4 ms·

Wasn't one of the two San Diego mayoral candidates, Todd Gloria, on city council when they passed the resolution to install these? Why is there no scrutiny of

Wasn't one of the two San Diego mayoral candidates, Todd Gloria, on city council when they passed the resolution to install these? Why is there no scrutiny of his part in all of this?

tomc1985 6y ago
This isn't an excuse, but IIRC they were sold to the city as simple sensor boxes. GE (or whoever it was that made/sold these) added the surveillance capabilities later, ostensibly for internal use but easily receivable via police action
- rbecker 6y ago
  I'm sorry, what? Doesn't a "sensor box" by definition have surveillance capabilities? The only way that sentence makes sense is if you're using some ridiculously narrow definition of "surveillance". Edit: Fair enough. But in this case, cameras and microphones were included, were they not?
  - DanBC 6y ago
    If it only senses light or dark it's difficult to see how that would count as surveillance.
- tolbish 6y ago
  The city council was informed of their likelihood for abuse, so no that's not an excuse.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    Ah, I wasn't aware of that bit.
- loteck 6y ago
  The camera surveillance was there from the outset, SDPD just didn't realize it or start accessing the camera footage until about a year after the nodes went up.
loteck 6y ago
2 sitting councilmembers were also present for the vote to approve. All of them expressed that they had no idea the system would turn into a law enforcement surveillance network. They were sold to us as data gathering devices to improve transit & gather data for climate action. Whether you believe them that they didnt know is up to you. We've done the public records work & the results aren't 100% clear. FYI, Mr. Gloria recently voiced his support for my group's effort to get these shut down. "Smart city" solutions are being sold to governments all over the US this way, many of them having a nexus with mass surveillance.
- tolbish 6y ago
  Don't believe for a second that they had no idea of its potential for law enforcement surveillance; I was one of the people who voiced my concern to them before it was passed.
  - loteck 6y ago
    Would love to get in touch with you, as this work is still ongoing. Email is in my profile.
    - tolbish 6y ago
      Great, emailing you now.
    - loteck 6y ago
      My email is my username here at gmail
    - matttb 6y ago
      You have to put it in the 'about' section. The email that displays to you isn't visible to anyone else
      - loteck 6y ago
        thank you, I fixed it. (And I feel dumb)
cardamomo 6y ago
I propose a new "law" to add to the ranks of Murphy's, Moore's, and others: "Any technology that can be used for surveillance will be used for surveillance." (Likely, this phenomenon has already been described, but I'm not sure how to google it...)
- mindtricks 6y ago
  If it doesn't exist, we can call it Orwell's Law - Whatever Big Brother is capable of seeing, it is seeing.

Wasn't one of the two San Diego mayoral candidates, Todd Gloria, on city council when they passed the resolution to install these? Why is there no scrutiny of his part in all of this?

tomc1985 6y ago

This isn't an excuse, but IIRC they were sold to the city as simple sensor boxes. GE (or whoever it was that made/sold these) added the surveillance capabilities later, ostensibly for internal use but easily receivable via police action

rbecker 6y ago
I'm sorry, what? Doesn't a "sensor box" by definition have surveillance capabilities? The only way that sentence makes sense is if you're using some ridiculously narrow definition of "surveillance". Edit: Fair enough. But in this case, cameras and microphones were included, were they not?
- DanBC 6y ago
  If it only senses light or dark it's difficult to see how that would count as surveillance.
tolbish 6y ago
The city council was informed of their likelihood for abuse, so no that's not an excuse.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  Ah, I wasn't aware of that bit.
loteck 6y ago
The camera surveillance was there from the outset, SDPD just didn't realize it or start accessing the camera footage until about a year after the nodes went up.

loteck 6y ago

2 sitting councilmembers were also present for the vote to approve. All of them expressed that they had no idea the system would turn into a law enforcement surveillance network. They were sold to us as data gathering devices to improve transit & gather data for climate action. Whether you believe them that they didnt know is up to you. We've done the public records work & the results aren't 100% clear. FYI, Mr. Gloria recently voiced his support for my group's effort to get these shut down. "Smart city" solutions are being sold to governments all over the US this way, many of them having a nexus with mass surveillance.

tolbish 6y ago
Don't believe for a second that they had no idea of its potential for law enforcement surveillance; I was one of the people who voiced my concern to them before it was passed.
- loteck 6y ago
  Would love to get in touch with you, as this work is still ongoing. Email is in my profile.
  - tolbish 6y ago
    Great, emailing you now.
  - loteck 6y ago
    My email is my username here at gmail
  - matttb 6y ago
    You have to put it in the 'about' section. The email that displays to you isn't visible to anyone else
    - loteck 6y ago
      thank you, I fixed it. (And I feel dumb)

cardamomo 6y ago

I propose a new "law" to add to the ranks of Murphy's, Moore's, and others: "Any technology that can be used for surveillance will be used for surveillance." (Likely, this phenomenon has already been described, but I'm not sure how to google it...)

mindtricks 6y ago
If it doesn't exist, we can call it Orwell's Law - Whatever Big Brother is capable of seeing, it is seeing.