Because Cops seldom solve burglary cases. Look at the case closure rate for SFPD, less than 20% burglary cases are closed. Anecdotal: When I was living in SF several years ago, My apartment was...
In San Francisco, where many locals push for this kind of police reform, those same locals are tired of the break-ins. So how do they reconcile “defund the police” with “stop the smash and grabs”?
Because Cops seldom solve burglary cases. Look at the case closure rate for SFPD, less than 20% burglary cases are closed.
Anecdotal: When I was living in SF several years ago, My apartment was broken into twice. The first time I did not have any camera footage, but I had setup a few cameras inside after the first break-in. So, I was able to provide the cops the footage of the second break-in. Neither of the burglary cases went anywhere! This was also the experience of most of my neighbors then.
Here is how the project works: Neighbors band together and decide where to put the cameras. They are installed on private property at the discretion of the property owner, and in San Francisco many home and business owners want them. The footage is monitored by the neighborhood coalition. The cameras are always recording.
I cannot find anywhere, if this guy retains control over these streams. Where are they recorded to and who within the neighborhood can access these feeds?
They also talk about the camera specifications being used in this program, so I am guessing all the neighborhoods accepting money from him are also agreeing to what cameras/recording stack has to be used. It isn't too far of a leap to think he also facilitates installing the cameras and setting up the backend.
He argued that trust will come in the form of full city camera coverage, so police can play a smaller, more subtle role. Individual vigilantism will not work, he argued, but strong neighborhoods with continuous video feeds on every corner will.
“That’s the winning formula,” Mr. Larsen said. “Pure coverage.”
This whole neighborhood surveillance network seems extremely misguided at best. The cynic in me thinks, this guy is profiting from this somehow, or this is only going to normalize more wide-spread surveillance for the government to enforce across the country.
Down in the tl:dr portion of the article, it mentions that each community board maintains its own video data repository, and the data is only kept for 30 days: I'm not thrilled with general...
Down in the tl:dr portion of the article, it mentions that each community board maintains its own video data repository, and the data is only kept for 30 days:
The myriad C.B.D.s, coalitions of local property owners, had mostly been around since the mid-2000s, so Mr. Larsen used that infrastructure as the local organizing unit to take his funding and use his supplier at Applied Video Solutions to buy and install cameras. They said the footage was only stored locally within each C.B.D. office and erased after 30 days.
I'm not thrilled with general surveillance, whether it's the government, local police, or my neighbors. But if it's going to be done, this is the way to do it.
Ah! Sorry, I missed that. I mistook that for what the current system was. Also, reading statements like this: Feels like the start of a slippery slope too. I would argue against that. Having seen...
Ah! Sorry, I missed that. I mistook that for what the current system was.
Also, reading statements like this:
“Sixty days would be nice,” Mr. Boudin said. “A preliminary hearing has to happen within 60 days.”
Feels like the start of a slippery slope too.
this is the way to do it.
I would argue against that.
Having seen a lot of these type of installations, I don't have too much confidence in them being kept secure, especially if they are being handed off to a group of people after installation. I feel the chances for abuse by private citizens would be quite high, as well.
Systems like this also need quite a bit of maintenance on the long run, who is going to be taking care of that?
There is a lot of financial aspects to these which are not being talked about here, either. How will vandalized/damaged cameras be handled?
Does each neighborhood have a centralized recording station? Who runs this? What processes are in place to prevent this person from tampering with the feeds? How do people in the neighborhood access the feeds (and can they use it to keep tabs on other people living there)? How will security patches be applied to the infrastructure? Who pays for replacing hard-drives at EOL? What happens if their recording station is compromised? How are remote/off-site backups being handled? Who is paying for the electricity to run the recording station and off-site backup? .... so many questions
But if it's going to be done
But, should it be, tho? There was no democratic process that went into seeing if people were ok with this. This decision is being driven purely by a private citizen throwing money and influencing other property owners.
What is the hope, for vigilante justice? Is there no way we could address the root of the problem like lack of housing, ridiculous cost of living, drug rehabilitation centers, additional education...
