6 ms·

This blog post is highly misleading and inaccurate. Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio

This blog post is highly misleading and inaccurate. Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-san-diego-street-light-sensors-camera-for-law-enforcement-use-20190319-htmlstory.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...

noja 8y ago
Are there video camera and microphones installed city-wide on streetlights or not?
- mark212 8y ago
  No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. San Diego is the eighth largest city in the US and this is a tiny fraction of the city. Evaluate it on the merits, but be clear about what’s really going on.
  - another_comment 8y ago
    >> No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. Wrong. I've seen these from Pacific Beach to Imperial Beach. That is around 40 miles from North to South. They are _everywhere_. You can spot them by the black antennas sticking out the bottom of the light fixture. Source: I've lived in San Diego for 50 years.
    - mark212 8y ago
      that's a different system. They don't have cameras.
  - loteck 8y ago
    This is factually incorrect. There are currently over 3000 cameras live on this system, with the goal to increase to over 4000. You can see them all here: https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/ https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/
    - mark212 8y ago
      This is inaccurate. Only a small fraction are live. And it would take a lot more than 3,000 cameras to be "city wide" in SD. It's a really large city in geographic terms.
      - loteck 8y ago
        I live here and have talked to the city officials running the system. I also linked a source. What's your source?
yellowapple 8y ago
"Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations." That's what they all say. It's an empty platitude at best. "the audio recording capability isn't live" Yet. It is still present, though, and could become live should San Diego decide it to be useful.
- stevejb 8y ago
  Yes exactly this. The "trust us, we are very careful with this ability to spy on you" should be taken with a grain of salt.
  - sphinxpy 8y ago
    Every person in these towns that have this violation of basic rights, should be demanding the takedown immediately but they won't. Again and again the people of this country fall for the "trust us. We are her to help you." lie that our government sells. If they do care, many people are in a state of disagreement and division so much that they won't work together out of spite if it means working with another ideology. America, land of the free and home of the obedient and fearful. Seeing this, I can't help but feel like we have gone too far to have any return to what privacy we did have.
    - mark212 8y ago
      Great point: let’s have an honest and fact-based discussion. This blog post isn’t that. Turn up at a council meeting and tell the elected politicians that you don’t want to be spied on. Make the police defend their use of the footage. Convince others to agree with you. That’s democracy and at this level of government it works pretty well.
    - toomanybeersies 8y ago
      Serious question, natural rights aside, is this actually a violation of basic rights in a legal sense (laws, constitutions, etc)?
      - deleted 8y ago
lysium 8y ago
It has an impact on your behavior in public no matter if the camera is on or off, because you cannot be sure.
- mark212 8y ago
  Not to sound moralistic but if yiu wouldn’t do it while being recorded, why would you do it in public at all?
  - midniteslayr 8y ago
    It isn't about the content in which someone is recorded. It's about having consent to have someone record you.
  - _underfl0w_ 8y ago
    I like having the ability to speak openly about my feelings towards the government without being put on a watchlist regardless of where I am. The government != moral authority. It's very possible to do things the government wouldn't like without doing something that would be considered "amoral".
    - nomel 8y ago
      Is a right to privacy expected in public? Regardless, the fact that there is a street light next to my house, almost over my property, which is most definitely not public, is very concerning.
      - mLuby 8y ago
        Yes, people expect privacy when moving through their day in public, even though they may not expect it in an particular location. If they didn't expect that, stalking wouldn't be a concern.
  - vokep 8y ago
    This assumes that your morals are the same as whoever is behind the camera. You don't know that, which compromises the integrity of any moral value knowledge of being watched would have given.
mises 8y ago
> Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. How did placing this kind of trust in our government work when we last tried it (patriot act & fisa)?
Terr_ 8y ago
> strict protocols Much like discussions about corporate policies, I find it helps to ask what happens when the handbook isn't followed... How many years in prison does someone get for unauthorized access or (if an authorized user) abusing their access for improper use?
- mark212 8y ago
  It’s classified the same as other confidential information. There was a senior detective fired because she mishandled the same class of info on a case, so yeah there are serious consequences for breaking these rules. It’s not at all like corporate policies.
  - Terr_ 8y ago
    So... No criminal charges, just fired? How is that markedly different? The subtext of my post was that virtuously rigorous guidelines with no enforcement mechanism are a paper tiger.
    - mark212 8y ago
      anything short of criminal charges is "no enforcement mechanism"? You do realize that if you're a POST-certified peace officer and terminated for cause (1) you lose your pension and (2) are utterly unemployable by any other law enforcement agency. That means you're in your mid-50s and can't find a job in the field you've worked in for a few decades, and probably can't get hired as a security guard because lack of POST certification means you can't carry a gun on the job. It's quite a harsh punishment for accessing records inappropriately.
linksnapzz 8y ago
SD Reader was, in my opinion, more honest and willing to do municipal reporting requiring attention to detail than the Scripps/Tronc-owned UT, which was often a vehicle for whatever local real-estate magnates wanted to be in print.
- labster 8y ago
  The Union-Tribune is owned by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong now, along with the Los Angeles Times. The reporting has been a little better lately, at least in the Times.
kelnos 8y ago
I frankly do not care how limited access is, or if parts of the hardware are disabled. I do not trust governments to act transparently. There are a few telling things in the article you link to that make it clear that the government values expediency over protecting citizens' rights. The first notable one is the process: a police officer has to submit a request to view video records... but to whom? It looks like just to their superiors? If they actually cared about protecting people's rights, the request should have to be made to a court, in the same way a warrant needs to be requested. The city points out that the audio recorders aren't active because they don't have a use case for the audio. They claim that they would engage the public before activating them, but... is that really true? And regardless, I would not want that activated, ever. Any use case audio recordings of public spaces could possibly have... I do not want that. Having the hardware there and ready is just too tantalizing to public officials. I've been thinking about moving to SD at some point, but this kind of thing really gives me pause.
- mark212 8y ago
  “Too tantalizing to public officials”? Please explain. The city is run by nine elected members of the council. For what possible purpose would they wish to have audio recordings of street traffic?
  - _underfl0w_ 8y ago
    That's a straw man. This is clearly not about recording audio of vehicle traffic, but about recording conversations between the same citizens they're visually monitoring. Plus, they were very quick to pull the trigger and install these without asking. Clearly asking people who would do such a thing to "exercise self control" in regard to enabling yet another degree of surveillance seems like an exercise in futility.
  - orhmeh09 8y ago
    When they have purchased machinery with microphones and set out policy and procedure like the following: ‘The policy adds that "audio from the City's intelligent streetlight sensors may be accessed exclusively for law enforcement purposes with the Police Department as the custodian and departmental owner of these records."’ That means they are planning to use audio recordings.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
I'm sure the systems were secure so that Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning couldn't leak either.
another_comment 8y ago
You have it backwards. The Union Tribune is known to shill for the establishment and has been called "not a credible source of information". The San Diego Reader is local, independent and has a good reputation for honesty. Source: I've lived in San Diego for the last 50 years.
- chc 8y ago
  The Reader is independent and the UT is corporate-owned, but on the other hand, the Reader is not really much of a news outlet. Its role in the local ecosystem is kind of halfway between PennySaver and Reader's Digest. They're not dishonest, but they're not shelling out for top-notch reporters either.
  - everybodyknows 8y ago
    The Reader doesn't shell out, but it doesn't pressure writers to dumb down their work to 9th-grade reading level either. So it's a haven for work like this: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/matthew-lickona/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/matthew-lickona/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/
PixyMisa 8y ago
Access to mobile phone location data is also very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations which absolutely everyone ignores.
exabrial 8y ago
These strict protocols would normally be called warrants.
rsync 8y ago
"Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it." This is a good and instructive example of statements that contain no information. If access to the video were liberal and careless, it would be described as "very limited and subject to strict protocols". If, on the contrary, access to the video was very limited and subject to strict protocols ... You get the idea. Zero weight should be given to assurances that would be given out regardless of the actual state of affairs. A good heuristic is to ignore these communications and concentrate only on actions, but in this case where there may not be concrete evidence of misbehavior, we need to rely on a different heuristic: potential risks and worst case outcomes.

