(April photo of SPD surveillance camera installed at Admiral Way Viewpoint)
When last we checked with Mayor McGinn‘s office regarding the status of his decisionmaking on whether to give Seattle Police approval to activate the surveillance cameras installed from Fauntleroy to Alki to Admiral and beyond, they told us the ball was in SPD’s court, expecting the department to schedule “additional public meetings” (that quote’s in our March 31st update). Tonight, SPD has finally announced one more meeting: This Friday night, 7 pm, in Ballard. The announcement was made via SPD Blotter just after 8 pm tonight:

Got questions about the Port Security Grant? Missed our meetings in West Seattle and Belltown? Planning a staycation this Memorial Day weekend?

Well then, this opportunity is for you!

Tell us in person. We’ll be at the Golden Gardens Bathhouse, 8498 Seaview Pl. NW, Friday, May 24th at 7 p.m.

Can’t make it? Not a problem. Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, you can send your thoughts to us electronically. Drop us an email at cameraquestions@seattle.gov

The first two meetings were March 12 on Alki (WSB coverage here) and March 19 in Belltown. Missed the backstory? The “port-security grant” refers to a communication system including dozens of Seattle Police-managed surveillance cameras, funded by a federal grant originally described as being for port security, but since framed in a broader public-safety context. WSB readers were first to notice cameras being installed unannounced, which led to the news being broken here, if you go all the way back to the first story (January 29) in our archive.

While the final decision on activating the new Homeland Security-funded, Seattle Police-operated surveillance-camera system isn’t in yet, at least one more has been installed. Max shared the photo taken at Admiral Way Viewpoint. SPD had said this installation lagged the others (including those that first drew attention in West Seattle two months ago) because the pole they wanted to use had been hit – now it’s fixed and the camera’s in place. As reported here on Sunday, which at one point was the SPD deadline for activating the cameras, Mayor McGinn‘s office says they’re still expecting SPD to set up more community meetings. They had two in March, one at Alki, one in Belltown; the cameras were originally described as “port security” but are in place in recreational/residential areas as well as other spots, with 30 designated sites in all from Fauntleroy to Ballard.

Now that the date has arrived – in case you were wondering, we’ve verified it will come and go with no decision yet on when the system stretching from Fauntleroy to Ballard might be activated.

Mayor McGinn first said on February 11th, in a response to WSB, that “the system will not be operated without a thorough public vetting …” While he did not set specific criteria for that “vetting,” so far it has consisted of a briefing before the Seattle City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee on February 20th (WSB coverage here), a briefing at the Alki Community Council‘s February 21st board meeting (WSB coverage here), an SPD-led briefing/Q-A session at Alki Bathhouse on March 12th (WSB coverage here, with video of the entire meeting), and a similar session one week later at Belltown Community Center.

We were not at that March 19th meeting, but privacy/technology activist Phil Mocek, who has closely followed and researched this, recorded and published its audio:

Grant/equipment-related documents he had sought through a public-disclosure request also are now available online.

With no updates since the March 19th meeting, we checked with the mayor’s office at week’s end to see the status of a possible decision. Spokesperson Aaron Pickus replied, “SPD is still putting together additional public meetings.”

The system was described as “port security” in the original May 2012 City Council discussions of the $5 million federal grant that’s paying for it, but in interviews and discussions over the past two months, police also have talked about other ways they, Seattle Fire, and others plan to use the camera system in developing public-safety situations. They also said for the first time at the Alki meeting on March 12th that images from the cameras would be made available to the public online – likely with a frame refreshing every two minutes or so.

For now, along with awaiting SPD word on the “additional public meetings,” we also are awaiting the department’s documentation of protocol for the cameras’ operation, as mandated by new city rules the council approved earlier this month. SPD had said those rules were being drafted by a “steering committee.” Its membership has not been disclosed; Mocek’s public-disclosure request regarding its membership is still awaiting fulfillment.

While the Seattle Police surveillance cameras first noticed by WSB readers two months ago are often referred to as the “Alki cameras” – the system includes other neighborhoods north from here, as far north as Ballard. And that’s why tonight, SPD’s second questions/answers meeting – following up the one we covered last Tuesday on Alki – is scheduled for the Belltown Community Center (415 Bell Street; map), 7 pm.

SPD reiterated last week that there would be others, but none have been announced yet. So thus far the public discussion, which started three weeks after media coverage, has consisted of:
*Public Safety, Civil Rights, Technology Committee briefing February 20th (WSB coverage here)
*Alki Community Council briefing February 21st (WSB coverage here)
*Alki Bathhouse meeting March 12th (WSB coverage here)

The system is the result of a Homeland Security grant sought by the city and originally approved by the Public Safety Committee last year (as reported here January 31st) – described at the time only as a “port security” system, without any mention of cameras in residential/recreational areas such as Alki.

Yesterday, the full City Council approved a new set of city rules that among other things, they say, will prevent that from happening in the future – as co-sponsor Councilmember Nick Licata put it, the controversial camera-equipped “drones” were also part of a grant that the council apparently approved two years before they suddenly turned up.

Co-sponsor Councilmember Bruce Harrell, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, gave the topline description: “The legislation basically requires all city departments to obtain City Council approval prior to acquiring surveillance equipment” as well as Council approval for how the equipment, and the data it gathers, will be managed. It has been said that this will cover the Alki-to-Ballard cameras, even though most of them have been installed, with the “protocols” to be proposed for that system and any other surveillance equipment in place “no later than 30 days after this takes effect.”

The bill also requires “public outreach conducted in each community” where surveillance equipment would be installed.

Harrell also noted that the bill had been changed between committee discussion and vote two weeks ago and yesterday’s full Council vote.

Phil Mocek, a local activist who has been closely covering the surveillance-camera situation and related issues, points out on his website that major changes were reviewed at yesterday morning’s Council briefing meeting, hours before the afternoon vote. As he writes, and as can be seen in Seattle Channel video of the briefing meeting, Harrell mentioned SPD leadership sending the council a letter last Friday expressing a concern about “somehow … inhibiting Seattle Police ability to use surveillance equipment in certain criminal investigations on a temporary basis.” Harrell said a paragraph regarding that exemption was “already in the bill” but that they added further language SPD wanted. Licata expressed concern “about how large a loophole it was”; Harrell at that point noted more changes were made at the Seattle Police Department’s request. Licata said his concern was the definition of “criminal investigation” and whether a broad definition would open everyone to surveillance. Harrell said he didn’t think there was “ambiguity” in the definition. There was talk of maybe holding the bill – but in the end, they didn’t.

The version now online includes this paragraph:

Notwithstanding the provisions of this Chapter, City departments may acquire or use surveillance equipment that is used on a temporary basis for the purpose of a criminal investigation supported by reasonable suspicion, or pursuant to a lawfully issued search warrant, or under exigent circumstances as defined in case law. This exemption from the provisions of this ordinance does not apply to surveillance cameras mounted on drones or other unmanned aircraft.

Back to the cameras installed along West Seattle’s shores – including Harbor and Alki Avenues, Beach Drive, and Fauntleroy Way near the ferry dock, with one planned for Admiral (map) – the next steps to activation remain unclear; Mayor McGinn first told WSB on February 11th: “The system will not be operated until a thorough public vetting of the system has been completed and the public has provided input.” That “vetting” continues with the Belltown meeting tonight.

COUNCIL VOTE MONDAY ON SURVEILLANCE-SYSTEM OVERSIGHT: This Monday during the Seattle City Council‘s regular 2 pm meeting, they are scheduled to vote on the proposal to give the council a role in overseeing city-owned/operated surveillance systems from hereon out. It is not a vote specifically on the 30-camera system that Seattle Police wants to use in connection with a federally funded “wireless mesh” communications system, but rather a vote on a bill setting policies regarding surveillance systems. As reported in as-it-happened coverage here, the council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee discussed the bill on March 6, including amendments. Civil-liberties activist/writer Phil Mocek has compared an earlier version of the bill to the amended version that the council will consider Monday – showing and writing about the differences on his website here, including a side-by-side comparison. Along with other points, he notes that it speaks to concerns about communication – this system, you’ll recall, was being installed without any word to the public:

Instead of a description of the nature and extent of outreach performed, the bill now requires (in paragraph ‘H’) plans for public outreach for each community in which the surveillance equipment is intended to be used, including opportunity for public meetings, opportunity for comment periods, and written agency responses to public comments.

You can read the full bill here. The Monday afternoon council meetings do begin with a public-comment period; they’re in council chambers on the second floor of City Hall downtown.

PUBLIC-DISCLOSURE REQUEST: In late January (shortly after we first reported on the cameas), Mocek initiated public-disclosure actions seeking various types of documentation related to this system, and the resulting public release of documents is under way. Some have been made available on the website through which he filed the request, and others are in progress. Another local advocate, Andrew Pilloud, also filed for public release of documents and gave us the heads-up today that some are now available – he has written about it on his website, here. He says his concerns include the fact the city could vastly expand the camera network (as discussed in an online article we found in our early reporting on the system): “If the city was offered another grant, there is no technical reason not to add a camera to every other mesh node in the city for 180 in total.” He also says the cameras have capacities beyond what SPD originally sought – this came up briefly in Q/A at last Tuesday’s Alki Bathhouse meeting (WSB coverage, with video, here).

‘TAKE DOWN THE CAMERAS’ ONLINE PETITION: As mentioned previously in WSB comments and the WSB Forums, an online petition is circulating to ask the city to cancel the camera system. (At least twice in meetings we’ve covered, SPD leadership has said that could be done without affecting the “wireless-mesh” communications network.) The petition is here. It was created by Avrian Sellick, who tells WSB this is not only for those who are against the cameras: “The petition is also for those who are deeply concerned with the SPD’s handling of the public relations aspect of these cameras. … I really just want to give those people who are concerned about these cameras an organized avenue to communicate with the city and SPD.”

Side note: SPD plans another meeting about the surveillance cameras this Tuesday in Belltown, and has said there will be others, though no further dates have been announced. It’s at 7 pm Tuesday (March 19), Belltown Community Center.

7:09 PM: We’re at Alki Bathhouse with more than thirty people as Seattle Police start their first meeting about the surveillance-camera system originally reported here on WSB. Leading off the meeting, Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh, who we interviewed about the system back on February 1st. Also here, Det. Monty Moss, who has led some of the briefings, and a full complement of citywide media, plus other SPD personnel (including from the public affairs/media relations office, Sgt. Sean Whitcomb and Det. Jeff Kappel). Moss is making a background-information slide presentation, similar so far to the ones he gave to the City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee on February 20th as well as to the Alki Community Council the next night. (Added: Unedited WSB video of the entire hour-and-a-half meeting:)

7:12 PM: Det. Moss says they should be “done with the installation by the end of this month” and are continuing to work on policies regarding the cameras’ usage. He says two cameras are being installed “as we speak” in the Ballard Locks area, and they’re still seeking a location along Seaview, “but it will not be in Golden Gardens Park.” Closer to here, he says the Terminals 5 and 18 cameras are now installed. After discussing the camera locations, he’s showing the video demonstration about how the “privacy masking” will work, and noting that the frame rate for the video will be 5 to 7 frames per second, about a quarter of what TV broadcasts use. He says the video is recorded with the masking, and that it cannot be removed afterward – no matter what the cameras wind up picking up.

