Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "aclu"

TSA adds full-body scanners to new terminal

2011-10-29T01:11:16Z

Sacramento International Airport received the first wave of advanced imaging technology scanners – commonly called full-body scanners – after the opening of Terminal B earlier this month, and the rest should be installed by the end of November.

The scanners, which each cost between $150,000 and $170,000 and are paid for by the Transportation Security Administration and are designed to detect both metallic and nonmetallic threats to security, namely explosives, according to TSA spokesman Nico Melendez.

“The walk-through metal detectors do a great job finding metallic items, but they aren’t as effective at finding explosives,” Melendez said. “The threat as we know it is definitely explosives.”

The new scanners use radiation to take a picture of a passenger, and according to the TSA, the radiation used on the scanners is significantly less than a cellphone transmission.

Passengers going through security checkpoints must stand with their arms raised while the scanner takes an image of them, which is then displayed as a generic outline of a person. If the scanner picks up any “anomalies” on the person, a yellow box appears over that spot on the image.

Those anomalies can be anything from a cellphone in a pocket to a bomb made of plastic explosives – which might not trigger a traditional metal detector.

The detailed image of a person’s body is automatically processed by a computer in a similar way that some digital cameras and social media sites detect faces in photos – by scanning the image through a set of parameters of what is expected to be there.

When introduced in 2007, the imaging system was far more detailed than it currently is, prompting invasion of privacy concerns. Critics claimed the image was essentially a nude photo of a passenger. At that time, a TSA agent sat in a separate room and viewed the image, which critics said showed too much detail of the people being scanned, and there were fears of what happened to the image after the passenger left.

Passengers can decline the imaging, at which point TSA officials will check him or her in other ways, including a pat-down.

A software upgrade over the summer made the computers automatically process the detailed image, Melendez said.

“It’s not passenger-specific anymore. It’s a generic image, and there is no security officer in another room.”

Now, the generic image is shown to the passenger and does not reveal details of his or her body.

The American Civil Liberties Union applauded the move, though some concerns still remain.

“This technology represents a significant improvement for privacy over the scanners that reveal naked images to human screeners. That is a very good thing. It shows that the outcry against these scanners ... has had an effect, and that the TSA has been forced to respond and implement a less invasive system,” ACLU spokesman Jay Stanley wrote in a July 20 press release.

Later on in the release, however, Stanley addressed what the ACLU says is still a problem: “This system remains an intrusive search underneath individuals’ clothing. Privacy concerns especially remain for those who have “anomalies” that must be investigated, such as people with adult diapers, prosthetic breasts following mastectomies, colostomy appliances, catheter tubes – even just lumps on their body.”

Passengers interviewed by The Sacramento Press Friday had differing opinions on the scanners and their effectiveness.

“I don’t think we need them,” said Frank Kams, a 55-year-old salesman from Chino Hills, Calif. “I think it’s probably more of an inconvenience. I’ve been through the scanners eight times, and I don’t think there’s any guarantee they could stop an attack.”

He added that he thinks the new imaging technology is better than the more-detailed images from the past three years.

Lance Abbot, a 42-year-old insurance company employee from Dallas, said he isn’t bothered by the machines.

“They don’t bug me,” he said. “It’s good to know they are doing something to try to stop terrorism.”

Amanda Laramie, a 26-year-old consultant from Boulder, Colo., said she doesn’t feel any safer flying due to the scanners’ installation, but they aren’t an inconvenience or an invasion of privacy.

Another consultant from Boulder, 38-year-old Melissa Stratman, said she doesn’t put much faith in the airport security screening system in general, and doesn’t think the scanners add very much to it.

“The reality is, we were never worried about liquids until someone tried to blow up planes with them,” she said. “I don’t think they’re really thinking ahead to what the next threat could be. And any system that relies on you to tell them what is in your bag, like the liquids, I just think it’s set up for failure.”

Currently, five scanners are installed at Terminal B, Melendez said. Three additional scanners will be installed at Terminal A by the end of November.

“Having the new terminal built made installing the first five much easier,” he said. “We still have some logistical problems to sort through before we can put the others in at Terminal A.”

All eight of the machines are of the “millimeter wave” style, where passengers stand inside the scanner. The millimeter wave scanners all have the software upgrade to show the less-detailed image.

The other type of scanner installed at some airports – known as a “backscatter” scanner – is not used at Sacramento International Airport. Those machines do not yet have the software upgrade and still show a more detailed image, but the upgrade is expected to come later this year.

Airports across the nation have been getting the new scanners since 2007, with about 500 units bought and installed in 2010, Melendez said, adding that 300 are being installed this year.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.

Surveillance cameras help prevent crime on Regional Transit

2011-09-03T02:18:23Z

The new cameras that were installed at several Sacramento light rail stations in May have helped prevent crimes and improve passenger safety, according to Doug Voska, a Sergeant with the Sacramento Police Department.

“People want to feel safe when they ride transit,” said Voska, who has a contract position with RT. “If they don’t feel safe, they’re not gonna do it.”

Because the cameras were primarily funded by the federal Department of Homeland Security, their main focus must be on terrorism prevention. But according to Voska, this has many crossover benefits when it comes to crime prevention and passenger safety.

“Even without a uniformed police officer, somebody is keeping an eye on things,” he said. There are officers monitoring all the cameras at the stations, and Voska said he hopes that by the end of the year, there will be people monitoring the cameras on the trains and buses as well.

Voska said that the cameras have helped officers solve numerous types of crimes, from graffiti to robbery.

The videos are often used for prosecution purposes, and the police department even uses the cameras to locate suspects who have fled from a crime scene via bus or light rail. Still, he maintained that “crime is not that high on RT, so they are primarily used for crime prevention.”

But the amount of surveillance on RT is causing some outcry among personal privacy advocates. Cres Vellucci, a member of the board of the Sacramento Chapter of the ACLU, said he is concerned over what he sees as an Orwellian affront on privacy rights.

“Pervasive video surveillance does threaten privacy rights,” he said via email. “The U.S. has … been proud to proclaim that we are willing to give a little bit in security if need be to maintain our unique freedom ... Fear, however, can make us do some terrible things.”

According to Linda Lye, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, everything from data retention to the cost and effectiveness of the cameras has ACLU members worried. “Why are we investing scarce public safety dollars on methods that invade our privacy but don’t make us any safer?” she asked.

“If the government is going to implement measures that do invade our privacy, we want to be sure that they’re actually making us safer, and the data hasn’t really shown that with respect to video surveillance cameras,” Lye said.

She cited studies done by the ACLU in 2007 and by UC Berkeley in 2008 to support her claim that cameras do not make a big enough impact on crime. “The hard research shows that these (methods) don’t make us safer,” she said. “The thing that we find frustrating is this false dichotomy that’s often posed between safety and privacy.”

“There are far more effective, and much less expensive crime prevention tools,” wrote Vellucci, who recommended alternatives such as better lighting, community policing, and job and youth programs to “reduce crime and also help the local economy.”

Despite the ACLU’s opposition, Voska said that he believes the public generally supports the cameras.

“I’ve heard people say that they like the camera surveillance because they do feel safer,” he said. “Since we can’t afford to have a police officer on every train, we try to keep an eye on what’s going on … as efficiently and as effectively as we can. RT is not in a position to violate anybody’s rights.”

Like all other technology, the cameras are in constant need of upkeep. “Everybody who has a camera system has to deal with malfunctions,” Voska said. This includes everything from technical problems to issues with shrubbery growing into the cameras’ fields of vision.

Vandalism has also had an effect, albeit a small one. One camera has been stolen, and several of the cameras have been lightly tagged with graffiti, Voska added.

But Voska insisted that the cameras are worth the trouble. “It’s an overwhelming desire on the part of the passengers to feel safe,” he said. “Sometimes we don’t have any (officers) there, so that’s when we keep an eye on it through cameras.”

Here are links to the studies cited by the ACLU:

UC Berkeley Study: CITRIS Report

ACLU Study: Under the Watchful Eye

Marriage Equality Rally and March at the Capitol

2009-11-06T22:16:36Z

Over 200 people gathered Wednesday night]at the California State Capitol for a rally and march which marked the first anniversary of the passage of Proposition 8.

The event, “A Day of Smiles, Tears and Action,” was led by Equality Action NOW, a grassroots civil rights organization, along with several supporting organizations. The event also followed relevant elections in Maine and Washington on Tuesday.

In Washington, voters approved Referendum 71, keeping a law that expanded state benefits to same-sex domestic partners. In Maine, voters rejected a law passed by the state's legislature and signed by the governor that would have allowed same-sex marriages. Maine is now the 31st state to reject same-sex marriage in a popular vote.

Proposition 8 amended California law to recognize marriage only between a man and a woman.

Last year was not the first time that California voters were presented with a vote to narrow the definition of marriage. In 2000, Proposition 22 passed, approving the same language, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

During his speech at the event, EAN volunteer and Camp Courage representative Chris Hauck pointed out the positive difference between the two propositions. While Proposition 22 won by over 22 points, Proposition 8 won by less than five points. Hauck also noted that Proposition 8 was not supported by a majority of voters in areas like Santa Barbara and Irvine, areas where an overwhelming majority supported Proposition 22 almost a decade ago.

Proposition 22 was eventually overturned by the California Supreme Court, allowing gay marriage for approximately five months before the passage of Proposition 8. Proposition 8 was upheld in the California Supreme Court last May in Strauss v. Horton.

As the ongoing judicial and legislative battle ensues, national groups including the American Civil Liberties Union are discouraging further legal action, saying it could do more harm than good. Instead they recommend making changes at the ballot box.

Jennie Reiken, Sacramento field manager for Equality California, strongly encouraged attendees to start canvassing. She encouraged people to educate those around them by having one-on-one conversations about their relationships.

“While the event was held to commemorate the passing of Proposition 8 and the resulting year of inequality, the rally was held to encourage people to get involved in any way they can and provide ample volunteer opportunities," EAN spokesperson Hilary Hodge said after the rally.

Following the march, several organizations made sign-up sheets available to participants. EAN recognizes there is a difference of opinion between marriage equality activists on whether to try voters again in 2010 or 2012. Whenever the issue returns to the polls, Tina Reynolds, co-founder of EAN has stated, “(EAN) does not take a stand one way or another since choosing a date has worked to polarize our community. We will be there whenever a rally, a vote, a stand needs to be made, and we will support all of our brothers and sisters in solidarity.”

In the near term, grassroots efforts in Sacramento continue, including an intensive two-day training called Camp Courage Sacramento this Saturday and Sunday. The training is designed to teach community organizing skills for marriage-equality activists. Registration information is available here. A fundraiser for Camp Courage will be held this tonight at Head Hunters located at 1930 K Street in midtown Sacramento.

A brief timeline:

March 7, 2000 – Proposition 8 passes in the Primary Election

May 15, 2008 – Proposition 22 overturned by California Supreme Court (in re: marriage cases)

Nov. 4, 2008 – Proposition 8 passes in the General Election

May 26, 2009 – Proposition 8 upheld by California Supreme Court (Strauss v. Horton)

Rally for Budget Change at Capitol

2009-08-20T03:45:22Z

Members of The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Drug Policy Alliance, ACLU of Northern California and Families to Amend California's Three Strikes gathered on the south steps of the Capitol on Tuesday, August 17, to speak in opposition of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed cuts to the state prison budget.

Zachary Norris, director of the Books Not Bars campaign, hosted the rally and introduced the members of the coalition.

"We must address this elephant in the budget," Norris said before leading the crowd in chants of "books not bars" and "schools not jails." Norris and his fellow speakers urged legislators to rethink their policies on incarcerating petty criminals. California's 75 percent recidivism rate for convicts was a primary concern.

"Wake up, California," said Natasha Minsker, death penalty director of the ACLU of Northern California. "It's time to stop imprisoning people for petty crimes."

"If you don't go to prison in the first place, you don't have to worry about recidivism," said assembly member Jim Bell. "I'd like to send people to get their Ph.D.s in the UC system rather than in prison.”

The coalition stressed the importance of rehabilitation programs in the place of imprisonment for those found guilty of drug-related crimes.

“Drug treatment works, and we know it works," said Laura Thomas, a representative of the Drug Policy Alliance.” We could use the $1 billion for drug treatment instead of sending people to prison for petty drug crimes." She closed by saying, "Keeping people in the community works."

While Norris agreed with some of the governor's decisions, such as "converting some felonies to misdemeanors," he and the other groups were against all juvenile correctional facilities. "The average cost of one juvenile detainee is $234,000 per year,” Norris said. "We are wasting our money on recidivism."

"Waste is not a noun, it is a verb," said assemblywoman Nancy Skinner. "Something doesn't become waste until you waste it. We are wasting people."

More information about the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights can be found here.

What's happening at the Capitol: August 17, 18

2009-08-17T03:05:19Z

Monday, Aug. 17

Noon - 1 p.m. Sacramento Area Coalition Against the Death Penalty will be holding a noon hour vigil against the death penalty. About 10 people are expected to participate in the vigil on the north steps of the Capitol.

11 a.m. - noon The Million Boat Float will hold a press conference and rally on the west steps of the Capitol. The event was created to voice opposition to legislation proposing to "construct a water conveyance system comparable to the Panama Canal" in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Tuesday, Aug. 18

9 a.m. - 3 p.m. ACLU of Northern California will be holding a rally to urge "elected officials to make equitable budget solutions and sensible criminal justice reforms in order to save $12 billion over five years and restore the social safety net for Californians." About 100 people are expected to gather for the rally on the south steps of the Capitol.

9 a.m. - 3 p.m. The office of Assemblyman Mike Duvall will be displaying energy storage devices on the north steps of the Capitol. About 200 people are expected to visit the display.

Noon - 1 p.m. The Congress of California Seniors will be holding a lunch, press conference and legislative visit day in the southwest corner of the Capitol. About 150 people will participate.

Police: Security cameras on Del Paso used infrequently

2009-07-14T05:18:08Z

As civil liberties advocates and city officials debate the city’s plans to implement a new surveillance system, three security cameras are already operating on Del Paso Boulevard.

Joann Cummins, district director for City Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy, said the Del Paso Boulevard cameras will be useful for recording evidence to prosecute a couple of liquor stores that are allegedly creating a public nuisance.

The Sacramento Press reported in a July 8 story that the local American Civil Liberties Union has raised objections to new cameras that may be installed on K Street and at other locations, arguing that they do not decrease crime. The city plans to buy 32 security cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. The $615,000 surveillance package would come from Federal Homeland Security grant funds. The state will distribute the federal grant funds to the city.

The Del Paso Boulevard Partnership, a group that advocates for businesses in the area, as well as other businesses, asked Sheedy’s office to install the three cameras on the street, Cummins said, adding that while the cameras may not capture images of crimes, they will be useful for collecting evidence.

The Del Paso Boulevard cameras, which were installed earlier this year, cost $25,000 and were paid for out of redevelopment funds.

Sacramento Police Department spokesman Norm Leong said there have not been many cases -- of which he is aware -- when the three security cameras have been used as evidence. The cameras may be preventing crime, he said, noting that it is not possible to gauge prevention.

The Sacramento Press asked for statistics on how often the police department uses the security cameras. Police officers document usage of surveillance images in reports, but the department’s computer system does not track how often officers review or make copies of footage from security cameras, Leong said.

Cummins said that the cameras will enable city officials and staffers to collect evidence of public nuisance problems allegedly generated by specific businesses on the street. The cameras will provide surveillance footage that city officials can gather after crimes or problems have been committed, she said. The footage can then be used as evidence, she explained.

Sheedy’s office reviewed numerous studies on surveillance cameras and concluded that cameras do not usually capture crimes, but they do capture evidence, Cummins said.

She also said that the cameras on Del Paso Boulevard are useful because there have been traffic accidents near the cameras. Cars have crashed into city property on the street, Cummins said. Footage from the cameras can give the city information about the vehicles, she said, and make sure that the damage to the city property is paid for by the driver’s insurance company.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

City officials, ACLU debate surveillance system

2009-07-09T03:20:59Z

City officials and civil liberties advocates are taking opposite positions on the city’s plans to set up security cameras at several locations in Sacramento. The two sides are presenting opposing views on the effectiveness of surveillance systems.

Mayor Kevin Johnson said in April that the surveillance system would help decrease crime in Sacramento. While locations for the cameras have not yet been selected, Johnson has said that K Street and Regional Transit stations are the kinds of high-traffic and high-crime sites that could be suitable for surveillance.

The city intends to purchase a $615,000 surveillance package that includes 32 security cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. The money would come from Federal Homeland Security grant funds. The state will distribute the federal grant funds to the city.

While the grant money was promised to the city in April, the city is still waiting to receive the federal funds from the California Emergency Management Agency. The city expects to receive the funds, but is still working with the state to obtain the funding, said Sacramento Police Department spokesman Norm Leong. If the city receives the funding, it will buy the surveillance equipment through a procurement process, according to the police department.

The city’s plans are stirring public debate. The local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union is opposing the city’s planned surveillance system. Jim Updegraff, the chair of the Sacramento County Chapter of the ACLU, claimed in May that numerous studies have “demonstrated video cameras are ineffective in reducing crime.”

The Sacramento Press reviewed a recent academic study about surveillance effectiveness and asked officials in the police department and the mayor’s office to comment on its findings. UC Berkeley researchers studied the city of San Francisco’s surveillance system, known as the Community Safety Camera program, and released a report in December 2008.

One of the areas examined in the report was violent crime. “We find no evidence of an impact of the Community Safety Cameras on violent crime,” the report states.

While the UCB researchers do not see connections between security cameras and violent crime, they state that surveillance cameras could have caused property crimes to drop. “We find statistically significant and substantial declines in property crime within view of the Community Safety Cameras,” according to the report.

Leong said that security cameras already help the police department to combat crime. The department analyzes footage taken by private citizens and video from cameras at businesses, Leong noted. “We know for a fact, as a tool to solve crimes, it’s always been helpful,” he said. "Locally, both violent and property crimes have been solved with the use of surveillance footage."

Mayor Johnson’s spokesman Joaquin McPeek referred to the cameras as a tool.

"We're going to use every tool in the toolbox to reduce crime in Sacramento, including these cameras, and we can do it without infringing on civil liberties,” McPeek said.

Security cameras are now installed at some city facilities, Police Chief Rick Braziel said in May. Leong also noted that there are three surveillance cameras on Del Paso Boulevard. The security cameras currently being used are not part of the system that would be paid by the $615,000 grant.

Johnson and Sacramento Police Chief Rick Braziel were not available to respond to questions Wednesday.

Read the UCB report through the ACLU’s website under the "related documents" section. The report is titled “CITRIS Report: The San Francisco Community Safety Camera program.” The Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society is a UC Berkeley research program.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

What's happening at the Capitol: June 29, 30

2009-06-29T03:36:57Z

Monday, June 29

8 a.m.- 2 p.m. Five people from the California State Parks Foundation will be having an informational display on the north steps of the Capitol.

9-10 a.m. About 100 students from the California 4-H Youth Development program will be taking a photograph near the traffic circle on the west side of the Capitol.

Tuesday, June 30

11 a.m.- Noon California Primary Care Association will be holding a health care rally on the west steps of the Capitol. About 150 people are expected in the rally.

3-5 p.m. The ACLU will be holding a rally on the north steps of the Capitol. About 150 people are expected to participate.

2 p.m. (Tuesday, June 30)- 2:30 p.m. (Wednesday, July 1) SEIU Local 1000 will be holding an afternoon rally Tuesday, overnight vigil and morning rally Wednesday for the state budget. About 8,000 state workers are expected to attend the event on the west steps of the Capitol.

Civil liberties advocates protest city's plans to install surveillance system

2009-05-27T06:09:54Z

Civil liberties lawyers and advocates are objecting to the city of Sacramento’s plans to install new security cameras and related surveillance equipment at several locations in the city.

Jim Updegraff, the chair of the Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told the City Council Tuesday that the planned surveillance system would be “an affront to the privacy and civil liberties of the citizens of the City of Sacramento.”

Mayor Kevin Johnson and Police Chief Rick Braziel last month publicized the city’s plan to use a pot of $615, 500 in Federal Homeland Security grant funds to fund a new surveillance system with 32 cameras, four mobile surveillance trailers and other related equipment. Johnson said the surveillance system was important because Sacramento has ranked second to Oakland in violent crime statistics over the past seven to eight years.

But Sacramento County’s ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco are challenging Johnson and Braziel’s views.

Outside the meeting, Updegraff told The Sacramento Press that the ACLU’s opposition does not mean the group plans to sue the city. The group always tries to work with issues, he said.

But the group’s firm opposition is clear. Updegraff told the City Council that the surveillance system will invade citizens’ privacy and will not fight crime. The group is also calling on the City Council to hold a public hearing about the planned surveillance system.

“Study after study, from San Francisco to London, have demonstrated video cameras are ineffective in reducing crime,” Updegraff said.

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter and ACLU attorneys in San Francisco together are directly challenging statements Johnson made last month about the surveillance system.

“The new system will create a powerful deterrent for would-be criminals,” Johnson said last month. “Similar systems have been used in other cities around the country and played a major role in reducing crime.”

Updegraff questioned the accuracy of Johnson’s comments, noting that ACLU attorneys had studied Johnson’s remarks. “Our attorneys in San Francisco are not aware of any studies in the country that support the comments of the mayor,” Updegraff said.

The local ACLU chapter is also challenging one of Braziel’s statements.

Braziel said at a press conference last month: “The cameras we put up will only be in places that are in open view of the public, so it is no different than somebody walking down the street with their videophone and taking pictures.”

The Sacramento County ACLU chapter “disagrees” with and “deplores” Braziel’s comment, Updegraff said.

Images from innocent people’s videophones “do not end up in police files,” Updegraff said, and are not shared with other law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and the Sacramento Regional Terrorism Threat Assessment Center.

Sacramento Police Department spokesman Konrad VonSchoech said last month that the city will hold a procurement process for the cameras and other surveillance equipment.