noja 8y ago

Are there video camera and microphones installed city-wide on streetlights or not?

mark212 8y ago
No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. San Diego is the eighth largest city in the US and this is a tiny fraction of the city. Evaluate it on the merits, but be clear about what’s really going on.
- another_comment 8y ago
  >> No, there aren’t. This is a few hundred cameras and it’s mostly downtown. Wrong. I've seen these from Pacific Beach to Imperial Beach. That is around 40 miles from North to South. They are _everywhere_. You can spot them by the black antennas sticking out the bottom of the light fixture. Source: I've lived in San Diego for 50 years.
  - mark212 8y ago
    that's a different system. They don't have cameras.
- loteck 8y ago
  This is factually incorrect. There are currently over 3000 cameras live on this system, with the goal to increase to over 4000. You can see them all here: https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/ https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/
  - mark212 8y ago
    This is inaccurate. Only a small fraction are live. And it would take a lot more than 3,000 cameras to be "city wide" in SD. It's a really large city in geographic terms.
    - loteck 8y ago
      I live here and have talked to the city officials running the system. I also linked a source. What's your source?

yellowapple 8y ago

"Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations." That's what they all say. It's an empty platitude at best. "the audio recording capability isn't live" Yet. It is still present, though, and could become live should San Diego decide it to be useful.

stevejb 8y ago
Yes exactly this. The "trust us, we are very careful with this ability to spy on you" should be taken with a grain of salt.
- sphinxpy 8y ago
  Every person in these towns that have this violation of basic rights, should be demanding the takedown immediately but they won't. Again and again the people of this country fall for the "trust us. We are her to help you." lie that our government sells. If they do care, many people are in a state of disagreement and division so much that they won't work together out of spite if it means working with another ideology. America, land of the free and home of the obedient and fearful. Seeing this, I can't help but feel like we have gone too far to have any return to what privacy we did have.
  - mark212 8y ago
    Great point: let’s have an honest and fact-based discussion. This blog post isn’t that. Turn up at a council meeting and tell the elected politicians that you don’t want to be spied on. Make the police defend their use of the footage. Convince others to agree with you. That’s democracy and at this level of government it works pretty well.
  - toomanybeersies 8y ago
    Serious question, natural rights aside, is this actually a violation of basic rights in a legal sense (laws, constitutions, etc)?
    - deleted 8y ago

lysium 8y ago

It has an impact on your behavior in public no matter if the camera is on or off, because you cannot be sure.

mark212 8y ago
Not to sound moralistic but if yiu wouldn’t do it while being recorded, why would you do it in public at all?
- midniteslayr 8y ago
  It isn't about the content in which someone is recorded. It's about having consent to have someone record you.
- _underfl0w_ 8y ago
  I like having the ability to speak openly about my feelings towards the government without being put on a watchlist regardless of where I am. The government != moral authority. It's very possible to do things the government wouldn't like without doing something that would be considered "amoral".
  - nomel 8y ago
    Is a right to privacy expected in public? Regardless, the fact that there is a street light next to my house, almost over my property, which is most definitely not public, is very concerning.
    - mLuby 8y ago
      Yes, people expect privacy when moving through their day in public, even though they may not expect it in an particular location. If they didn't expect that, stalking wouldn't be a concern.
- vokep 8y ago
  This assumes that your morals are the same as whoever is behind the camera. You don't know that, which compromises the integrity of any moral value knowledge of being watched would have given.

mises 8y ago

> Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it. How did placing this kind of trust in our government work when we last tried it (patriot act & fisa)?