He also describes the antenna arrays for the “wireless mesh” portion of the system, which is expected to be used by other agencies from Metro to Seattle Fire, which will use it in some areas as its primary means of communication, according to Det. Moss.

The crowd continues to grow – probably closer to 40 now.

**CONTINUING AHEAD, THE REST OF OUR AS-IT-HAPPENED COVERAGE, PLUS NOTES FROM AFTERWARD**

7:23 PM: “What we’re proposing is a public-safety system,” says Chief McDonagh, taking over. But, he says, there are privacy concerns, which he says they discussed early on. There is a possibility of putting a physical barrier between cameras and whatever they shouldn’t see, but, he says, that would be vulnerable to vandalism. “This privacy masking occurs at the camera before anyone sees it,” and that’s why he says they chose that method. “Part of this program going forward … the idea here is, it’s not going to end there. “We’re going to have a situation where civilians can see the privacy masking as it’s up” and comment. He also says they will put up a website that “every camera” will be viewable on – this is new. He deals with terrorism, he says, “and one of the threats is to our maritime industry so my job is to provide public safety to the citizens of Seattle under that arena. .. The video will be recorded but I will not be staffing it 24/7.” He says it will be a “response tool and investigative tool .. and with the privacy masking we believe we will not have an issue” of violating someone’s privacy. He says what we’ve heard before, that the video would be retained for 30 days unless it’s pulled out – then, if not pulled out (which would be logged) for a criminal investigation, it would be overwritten. He says SPD believes it’s the only agency in the country that will be putting privacy masking on surveillance cameras. “A lot of what you’re saying requires that we just trust (you),” asks an Alki resident. “I can log onto a website and see that it seems masked but” how can that be proven? Chief McDonagh then says that it could be viewed by citizens who are chosen to be able to do that “whenever they want” – members of the Precinct Advisory Committee are being proposed. “The whole intention of this is not to spy on the citizens of Seattle … I don’t want that either … there are things in place in the policy that is being drafted right now” for privacy protections.

Now we’re not clear whether he’s saying the cameras will be visible via a public website or via members of the public chosen to come to SPD HQ and vet them.

7:32 PM: “This project is the port … we have a reason to be concerned about the port, and that’s what we are addressing,” McDonagh said. Then Sgt. Verner O’Quin says what they will make available is a still every 30 seconds or 2 minutes – McDonagh chimes in, “what we’re trying to do is not enable (somebody to become a) stalker.” Someone asks if this system will make Seattle more susceptible to cyber-attack. Next question, what’s the zooming capability of the cameras, and will the park area be masked? 150 yards-ish, is the zooming answer. Re: the parks, Det. Moss says, “anything that the public has the right to see, the camera has the right to see.” What about something visible from the sidewalk? “If you as a human being can see it, that’s OK, but a camera, that’s illegal,” says Det. Moss.

What about the position of the cameras? The Fauntleroy camera appears not to be facing the water, it’s pointed out. That may just be a mistake, just like the original position of some of the Alki cameras, is the SPD reply. (Here’s a photo we’ve published before:)

A man says he’s from Spud Fish and Chips and they’ve had graffiti problems and he wonders if the cameras can help catch the vandals. Contact police and “it could be used for that” if it has recorded a crime in progress, Chief McDonagh says. He is asked next, “How can you do surveillance at Alki but you couldn’t at Golden Gardens?” McDonagh starts to say that’s because they’re across the street – he is corrected: “They’re on the sidewalk.” He says, “Well, all I can say is, they’re not in the park.” A man now identifies himself as a Socialist Workers representative and brings up the Longview situation last year. He says he believes this will be used in the future to suppress protest activities. Next, they are asked about the specific cameras. Both are Canons, police reply. The next question results in information that three thermal-imaging cameras were installed on Harbor Patrol boats – not at fixed locations.

In response to the next question, McDonagh says the Port of Seattle *is* a partner in this system – which hadn’t been clarified before. One attendee points out this won’t have any preventive effects. Chief McDonagh counters that by saying he believes that the cameras could help “interdict” a terrorist act. “Video has been able to successfully resolve a number of cases” worldwide, says McDonagh. Next, a woman says she is “old-fashioned” in being behind police and public-safety personnel, whatever they do, but she also is behind the Bill of Rights and unlawful search/seizure. She says she lives nearby and “it kind of hurts to think of having cameras looking at us. I’m a cancer patient. I can’t tell you how many times I go out for a walk … I use this beach to heal. I don’t want someone looking and saying, ‘There she is again.’ Just because you can do a thing, doesn’t mean you should do a thing. I taught computers for years and they have changed from what they originally started to be. I’m calling for something that’s a check for common sense. What’s wrong with including the fact that people love this beach, want to play on the beach, walk our dogs … we don’t want a camera watching us do it.”

