Comments on: Followup: More about city-installed Alki surveillance cameras

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:13:27 +0000

Rod
Regarding Greg’s and WMF’s observations about cameras vs law enforcement officers I am okay with police on the street but who is behind the cameras zeroing in on couples on the beach having a snuggle and a few kisses or your children playing on the beach. We know a police officer to see one and they know because they are visible to the public how to behave and what actions they can legally take. We don’t know who is watching us and our children through the camera lens. To me it is important to know how these individuals are screened for the job. As Greg said “The law is clear, there is no expectation of privacy in public space.” Maybe we need to take a new look at that law. Decades ago this was not a big issue but with the huge technological advances in recent years it has become a huge privacy issue specially if the camera’s are monitoring private citizens on private property. Cameras at the cargo docks I have no problem with but monitoring private citizens at the beach and on their property for no apparent reason I disagree with.

I agree with SeaChanty51 let the citizens have access to watch the watchers. Keep an eye on where they train the cameras.

By: da man

da man — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:50:59 +0000

all of you people complaining about this should be going to council meetings, writing your elected officials, and trying to do something about it, rather than merely voicing your opinions here.
just my opinion.
i don’t have an issue with the cameras. i have an issue that these were presented as ‘maritime security’, but clearly the cameras have another intent in mind. The City of Seattle was probably concerned we would all blog about this if they told it to us straight.

By: LongtimeResident

LongtimeResident — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:48:32 +0000

I’ve been looking at our nearest camera with my binoculars and am certain that if these cameras have powerful zoom optics as has been reported, some pervert in a dark room could be watching my wife and I as I type this. If the sexual ethics Secret Service agents and 4-star generals cannot be trusted, why should we assume that those watching these cameras will not turn into “Rear Window” type voyeurs. We pay a lot of rent for the view we have. Do we have to pull the shades and eliminate that view to keep unknown camera minders from watching us? I can see the camera from where I sit, so I am sure it will be able to see me, too. (They may find my wife more interesting.) And one more thing: I notice from the location map that the entire Gold Coast million-dollar condo stretch of Alki has zero cameras. ZERO.

By: gatewooder

gatewooder — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:42:22 +0000

These cameras are a good thing. Alki Ave/beach is a public area that attracts some not very nice folks looking for trouble on a fairly regular basis, this should help. I don’t understand why some people think there is a vast conspiracy going on, they might try enhanced aluminum foil beanies with extended rims – that way not only the mind control rays will be stopped, it will also protect them visually on the cams.

By: Jeff platt

Jeff platt — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 05:56:57 +0000

They keep it secrect and talk about it only after its up
The port of seattle excuse is laughable
Spd is lame at what they do and i think this is a prime example

By: Catsup on Liberty Fries

Catsup on Liberty Fries — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:49:38 +0000

Please. Don’t tell me the City of Seattle will catch me attacking people who put catsup on their hot dogs. Mustard only. Catsup on Liberty Fries is OK, though.

By: JayDee

JayDee — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:47:12 +0000

“Children: Can you spell C-a-r-n-i-v-o-r-e? I knew you could.”

From Mr. Roberts’ Surveillance Neighborhood, 2015…

By: H

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 23:10:04 +0000

S, you are spot on. Careful using the B word online, NSA is watching. Too bad more people don’t getting it.

By: S

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:05:23 +0000

Welcome to the emerging police state, brought to you by the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s not about port security, although that is certainly an valid issue; it’s really about monitoring and controlling the Civilian population who are considered by the DHS as terrorist threats.

See that cyclist riding around Alki, he/she MAY have a b-0-m-b.

Why else would there be cameras along the I-5 corridor as mentioned?

Our tax dollars working to enslave ourselves. Wonderful.

By: brian

brian — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:50:37 +0000

Anyone who thinks that adding multitudes of cameras in public spaces will curb criminal behavior need only look at what has happened in the UK over the last decade.

It doesn’t work.

By: wetone

wetone — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 20:41:09 +0000

So true JayDee, could not agree more. Very good real info Phil. One more very bad waste of goverment money from our city under false pretense and on the down low. Got a good laugh yesterday as city light was turning some of the cameras around so they face the water, as they were installed facing the wrong way ? Like I said in earlier post, must have same city people involved on this project as the New South Seattle Transfer Station.

By: Amber

Amber — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:38:33 +0000

@ Coyote – That’s not even needed. From the picture, the install is way sloppy – look at all those cables dangling out there between the camera and the transmitter. Pruning saw, or high winds.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:38:06 +0000

Most crime that is deterred by cameras will simply be moved outside their view.

Following are links to printed materials I provided to Seattle City Council’s Parks Committee on February 18, 2009 (specifically in regard to the surveillance cameras Mayor Nickels sneaked into Cal Anderson Park):

* “S.F. public housing cameras no help in homicide arrests,” by Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 14, 2007, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/14/MNIPRHRPE.DTL
* “CCTV ‘not a crime deterrent’,” Wednesday, 14 August, 2002, 14:35 GMT 15:35 UK, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2192911.stm
* “CCTV ‘fails to reduce crime’,” Friday, 28 June, 2002, 14:41 GMT 15:41 UK, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2071397.stm
* “ACLU: What Criminologists and Others Studying Cameras Have Found,” June 25, 2008, http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/expert-findings-surveillance-cameras and http://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file708_35775.pdf
* “THE SCOTTISH OFFICE CENTRAL RESEARCH UNIT CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH FINDINGS No 30; The Effect of closed circuit television on recorded crime rates and public concern about crime in Glasgow,” http://www.scotcrim.u-net.com/researchc2.htm
* “CITRIS study on SF public cameras released,” http://www.citris-uc.org/news/SFcamerastudy and http://www.citris-uc.org/files/CITRIS%20SF%20CSC%20Study%20Final%20Dec%202008.pdf
* “CCTV CAMERA EVALUATION; The crime reduction effects of public CCTV cameras in the City of Philadelphia, PA installed during 2006,” February, 2008, http://www.temple.edu/cj/misc/PhilaCCTV.pdf

By: RachaelB

RachaelB — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:21:13 +0000

Not so much lazy police work as it seems to be saving the county money by not having police on patrol. The first step in that was taking the 2nd officer out of each car. Now we have red light cameras and speed zone cameras so the police don’t even have to enforce traffic laws. It feels to me as if the intent is to let the crime happen and send the fine through the mail later on. Okay… lazy police work. Land of the free? ‘Tis a pity.

By: Truthizwurscrewed

Truthizwurscrewed — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:11:44 +0000

Well with “real time” transmitters they potentially could be used to stop a crime in progress. Also want people to consider a large foreign container ship anchored in the bay with who knows who on board. Middle of a moonless night and a few of them climb into a raft or row boat and land it on the beach. Bet you’d wish someone was watching at that time. Oh and, yes, this exact senario has happened before here in WS..just saying