Terr_ 8y ago

> strict protocols Much like discussions about corporate policies, I find it helps to ask what happens when the handbook isn't followed... How many years in prison does someone get for unauthorized access or (if an authorized user) abusing their access for improper use?

mark212 8y ago
It’s classified the same as other confidential information. There was a senior detective fired because she mishandled the same class of info on a case, so yeah there are serious consequences for breaking these rules. It’s not at all like corporate policies.
- Terr_ 8y ago
  So... No criminal charges, just fired? How is that markedly different? The subtext of my post was that virtuously rigorous guidelines with no enforcement mechanism are a paper tiger.
  - mark212 8y ago
    anything short of criminal charges is "no enforcement mechanism"? You do realize that if you're a POST-certified peace officer and terminated for cause (1) you lose your pension and (2) are utterly unemployable by any other law enforcement agency. That means you're in your mid-50s and can't find a job in the field you've worked in for a few decades, and probably can't get hired as a security guard because lack of POST certification means you can't carry a gun on the job. It's quite a harsh punishment for accessing records inappropriately.

linksnapzz 8y ago

SD Reader was, in my opinion, more honest and willing to do municipal reporting requiring attention to detail than the Scripps/Tronc-owned UT, which was often a vehicle for whatever local real-estate magnates wanted to be in print.

labster 8y ago
The Union-Tribune is owned by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong now, along with the Los Angeles Times. The reporting has been a little better lately, at least in the Times.

kelnos 8y ago

I frankly do not care how limited access is, or if parts of the hardware are disabled. I do not trust governments to act transparently. There are a few telling things in the article you link to that make it clear that the government values expediency over protecting citizens' rights. The first notable one is the process: a police officer has to submit a request to view video records... but to whom? It looks like just to their superiors? If they actually cared about protecting people's rights, the request should have to be made to a court, in the same way a warrant needs to be requested. The city points out that the audio recorders aren't active because they don't have a use case for the audio. They claim that they would engage the public before activating them, but... is that really true? And regardless, I would not want that activated, ever. Any use case audio recordings of public spaces could possibly have... I do not want that. Having the hardware there and ready is just too tantalizing to public officials. I've been thinking about moving to SD at some point, but this kind of thing really gives me pause.

mark212 8y ago
“Too tantalizing to public officials”? Please explain. The city is run by nine elected members of the council. For what possible purpose would they wish to have audio recordings of street traffic?
- _underfl0w_ 8y ago
  That's a straw man. This is clearly not about recording audio of vehicle traffic, but about recording conversations between the same citizens they're visually monitoring. Plus, they were very quick to pull the trigger and install these without asking. Clearly asking people who would do such a thing to "exercise self control" in regard to enabling yet another degree of surveillance seems like an exercise in futility.
- orhmeh09 8y ago
  When they have purchased machinery with microphones and set out policy and procedure like the following: ‘The policy adds that "audio from the City's intelligent streetlight sensors may be accessed exclusively for law enforcement purposes with the Police Department as the custodian and departmental owner of these records."’ That means they are planning to use audio recordings.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago

I'm sure the systems were secure so that Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning couldn't leak either.

another_comment 8y ago

You have it backwards. The Union Tribune is known to shill for the establishment and has been called "not a credible source of information". The San Diego Reader is local, independent and has a good reputation for honesty. Source: I've lived in San Diego for the last 50 years.

chc 8y ago
The Reader is independent and the UT is corporate-owned, but on the other hand, the Reader is not really much of a news outlet. Its role in the local ecosystem is kind of halfway between PennySaver and Reader's Digest. They're not dishonest, but they're not shelling out for top-notch reporters either.
- everybodyknows 8y ago
  The Reader doesn't shell out, but it doesn't pressure writers to dumb down their work to 9th-grade reading level either. So it's a haven for work like this: https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/matthew-lickona/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/matthew-lickona/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/

PixyMisa 8y ago

Access to mobile phone location data is also very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations which absolutely everyone ignores.

exabrial 8y ago

These strict protocols would normally be called warrants.

rsync 8y ago

"Access to the video is very limited and subject to strict protocols for use in investigations. And the audio recording capacity isn’t live because the City has no use for it." This is a good and instructive example of statements that contain no information. If access to the video were liberal and careless, it would be described as "very limited and subject to strict protocols". If, on the contrary, access to the video was very limited and subject to strict protocols ... You get the idea. Zero weight should be given to assurances that would be given out regardless of the actual state of affairs. A good heuristic is to ignore these communications and concentrate only on actions, but in this case where there may not be concrete evidence of misbehavior, we need to rely on a different heuristic: potential risks and worst case outcomes.