3 ms·

How does anyone who lives in San Diego get to see the live camera and data feeds? Surely a city in the US didn't create a public surveillance network that take

How does anyone who lives in San Diego get to see the live camera and data feeds? Surely a city in the US didn't create a public surveillance network that takes the information and makes it private.

reaperducer 8y ago
It depends on the state. In some states many government video feeds are considered public documents. The problem is that you're usually not allowed to tap in live, you have to file a paper request and then pay for duplication of the video. In Houston, when Transtar (the local transportation management agency) first put up its network of traffic cameras it worked out a deal with one of the local TV stations (KPRC, I think) to provide it with exclusive access to the video. The other stations pointed out that in Texas, Transtar video was considered public records, and so Transtar had to allow every TV station use them, as long as they ran fiber to the agency's headquarters to pick up the feeds. So KPRC's "exclusive" advantage evaporated within a month or two.
themark 8y ago
It sure seems like it. https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/feb/20/san-diegos-street-lights-spy/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/feb/20/san-diegos-s... "...when a request under provisions of state public records law was sent to the city on January 3 to obtain data generated by a single so-called smart streetlight installed on a Market Street light pole, the response was repeatedly delayed. “The City has to conduct a search for records, examine records, consult with another agency, or compile data in order to determine whether it has disclosable records,” said a January 11 message. “Pursuant to Cal. Government Code section 6253(c), the City needs to consult with multiple departments having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the department having substantial subject matter interest; such consultation shall be conducted with all practical speed. Therefore, the City is taking a 14-day extension in which to conduct this consultation. We will notify you on or before January 25 whether the City has disclosable records." Come January 25, the city said it still wasn’t prepared to turn over the records.”
VectorLock 8y ago
Surely you didn't think they'd make it open and available to the public did you?
abeppu 8y ago
When cities/states rolled out wide license plate reader networks, wasn't the resulting data also shared with many government agencies, but not accessible by the public? I'm sure the justification for not allowing that data to be public is "well, if we let people access this data, surely it would be immediately abused." And I'm sure that's true. And it's also true that the data is immediately abused when shared only with government agencies.
loteck 8y ago
I'm bummed that of all places on the internet, no one on HN has pointed out that the answer to your question is the city has an API you can query to obtain the public data collected by the sensors. Not the videos though.

How does anyone who lives in San Diego get to see the live camera and data feeds? Surely a city in the US didn't create a public surveillance network that takes the information and makes it private.

reaperducer 8y ago

It depends on the state. In some states many government video feeds are considered public documents. The problem is that you're usually not allowed to tap in live, you have to file a paper request and then pay for duplication of the video. In Houston, when Transtar (the local transportation management agency) first put up its network of traffic cameras it worked out a deal with one of the local TV stations (KPRC, I think) to provide it with exclusive access to the video. The other stations pointed out that in Texas, Transtar video was considered public records, and so Transtar had to allow every TV station use them, as long as they ran fiber to the agency's headquarters to pick up the feeds. So KPRC's "exclusive" advantage evaporated within a month or two.

themark 8y ago

It sure seems like it. https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/feb/20/san-diegos-street-lights-spy/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2019/feb/20/san-diegos-s... "...when a request under provisions of state public records law was sent to the city on January 3 to obtain data generated by a single so-called smart streetlight installed on a Market Street light pole, the response was repeatedly delayed. “The City has to conduct a search for records, examine records, consult with another agency, or compile data in order to determine whether it has disclosable records,” said a January 11 message. “Pursuant to Cal. Government Code section 6253(c), the City needs to consult with multiple departments having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the department having substantial subject matter interest; such consultation shall be conducted with all practical speed. Therefore, the City is taking a 14-day extension in which to conduct this consultation. We will notify you on or before January 25 whether the City has disclosable records." Come January 25, the city said it still wasn’t prepared to turn over the records.”

VectorLock 8y ago

Surely you didn't think they'd make it open and available to the public did you?

abeppu 8y ago

When cities/states rolled out wide license plate reader networks, wasn't the resulting data also shared with many government agencies, but not accessible by the public? I'm sure the justification for not allowing that data to be public is "well, if we let people access this data, surely it would be immediately abused." And I'm sure that's true. And it's also true that the data is immediately abused when shared only with government agencies.

loteck 8y ago

I'm bummed that of all places on the internet, no one on HN has pointed out that the answer to your question is the city has an API you can query to obtain the public data collected by the sensors. Not the videos though.