3 ms·
> The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) will not have continuous access to the cameras but will be able to tap into the network under certain conditions, s
by kodah 4y ago
> The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) will not have continuous access to the cameras but will be able to tap into the network under certain conditions, such as during the investigation of crimes including misdemeanors and property crimes. The SFPD will also be able to access private camera footage during large-scale public events such as protests, even if there is no suspicion that a crime has taken place
So, they basically have real-time access all the time, specifically during protests.
Keep in mind the board of supervisors is voted in by the citizens of San Francisco. This is what the citizens here want.
I used to be angry at the police for wanting such things. Then I realized that at my job I like things being efficient. Someone else has to keep the police at bay.
I also used to get mad at committees, like the board of supervisors, because they have the power to dole out power. But, like the police, what motivates them is what voters want.
That last leaves the voters. A persons position on crime really depends on how they interpret the data this dashboard: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crime-dashboard https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim... The citizens of San Francisco chose, based on their perception of this data, that giving more power to police surveillance was a tool they needed.
I have no solutions. Everyone will see that dashboard in a different light. Rather, the only solution I can provide is a boundary: the job of the police should be hard. If it is not, there is a hack in both your enumerated and perceived rights.
- rahimnathwani 4y ago> A persons position on crime really depends on how they interpret this dashboard Imagine asking SF residents to tell you: In the past 24 months, I have: A) seen the SFPD Crime Dashboard. B) been the victim of at least one property or violent crime and/or have witnessed a crime being committed in broad daylight. C) read a frightening account of a nearby crime on NextDoor, Twitter or Facebook. I think (A) would get the fewest votes. People form opinions based on their personal experience (what they see on the streets) and the narratives of others (what friends and neighbours write). Some folks look at stats. Fewer understand them. Even fewer use them to inform their opinion (rather than to support their existing opinion).
- kodah 4y agoI've updated that sentence to read, "A persons position on crime really depends on how they interpret the data on this dashboard." Thanks for pointing out the poor phrasing.
- dragonwriter 4y agoYou still have the subject and object of “depends on” reversed, at best.
- kodah 4y agoI think reversing it treads heavy into opinion territory, which has no data - just people's feelings. If the roles were reversed, eg: were this not SF, people would be die hard about the data and what it shows - which is part of my point. We can't have our cake and eat it too. At some point you just have to set clear boundaries, like what I mentioned at the end.
- rahimnathwani 4y agoMy point still applies: people don't usually base their opinions on data. They base them on what they perceive directly (e.g. seeing a crime) or indirectly (e.g. hearing about a scary crime). Even if confronted with data, people will interpret it based on their opinion. Crime report data is up? That could mean: A) law enforcement has been doing a better job, so people feel it's more worthwhile to report crimes, or B) law enforcement has been doing a worse job, so people don't bother reporting crimes Whether someone interprets the data as meaning A or B depends on their opinion more than it informs their opinion.
- kodah 4y agoThe data, to me, is mostly reality. I rephrased it so that it reflects peoples perceptions on reality. I did that specifically because there's debate on how much crime there actually is. I do agree that data is fallable and manipulatable, but I do still think the data is good enough for a baseline.