, thanks for your good coverage of an important story and for including the link to more info. Marion Millin 2009-09-30T02:03:48Z Kathleen Haley comment-14687 2009-09-30T00:52:33Z 2009-09-30T00:52:33Z Hi Pinelli, The upside-down photo is my mistake--it's not an editorial comment. We're not able to fix it for this story. I appreciate the feedback from you and all others who commented on this story. Cheers, Kathleen Kathleen Haley 2009-09-30T00:52:33Z Marion Millin comment-14685 2009-09-30T00:39:02Z 2009-09-30T00:39:02Z This is why they don't teach civics in school any more. Marion Millin 2009-09-30T00:39:02Z jmrewers comment-14676 2009-09-29T22:58:18Z 2009-09-29T22:58:18Z Perhaps the City Council should take a look at this study (done is SF) before making their determination on surveillance cameras: http://groups.ischool.berkeley.edu/samuelsonclinic/files/CITRIS%20SF%20CSC%20Study%20Final%20Dec%202008.pdf This study concluded that while the program decreased property crime within the view of the cameras by twenty percent, other forms of crime, including violent crime, one of the primary targets of the program, were not affected. It also specified the many costs associated with this camera program. jmrewers 2009-09-29T22:58:18Z thsas comment-14674 2009-09-29T22:39:01Z 2009-09-29T22:39:01Z Barney, hopefully you will allow me to have a differing opinion? I have nothing to hide. My life is not so special that it needs camoflage. I wish a cop was parked in front of my house. thsas 2009-09-29T22:39:01Z billl4 comment-14671 2009-09-29T22:08:25Z 2009-09-29T22:08:25Z Great post Bill A. Lots of questions that need to be answered. Just another reason why the city should have public hearings on important issues like this. With the immense financial constraints on our city right now, the question of how we are going to afford this needs to be answered. I'd also like to know how they are going to keep this equipment from being stolen. I believe that SMUD put up a bunch of cameras and they ended up being stolen. The irony... billl4 2009-09-29T22:08:25Z Bill Albertson comment-14666 2009-09-29T21:29:34Z 2009-09-29T21:29:34Z Well, it is interesting that Leong was willing to lie to the ACLU about the usage of the cameras. The federal grant states how the cameras will be used- failing to do so will get the feds asking for their money back once the cameras are installed. Second, Leong obviously knows nothing about surv. camera work, because citing shop cameras as an example of success is apples and oranges compared to the kind of system needs required for a wide ranging CCTV surveillance system. Third, Leong clearly has no idea what kind of expense is going to be incurred in storing all of that data long term- its not just the storage, its maintaining legacy systems to access that data as formats change (or data migration costs to migrate to new storage and access systems, it is REALLY expensive). That is just from my initial perusal of the docs referenced here, and my experience putting together CCTV security surv. proposals and co-writing the I.T. design portion of a CCTV trailer patent proposal. The city already has a lousy track record with camera installations. I remember the cameras they put up over K Street, and how anybody was able to access them from the internet. Also, those cameras were utterly useless for collecting criminal conviction data due to lossy image quality and lack of autoadjustment features to compensate for lighting and climate conditions. Several issues arise in using surveillance cameras for gathering crime data, and all of those issues involve spending lots of money. First is the issue of image quality in uncontrolled environments- cameras with that kind of resolution and reliability are very expensive, and that is still no guarantee that you will get a good enough image quality to be useful in court. Second, data retention becomes another issue, as all data collected is public records information and usually needs to be kept for, what, 20 years or more? Think about not just the disk space that will require, but also the expense of maintaining backups in a climate controlled storage facility, and migration of media when new storage and access methods become preferred (see data rot). Third, there is the matter of software which needs to have some automated features for this tool to be useful in any real sense. Applications like this are often heavily customized and require support contracts with the vendors which are also costly. Fourth, there is the training and retention of quality staff who are going to specialize in monitoring and responding to suspicious activity- they will have to be sworn officers (court cases regarding speed cameras already have set this precedent) which will be another expense that I don't think the city wants to pay for. My biggest concern is that the City govt will cheap out on maintenance for this purchase, and then drop the issue once expenses start snowballing, but still have to maintain and make available all the data they have captured up to that point (which would be an endless money pit). However, if they are making an intelligent commitment to this, then I would like to see the budget estimates on per incident cost for retrieving data on a year by year basis over a period of 0 to 20 years from the date of the incident. If they don't have that, then they have no clue what they are doing. Bill Albertson 2009-09-29T21:29:34Z barney comment-14664 2009-09-29T20:57:46Z 2009-09-29T20:57:46Z @ thsas: this kind of shortsightedness is exactly what politicians are made of. barney 2009-09-29T20:57:46Z barney comment-14660 2009-09-29T19:02:17Z 2009-09-29T19:02:17Z "Leong said he did not think the department has made a decision yet on sharing footage with other agencies." That's worth reading twice. In 10-20 years it won't make any difference whether it is corporations or the government that collects data about you. The data will be collected. Moving the info around will be a matter of paperwork. Unless there are laws in place preventing the state and corporations from combining certain kinds of data, then corporate data and government data will form a cohesive whole. What's scary about that you ask? Long after the current leaders are gone, the cameras remain, but our laws are subject to change. The real question in this situations is: what would Karl Rove do? It's how the data is USED that really matters. I, for one support the ACLU in this matter. I'm not against safety, I'm against unchecked power combined with limitless access to data. barney 2009-09-29T19:02:17Z Marion Millin comment-14659 2009-09-29T18:33:56Z 2009-09-29T18:33:56Z "....no technology exists at present that would enable a camera to determine a persons race, let alone pick them out of a crowd and focus on them primarily." Yes, it does. Marion Millin 2009-09-29T18:33:56Z thsas comment-14656 2009-09-29T22:36:09Z 2009-09-29T22:36:09Z I see it as an effort to help protect my civil rights. thsas 2009-09-29T22:36:09Z Davi Rodrigues comment-14654 2009-09-29T16:13:57Z 2009-09-29T16:13:57Z How in the hell does a camera racially profile? It's not a thinking person, and that I'm aware of, and no technology exists at present that would enable a camera to determine a persons race, let alone pick them out of a crowd and focus on them primarily. The issue of a camera inhibiting people from free speech is really ridiculous. If anything, it would add a layer of protection for the first amendment practitioners. The greatest dangers that I've encountered during my exercises of my first amendment rights has been from citizen and non citizens who attempt to prevent or inhibit it, including violent acts. I'd feel more comfortable knowing there'd be a record of people either being respectful of my rights, or not. Our forefathers faced guns, the threat of hanging, and siezure of their property in exercising their right to assemble, and some here are worried about being observed during that? I've got a solution to your fears. Don't go out in public if you're concerned that people might observe you and your activities. But me; I'm proud of what I do, and welcome the observation. Davi Rodrigues 2009-09-29T16:13:57Z Ron Andre comment-14650 2009-09-29T15:36:52Z 2009-09-29T15:36:52Z So... Are we to believe that racial profling doesnt exist already here?? Ron Andre 2009-09-29T15:36:52Z Pinelli comment-14646 2009-09-29T15:06:57Z 2009-09-29T15:06:57Z Cool! More money for programs requiring very few actual jobs for people!! Just what we need! If I walk around naked maybe the local police will be able to find something interesting to surveil! ps I love the fact that your picture of the sign is upside-down--a true statement on the priorities of this community. Pinelli 2009-09-29T15:06:57Z Marion Millin comment-14642 2009-09-29T06:19:58Z 2009-09-29T06:19:58Z Kevin Johnson:“I fought for the money and got it,” he said in a Monday press release. “Public safety is a top priority for my administration, and I will use every tool to help reduce crime in our city." Civil Rights, not so much. Marion Millin 2009-09-29T06:19:58Z