What is the hope, for vigilante justice? Is there no way we could address the root of the problem like lack of housing, ridiculous cost of living, drug rehabilitation centers, additional education funding for low income communities, or work programs? No? You're right, let's just clutch our pearls, throw up tons of cameras with the confidence that the private company doing it has no ulterior motives, and give police more reason to racially profile.
Here’s why: While violent crime is not high in the city, property crime is a constant headache. Anyone who lives here knows you shouldn’t leave anything — not a pile of change, not a scarf — in a parked car. Tourists visiting the city’s vistas like Twin Peaks or the famously windy Lombard Street are easy marks. The city government has struggled to solve the problem.
In the middle of this is Chris Larsen, a 59-year-old tech industry veteran, paying for hundreds of cameras. He sees it as an alternative system of urban security, and he hopes it becomes a model for other cities.
This just may be the best moment for him to explain why a rich guy paying for surveillance cameras all over a city is not a terrifying invasion of privacy. Around the country, Black Lives Matter movement protests have led to a reckoning on policing and how it should be done. Many of the activists leading this movement are fighting to abolish or defund — reduce funding for — police departments. Last week in New York, for example, the mayor announced the police budget would be cut by $1 billion.
In San Francisco, where many locals push for this kind of police reform, those same locals are tired of the break-ins. So how do they reconcile “defund the police” with “stop the smash and grabs”?
Mr. Larsen believes he has the answer: Put security cameras in the hands of neighborhood groups. Put them everywhere. He’s happy to pay for it.
Because Cops seldom solve burglary cases. Look at the case closure rate for SFPD, less than 20% burglary cases are closed.
Anecdotal: When I was living in SF several years ago, My apartment was broken into twice. The first time I did not have any camera footage, but I had setup a few cameras inside after the first break-in. So, I was able to provide the cops the footage of the second break-in. Neither of the burglary cases went anywhere! This was also the experience of most of my neighbors then.
I cannot find anywhere, if this guy retains control over these streams. Where are they recorded to and who within the neighborhood can access these feeds?
They also talk about the camera specifications being used in this program, so I am guessing all the neighborhoods accepting money from him are also agreeing to what cameras/recording stack has to be used. It isn't too far of a leap to think he also facilitates installing the cameras and setting up the backend.
This whole neighborhood surveillance network seems extremely misguided at best. The cynic in me thinks, this guy is profiting from this somehow, or this is only going to normalize more wide-spread surveillance for the government to enforce across the country.
Ugh.
Down in the tl:dr portion of the article, it mentions that each community board maintains its own video data repository, and the data is only kept for 30 days:
I'm not thrilled with general surveillance, whether it's the government, local police, or my neighbors. But if it's going to be done, this is the way to do it.
Ah! Sorry, I missed that. I mistook that for what the current system was.
Also, reading statements like this:
Feels like the start of a slippery slope too.
I would argue against that.
Having seen a lot of these type of installations, I don't have too much confidence in them being kept secure, especially if they are being handed off to a group of people after installation. I feel the chances for abuse by private citizens would be quite high, as well.
Systems like this also need quite a bit of maintenance on the long run, who is going to be taking care of that?
There is a lot of financial aspects to these which are not being talked about here, either. How will vandalized/damaged cameras be handled?
Does each neighborhood have a centralized recording station? Who runs this? What processes are in place to prevent this person from tampering with the feeds? How do people in the neighborhood access the feeds (and can they use it to keep tabs on other people living there)? How will security patches be applied to the infrastructure? Who pays for replacing hard-drives at EOL? What happens if their recording station is compromised? How are remote/off-site backups being handled? Who is paying for the electricity to run the recording station and off-site backup? .... so many questions
But, should it be, tho? There was no democratic process that went into seeing if people were ok with this. This decision is being driven purely by a private citizen throwing money and influencing other property owners.
What is the hope, for vigilante justice? Is there no way we could address the root of the problem like lack of housing, ridiculous cost of living, drug rehabilitation centers, additional education funding for low income communities, or work programs? No? You're right, let's just clutch our pearls, throw up tons of cameras with the confidence that the private company doing it has no ulterior motives, and give police more reason to racially profile.
Dope... dope, dope, dope.
From the article: