| http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/18/CAMERAS.TMP&tsp=1
Saturday, August 18, 2007 SF Security CamerasFoes wade into fight to pull plug (8/18) Two Cents: Do you mind being filmed? (8/17) Are the cameras worth the cost? (8/17) Editorial: Crime cameras are a bust (8/17) Newsom responds to controversy (8/16) Residents say cameras are 'waste of money' (8/15) One contingent in San Francisco is pleased to see public surveillance cameras coming under attack: all those who thought the devices were a terrible idea to begin with. That includes the American Civil Liberties Union, Chinese for Affirmative Action and more than half a dozen other community groups that have packed city hearings over the past year to oppose the placement of cameras in public places with the intention of deterring crime and catching violent criminals. They smell blood on the issue with the news this week that San Francisco police and the Housing Authority rarely use the devices, and they say they have no intention of backing down. "Once these cameras go up, it's not clear they will ever come down, which means they will only get more invasive when combined with other emerging technologies," said Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director for the ACLU's San Francisco office. "I can see no way they will ever be acceptable." Schlosberg said that in a few years, it probably will become possible to combine surveillance cameras with machines that identify people by face-recognition records or that come equipped with speakers so officials who are monitoring video feeds can talk directly to those being watched. "In England, they already have cameras where the monitors can talk to you live on the street, and in a real sense, that is Big Brother in action right now," Schlosberg said. "Obviously, that is not the case in San Francisco, and we have regulations that prevent things like that for the moment. "But the trouble with regulations is that they can be changed. And technology can be added to. That's what we're worried about." Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, said that for any person of color, cameras will never be acceptable. The biggest debate over surveillance cameras in San Francisco since they were first installed two years ago has concerned their use in the city's predominantly minority housing projects. The 178 cameras there are not monitored in real time, and opponents say they hope they never are. "Communities of color who historically have been discriminated against for immigration status or the color of their skin can appreciate in particular how warrantless surveillance can cause anxiety," Pan said. "The argument that 'if you've done nothing wrong you don't have to worry' does not apply to certain communities. It's a luxury many communities can't afford." Oakland, a city renowned for its diversity, twice rejected proposals for government-funded surveillance cameras in the late 1990s on the same grounds. Pan noted that in January, at the most recent city Police Commission hearing that fully aired the camera issue, about half of the capacity crowd favored cameras and half did not. He said he could appreciate the desire of those who feel tyrannized by crime to get any new tools they can to feel safer, but he said there are better uses for the money. The city has spent about $500,000 to install 70 cameras, and the federally funded Housing Authority paid $200,000 for its cameras. The agency plans to install another 81 cameras but hasn't said when it will do so. "How about using the funds instead to hire more bilingual officers or put in better lighting in dangerous areas?" Pan said. "Those techniques have been shown to be effective. Cameras have not." No comprehensive studies in San Francisco show that surveillance cameras work or don't work, but the ACLU did a scan of police statistics that showed crime went up in some areas where cameras were used and down in others. The organization concluded that the cameras were ineffective. Studies over the past few years in London, which might have more surveillance cameras than any city on Earth -- one for every 13 residents -- have shown that the information can be abused in the wrong hands. In some instances, video monitors focused disproportionately on people of color or on women for voyeuristic pleasure. Schlosberg said the latest video cameras can determine the title of the book a person is reading, the medication written on a bottle label and words on documents that can indicate a person's political leaning. "The bottom line is they are invasive, ineffective at reducing crime and take away dollars from things that are better, such as community policing," he said. City officials who instituted the camera program -- still considered an experimental pilot program by Mayor Gavin Newsom -- maintain the devices are not a cure-all for violent crime but that they are clearly a valuable tool. They also point out that other cities, notably Chicago and New York, have embraced the technology and intend to expand it to every street over the next decade. "When people know a camera is focused on an area, generally they don't stand under the cameras and break the law," Police Chief Heather Fong said. "Give it time. I anticipate there will be successes." Michael Spearman, an international security consultant based in San Francisco, said he doesn't need any study to show the efficiency of cameras. He finds them to be beneficial tools every day in the work he does at Spearman Consulting Inc., which included installing cameras at Universal Studios several years ago that greatly reduced the incidence of pickpockets. "We just helped solve a murder in the East Bay using surveillance cameras at a gas station," Spearman said. "People say it's an invasion of privacy, but if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem? "When you're walking down the street, the average citizen can see you," Spearman said. "BART trains have (cameras). Red lights have them for traffic. These things are not X-rays, they are just electronic eyes. They are for the greater good." The San Francisco Housing Authority has overseen the program to erect cameras in some of its developments; cameras on city property are overseen by the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. For questions or comments about the Housing Authority camera program, call the agency during weekday office hours at (415) 554-1200. To ask about or comment on the city program, call the Office of Criminal Justice at (415) 554-6560. This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle |
Come Together and Create!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka Peta
Sacramento, California, Aztlan
Email: sacranative@yahoo.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
No comments:
Post a Comment