7:49 PM: McDonagh says they don’t want to watch people on the beach and most cameras won’t be turned that way – but the cameras may be helpful in some situations. He mentions long-ago riots on Alki, the plane crash near Salty’s, and how a camera might have helped in those cases. Det. Moss then mentions the “home” position each camera will have – except when it’s moved for an incident. “We’re not using facial recognition… there’s no analytics on the camera,” says Det. Moss. An Alki resident then says, “Why did the cameras go up before residents were told? And you installed them (incorrectly) … It seems there was a rush to get them up … I’m curious what the rush was.” Chief McDonagh says there were “plans for press conferences … but (something) came up.” He said they were “in a rush because we have a certain timeline for the grant.”

Will there be signs letting people know they’re on camera? asks an attendee. “I’m not opposed to putting a sticker or sign on them,” says McDonagh. He’s asked to clarify, and he says, one that could be seen from 30 feet away would be OK. Next question comes from Phil Mocek, who has been researching this situation. He asks where the rest of the money went, since it was said at the Alki Community Council meeting last month that this system took $3.5 million of the nearly $5 million grant. Chief McDonagh says King County’s helicopter was the recipient of some of the equipment, and it’s all in the RFP and contract proposal. Sgt. O’Quin says that’s available online. McDonagh says, “I know it all came out kind of strange, but at the same time, we’re not hiding anything, my duty is to protect and to maintain your privacy, and I think we came up with a very good compromise.”

8 PM: A woman says that she understands the police think they are doing the right thing, but so did others in the past such as when Japanese-Americans were interned. She mentions the “health dangers” of being “immersed in a radio-frequency cloud … of wi-fi.”

McDonagh says he agrees that he wants to avoid the “slippery slope.” Next a man says he went around and noticed the installations were powered. Yes, they have power, police acknowledged, but the cameras are not activated. Did SPD get the microphone option for the cameras it’s using? the man asked. No – recording audio is illegal, he was told. Next question: If many agencies will use it, who owns the backbone? The city of Seattle, is the reply. The followup: What if someone penetrates the network; what would they have access to? Det. Moss replies, “We have a lot of layers of security and the partners that will be using the network have a lot of layers beyond that.” How many non-public entities will have access? “We’re putting up public-safety cameras for fire, police, traffic to use,” replied Det. Moss. He said he was asked “if the feds are paying for this, why don’t they have access to it?” and said he replied that the cameras will help public-safety agencies do their jobs. “The feds are not connecting to our network” – aside from the US Coast Guard remaining “under consideration” to do that.

8:12 PM: There’s no backup power for the mesh system, is the response to another question. If there’s a problem, the electric system can rewire around a localized outage, Chief McDonagh said. This system is not replacing radio and other communications, he says – it is designed to “compliment” it. “Could you keep the mesh system for communication and ditch the cameras?” someone else asks. “Yes – but the need remains,” said McDonagh, insisting he is not “paranoid … I’m trying to implement a system focused on a specific threat … so that we can hopefully protect our city.” Will the 90-day access log for the cameras be public record? We can do that, says McDonagh. He says yes, there can be a map of their final locations, but he does not believe they can map its final field of view. Next, he says the cameras will not affect how Alki is staffed with police officers. Those officers will not be able to control the cameras from the field – it’s a fixed view “until someone takes control of the camera.” This is not related to the recently announced Predictive Policing (“PredPol”), he said. McDonagh also said that they’re aware, as discussed at last week’s Council committee briefing, that the technology and rules will have to be re-evaluated a few years down the line. But, he said, there are some areas of the city that WANT cameras. “Couldn’t you give it to them?” someone then asks. Reply: “No, I can’t.” A man then comes up to say that he has no problems with the cameras, with X-ray machines at airports, he doesn’t understand why people are concerned about “things that make us safer,” and police “can put all the cameras on my block you want.”

8:19 PM: So how will the public view of the surveillance cameras not be exploited by someone? police are asked. Det. Moss says that a still refreshed every 2 minutes or so should keep it from not becoming “a reality show.’ If there’s an incident in progress, the cameras would be taken offline, Chief McDonagh says, so that people don’t “steal those images and put them on the Web … that would be disrespectful.” Someone points out that SDOT’s traffic cameras are listed online and have one-minute refreshes – and they have a few that provide live video. McDonagh reiterates that he doesn’t want to provide video, but the idea of having all the cameras listed on a map, “that’s what we want to design,” though it’s not done yet.

Now a man who says he has lived nearby for years recounts a “shootout” that had a long response time. (He seems to be talking about the Pepperdock shooting a few years back.) But now, “Big Brother moving in … is it really going to make a difference?” Cameras are going to have some deterrence, McDonagh said. “But what does it do to us residents? Do we have to worry about what we do now because (we’re being watched)?” No, says McDonagh, before a restaurant owner says he thinks people might come back here because they feel safer. Then someone else says yes, but people might not come here because they’ll be visible on camera. This moves to a dialogue between attendees for a while, and then McDonagh takes control again. “It’s technology moving forward … what we’re trying to do is apply technology with guidelines and controls.” He reiterates that the main concern is what’s happening out on the water. “Is a license plate enough to get a conviction for a crime” if something is caught on camera? McDonagh is asked. He says it might help but first the individuals involved must be identified.

8:31 PM: The meeting is close to wrapping up. The topic of the International District’s privately owned camera system comes up again. It helped solve crimes, Det. Moss says; they asked the camera owners for the video. They’re asked if the system could be used for a wiretap; not without a judge signing a warrant, is the reply. Will the cameras be used for covert surveillance operations? is the followup question, say, you can point the camera at the home of someone who turns out to be a suspect? If a judge is convinced, theoretically, yes, but McDonagh thinks that’s not too likely.

*The meeting ended shortly thereafter. We’ve just spoken to Chief McDonagh with a few questions for clarification; will update and add some more background links and images here when we’re back at HQ.

10:53 PM: We have the entire meeting on video and have just added the clip, unedited, near the top of this report. From the aforementioned conversation: Yes, he confirms, the website they’re working on would be accessible to anyone, with stills from the cameras in the network – that’s an update from the original suggestion they might make a “few” cameras available online. We asked if they have decided who would be able to control the cameras; McDonagh says they will recommend that “supervisors” have the ability – say, a shift commander for police, maybe a battalion chief for the Fire Department, a manager in the Traffic Management Center for SDOT – but this will all be brought to the City Council for approval, as per the terms of the surveillance-system oversight rules on which the council will vote next Monday.

If you couldn’t make it to this meeting but want to hear the presentation firsthand, and/or ask questions, there’s another one next Tuesday (March 19), 7 pm, at the Belltown Community Center, 415 Bell St., and others TBA, per SPD. If you have something to say in the meantime, SPD has set up the e-mail address cameraquestions@seattle.gov.

If you missed it over the weekend: Late Friday night, Seattle Police announced the dates/places/times for the first two public meetings about the Homeland Security-funded surveillance-camera system first reported here in late January (WSB coverage archive here): The first meeting is tomorrow (Tuesday) night, 7 pm, at the Alki Bathhouse, steps from the first camera noticed by a reader, the one on a pole next to Statue of Liberty Plaza, one of more than two dozen cameras police plan to install from Ballard to Fauntleroy (those already installed include the one in the photo above, at 63rd SW/Beach Drive). If you have questions, concerns, words of support, anything to say or ask, or if you just want to hear firsthand, be there.

Seattle Police have just announced the promised meetings for “thorough public vetting” – Mayor McGinn’s phrase – of their federally funded surveillance-camera network. First one is Tuesday (March 12th), 7 pm, at Alki Bathhouse; second one, 7 pm March 19th at Belltown Community Center. They’ve also set up an address for e-mail feedback: cameraquestions@seattle.gov. It’s been more than six weeks since we broke the news of half a dozen cameras’ installation along Alki and Harbor Avenues, Beach Drive, and Fauntleroy Way, part of a 30-camera system linked to a “wireless mesh” communication system, and two weeks since SPD indicated there would be public forums, without mentioning dates, places, times. Tonight the city’s Seattle Channel also took an closeup look at the controversy. Our coverage dating back to January 29th is archived here, newest to oldest.

(Archived Seattle Channel video of this afternoon’s committee meeting)
The City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee decided this afternoon to delay by a week its vote on a proposal to regulate how the city procures and uses surveillance systems.

The delay was attributed mostly to revisions made, and considered, via input including opinions of interested parties such as the city’s Human Rights Commission and the ACLU. Representatives of both were among those who spoke during the public-comment period that opened the committee’s meeting this afternoon; in general, most speakers said they were glad to see councilmembers acknowledge there need to be some rules and guidelines regarding how the city uses this technology. Council staffer Christa Valles made it clear that this proposal – CB 117730, as noted in our preview early Tuesday – does not set the rules for how any specific system might be used, but rather sets the parameters for what kind of rules need to be in place before a system can be planned or deployed. The Human Rights Commission’s main concern is that citizens’ “private right of action” be protected – so they can file a complaint if they are a “victim of surveillance.”

The committee also heard from citizen watchdog Phil Mocek, who has provided and sought information (including participation in WSB comment discussions) since our first report on the “waterfront” cameras that Seattle Police installed unannounced, but have not yet activated. Among other points, Mocek said that the proposed policy is important because the agencies using surveillance should not be the same ones overseeing it. Other speaking included a man who identified himself as a security/privacy/anonymity researcher and lauded the city for “leading in this type of transparency”; a man who identified himself as a drone hobbyist; and a man who expressed concern about the city’s school-zone-speed cameras (one of which is in West Seattle, near Gatewood Elementary).

SPD Assistant Chief Clark Kimerer was at the table with councilmembers and staff for the discussion, but no new details of the “port security” camera project were discussed or inquired about – aside from an agreement that if this proposal is passed, it will apply to the system, even though many of its ~30 cameras are already installed. He also acknowledged that this is precedent-setting because the department previously was responsible for policies using this kind of equipment, but now, it will be vetted by the Council.

Councilmember Licata noted that they want to work with all city departments – not just SPD. And he pointed out that “management of the data is as important as anything else.” That includes the users’ logs that will be required, pointed out Valles when Councilmember Mike O’Brien said it would be important to know who’s accessing the surveillance video. O’Brien also wondered about protocol for uses of cameras installed with other intents, like traffic cameras: “We could pretty much wind up as a city where you’re under surveillance for anything.”

There was also agreement that even the language they are working on now may be obsolete soon, as technology continues to evolve – this was pointed out by Council President Sally Clark, who was on hand though she is not an official member of the committee.

Meantime, we’re still awaiting word of public forums about the new system, for which Mayor McGinn promised a “thorough public vetting” before the green light would be given to activate it.

THURSDAY NIGHT ADDENDUM: As noted by Phil Mocek in comments, the one-week delay is actually in the planned movement of the bill from committee to full council. Often, a bill approved by a committee will go to the full council the following Monday; in this case, while the bill is still being amended, it is expected to go to the full council no sooner than March 18th, a week from Monday. You can check its status here – technically still listed as “in committee” as of this writing.

(Camera and “wireless mesh” array at 63rd/Beach Drive, silhouetted at dusk Monday)
By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

So far, the “thorough public vetting” of the Seattle Police-managed, Homeland Security-funded surveillance cameras awaiting activation in Alki and elsewhere has consisted of two events: A briefing at the City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee meeting two weeks ago (WSB coverage here), and one at the Alki Community Council‘s board meeting in West Seattle the next night (WSB coverage here).

It’s been three weeks since the mayor made the “thorough public vetting” promise here (repeated days later to other media).

At both of the briefings two weeks ago, SPD reps mentioned a plan in the works for public forums; we asked about the dates then, again a week ago, and again this week – still no dates or other details. SPD Public Affairs told WSB this morning they haven’t heard yet either.

A related topic will get some sunlight tomorrow, when the Public Safety (etc.) Committee meets again, to discuss Councilmembers Nick Licata and Bruce Harrell‘s proposal for vetting future use/purchase of surveillance equipment, with at least one clause that appears to apply even to what’s already in the works:

The same committee gave its blessing to the $5 million federal surveillance-camera grant last May, as first reported here on January 31, with chair Harrell and member Mike O’Brien present, but Harrell told WSB last month that the SPD description of the cameras’ purpose as “port security” did not include any mention that they would turn up in residential and recreational areas, as they did in late January, when WSB readers noticed them and asked us about them, leading to first word of what they were.

The ordinance, Council Bill 117730, will be heard in committee at 2 pm tomorrow (Wednesday). Follow that link to read the full text; it cites the now-scrapped drones as well as the waterfront cameras as grounds for creating a new Seattle Municipal Code chapter titled “Acquisition and Use of Surveillance Equipment.” It says in part:

Any City department intending to acquire surveillance equipment shall obtain City Council approval via ordinance prior to acquisition. Prior to deployment or installation of the surveillance equipment, City departments shall obtain Council approval via ordinance of operational protocols, unless applicable operational protocols were previously approved by ordinance. In requesting approval for acquisition of surveillance equipment, City departments shall include proposed operational protocols containing the following information for the City Council’s consideration, along with any other information specifically requested by the City Council:
A. A clear statement describing the purpose and use of the proposed surveillance equipment.
B. The type of surveillance equipment to be acquired and used.
C. The intended specific location of such surveillance equipment if affixed to a building or other structure.
D. How and when a department proposes to use the surveillance equipment, such as whether the equipment will be operated continuously or used only under specific circumstances.
E. How the department’s use of the equipment will be regulated to protect privacy and limit the risk of potential abuse.
F. A description of how and when data will be collected and retained and who will have access to any data captured by the surveillance equipment.
G. The extent to which activity will be monitored in real time as data is being captured and the extent to which monitoring of historically recorded information will occur.
H. A description of the nature and extent of public outreach conducted in each community in which the department intends to use the surveillance equipment.
I. If a department is requesting to acquire or use drones or other unmanned aircraft, it shall propose the specific circumstances under which they may be deployed, along with clearly articulated authorization protocols.
J. If more than one department will have access to the surveillance equipment or the data captured by it, a lead department shall be identified that is responsible for maintaining the equipment and ensuring compliance with all related protocols. If the lead department intends to delegate any related responsibilities to other departments and city personnel, these responsibilities and associated departments and personnel shall be clearly identified.

And it includes a provision that could apply retroactively to the camera system that’s already been partly installed:

Section 3. Each department operating surveillance equipment prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall adopt written data management protocols consistent with SMC 14.18.30 no later than thirty days following the effective date of this ordinance and submit these protocols to the City Council for review and possible approval by ordinance.

A memo summarizing the proposal is included with the online agenda for tomorrow afternoon’s meeting; as is SOP for committee meetings, there will be a public-comment period, though it’s at the start of the meeting, not attached to any particular agenda item.

Regarding protocols with the now-installed waterfront cameras – so far, SPD has said only that their video files will be kept only for 30 days unless intercepted as possible crime evidence, and that access logs would be kept for 90 days. Who gets access to the video, for viewing and/or controlling the cameras, was to be decided by a multi-department steering committee whose members have not been disclosed.

We’ll be at tomorrow afternoon’s meeting; it’ll be live on the Seattle Channel, cable or online.

WSB coverage of the waterfront surveillance cameras, dating back to January 29th, is archived here, newest to oldest.

(Map showing West Seattle camera locations, from SPD presentation slide deck)
By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor
One month after Seattle Police-managed, Homeland Security-funded surveillance cameras were installed, unannounced, along Alki, SPD reps came to West Seattle to talk with beach residents about the system’s intent and extent.

The Alki Community Council board requested the briefing; for those arriving at Alki UCC Thursday night, a TV crew in the lobby was the first sign the board was taking up something of citywide interest. The briefing came one day after the City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee took a closer look at the program (WSB coverage here), offering citizens a chance to comment publicly for the first time since the cameras’ purpose was revealed in this January 29th WSB report.

You can listen to the entire meeting thanks to attendee Phil Mocek, who recorded and made the audio publicly available:

In addition to answering numerous questions, Det. Monty Moss, in charge of the program, suggested for the first time that there was at some point the intent to talk to the public first:

That came in response to an attendee’s mention of WSB being first to mention the Alki-and-beyond cameras – surprising even some City Council members (as Councilmember Nick Licata wrote here) – so, Det. Moss was asked, why weren’t public meetings planned before the installations?

(From left, SPD Det. Monty Moss, ACC vice president Randie Stone, president Tony Fragada)
“We could have done a better job, we didn’t, and we’re going to do a better job (of communication) going forward,” he replied. “I very much wish we had done something sooner … there were plans to do something sooner … it didn’t get done.”

About 20 people were in the Alki UCC parlor for his presentation, similar to the one given at City Hall on Wednesday afternoon. He started by explaining the 160-access-point “wireless mesh” wi-fi-type network to which the ~30 cameras are to be linked. From the slide deck:

“This network can be used for anything that is Internet-related,” he noted – smartphone, Internet phone, etc. – and it will allow police/fire vehicles to maintain their communication as they move along the network.

A question that’s been asked before was asked again: Why isn’t the Port of Seattle listed as among the partners, since this has been repeatedly described as a “port security” program? Later, Moss replied, “we (didn’t) have time to (talk to all potential partners) at the beginning,” saying that this is about more about SPD’s “water response.” And he said that he wasn’t sure whether the Port of Seattle was approached when SPD applied for the grant – though he then said the port did have representatives at Wednesday’s City Council committee meeting (they did not speak). “This is kind of an evolving thing as well.”

They and other additional partners would be welcome, he suggested: “It’s police-department-led because it’s our name on the grant, but it’s a cooperative network.” .

Said Sgt. Verner O’Quinn, identified as Det. Moss’s supervisor, the port already has its own cameras, and the SPD cameras would cover some of the areas that theirs don’t cover. But on north Harbor Island, for example, there’s no fiber that this program could use, Moss said.

The poles that were chosen for this, he explained, were chosen because of the type of power access and other attributes they have, again mentioning something he’d noted at City Hall the previous day – that the Admiral Way Viewpoint camera isn’t up yet because of a crash involving the pole they had hoped to use. (The Alki Point Lighthouse is the other not-yet-installed West Seattle camera, he said.) City Light and SDOT have been leading the installation (here’s a photo tweeted by West Seattle resident Chas Redmond on January 24th when he happened onto one of those crews on Alki):

Det. Moss said the project is “budgeted out for eight years.” He reiterated that while they are hoping to stay on track with activation March 31st, that won’t happen until they get approval (they were directed by the mayor recently – as first reported here – to not activate the cameras until a “thorough public vetting”) – but if it stretches out “for many more months, we will lose funding authority,” he said.

He showed the North Seattle locations too – one to be installed on the Magnolia Bridge with a view of the cruise-ship docks, and the two he said were installed the previous week on the Ballard Bridge along with one in Fremont. An attendee followup: “The cameras aren’t in operation, but do they have power?” Yes, some have power, “but aren’t connected to anything,” Moss said.

The privacy masking was asked about next – is it already “installed”? It’s part of the camera, and they don’t have control of the cameras right now, Moss explained. But the privacy masking can’t be removed after the fact of the recording – even if, say, a crime happened in the masked area, he said. An attendee noted that the masking was described yesterday as to be decided with the community.

Moss said he has suggested that “as soon as we turn the camera on, I want to put masking up – something up right away, maybe in red, so there is something in place, before anybody sees that camera – that can be part of the testing process to make sure that camera works. That’s my suggestion … then we’ll go back to each of the groups (and discuss permanent masking).” Would there be a community announcement when that testing begins? the attendee asked. “I don’t know,” said Moss. He said he will be applying the masking personally, “I’m taking point on that, I’m taking responsibility for that.”

He also said that the masking can be done either remotely or physically on the camera, responding to another question. Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh is the “policy maker” he referred to multiple times (here’s our detailed interview with him from early February), and beyond that, the Mayor and City Council had accountability.

He also said that a city attorney is “working through (the) issues” regarding why it’s OK to have the cameras near Alki Beach Park but not Golden Gardens Park, which were in the original plan but, as revealed yesterday, were removed because of issues involving previous policy on surveillance cameras and city parks.

As for the spacing along Alki/Harbor, he said again that fiber and other accessibility issues dictated the placement. He said they tried to stay mostly away from the Alki condo areas and the Beach Drive home areas (though all but one of the cameras installed so far are in view of residences); the camera just south of the Fauntleroy ferry dock “is because we share responsibility for protecting that area.” (Here’s a view looking southwest at that camera from upper Fauntleroy Way:)

Regarding privacy rights, Det. Moss pointed out that legally, anything visible from a public area such as the sidewalk or street has no such right. “So what are the legal restrictions guiding masking?” Det. Moss was asked. He tried to explain the difference between voyeuristically looking into a window and happening to have a view of, say, a front yard that anyone could see from the street. But the explanation still came down to “trust us,” not in those words, but in these: “They’re going to take away this whole system if we misuse it,” he said, when vowing that there would be repercussions if the cameras were ever used voyeuristically, for example, responding to the “Bikini Cam” criticism from an Alki resident at yesterday’s City Council meeting.

Sgt. O’Quinn suggested the meeting get back on topic so Moss could finish his presentation, which then went back to what the antennas and camera housing would look like – all like the ones we’ve shown in multiple WSB videos of the West Seattle installations:

The presentation also included vieo of the masking demonstration – which you can see in this video narrated by Moss and posted to SPD Blotter (we’ve cued the link to start at the point where that demonstration begins).

Moss reiterated that the draft policy calls for video to be stored for 30 days (unless it is pulled for possible crime evidence), and an audit log of who accessed the camera from where and when and how would go for 90 days. He also reiterated what was said yesterday – the cameras would cover roughly a 310-degree field of view. Each camera would also have a “home” position from which it wouldn’t divert unless controlled by someone authorized to use it, and if not actively used for a certain period of time, it would revert to that position.

“The home for Alki Beach would be toward the water?” asked one attendee.

“We’re working on that,” replied Moss.

“Couldn’t you just mask to the water in Alki, and take care of these concerns?” another attendee asked.

“We still have the right to see what’s going on on the street,” replied Moss.

“Will this mean less of a police presence on Alki because you can just see this from an office somewhere?” he also was asked.

Short version of the reply to that: No.

Another question: Will the masking be checked in day and night settings, to make sure it covers everything? Moss said he would check on that.

Can the masking be removed if a crime is in progress? Yes, but someone high up – like the police chief – would have to make that decision, and it would have to be something very serious, like “a child held hostage.”

“But we won’t know (about the masking being removed), because we can’t audit it?” pressed the attendee.

Said Sgt. O’Quinn, “There’s some talk about putting together a group that would audit it.”

He also noted that – as was mentioned in a document attached to Wednesday’s City Council agenda – there’s talk of possibly making some of the feeds public. Moss later said “there’s a balance – I don’t want the terrorists to know exactly what we have” as a reason why they wouldn’t put all the cameras online. Perhaps “we would push still images every 60 or 90 seconds,” he said, while stressing it was a “policy decision” that would made beyond his level. He reiterated that the cameras would not be continuously monitored – “we’re not going to be sitting around (watching).”

Meantime, he also pointed out the “cool functionality” that would come along with the wireless mesh aspect of the system – like the Seattle Fire Department transmitting medical data to the hospital while taking care of a patient/victim. From the slide deck:

That drew a few audible utterances of “wow” from attendees.

The cameras are made by Canon, he noted, adding that documents related to the grant, including the Request For Proposals, can be viewed on the City of Seattle Purchasing website. Here’s what we subsequently found:

*Here’s the RFP (which includes a call for “Thirty-six (36) cameras of various manufacture to view marine traffic, port facilities, and inland waterways within the City’s boarders; and link the video signals to major stakeholders’ facilities, as well as to responding personnel within the mesh network coverage area.”)

*Here’s a summary sheet for the contract, which is with Longview-based Cascade Networks.

*Here are two pages of SPD background on the system as attached to last week’s Council committee agenda

What’s next? Public forums were again mentioned as in the works, sometime in March; no dates announced yet (we are checking with SPD again today).

WSB coverage on the camera network is archived here, newest to oldest.

(Camera installation across from Salty’s, on inland side of the street)
We promised we would publish this separately as soon as we confirmed the information: As noted during our live reporting on this afternoon’s City Council committee discussion of the Seattle Police-led, federally funded surveillance cameras, one of the key people on the project, SPD’s Det. Monty Moss, is coming to Alki for a meeting tomorrow night. We have confirmed with organizers that it’s the Alki Community Council‘s board meeting, 7 pm at Alki UCC (62nd/Hinds), and while it’s not an official public hearing, nor a town-hall meeting (SPD promises “big” meetings at some point in the future), the public is welcome.

2:05 PM: We’re at City Hall for the City Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology Committee briefing/discussion on the Seattle Police surveillance-camera/”wireless mesh” network first brought to light here three weeks ago (archived coverage here). In advance of the meeting, which is about to begin, two documents were added to the agenda today, one including more background detail on the federal-grant-funded $5 million project. Here’s here’s the background document; here’s the PowerPoint intended to illustrate a few of its points. The meeting is just getting under way. You can watch live here – or here:

(Editor’s note: The archived video from the meeting is now embedded above)
First – public comment. First up: A woman who says she wants to share “lessons we have learned” using security cameras in the International District. She says that the cameras installed there (part of a private network) have helped bolster safety and security in the area and provided evidence that will stand up in court. She says they only show the street in front of whatever building they’re installed at. The second speaker says she is a former Alki resident now living on Magnolia, and she is concerned about terrorist attacks via water. She is in favor of 24/7 surveillance and thinks “it’s a miracle” there hasn’t been a terrorist attack yet.

Third speaker from Stand Up America says that he is concerned about terrorists – “the terrorists sitting at (the council) table.” He accuses the government of terrorism and “ridiculous behavior.” He adds, basically shouting, “You guys are eroding our civil rights … don’t stand against the people, stand up for the people.” Councilmember Harrell has accused him of a “showboating tactic” after the speaker called him “a criminal.” Fourth speaker also has a red “Stand Up America” sign and identifies himself as an immigrant from the former Soviet Union who also is concerned about government oppression.

Fifth speaker – Jennifer Shaw, deputy director of the ACLU, which has already asked the city to reconsider these cameras, and makes it clear their concern is government surveillance – “government keeping track of the movements of individuals throughout our city.” She says the recent drone controversy was evidence that people in Seattle are not happy about having surveillance “thrust on them.” She refers to the fact that a city official (as noted in our early coverage) has been quoted as saying this is a potential step toward a citywide camera network, not just focused on waterways. Sixth speaker is Will Washington, who identifies himself as a Beach Drive resident. “This is a big issue for us,” he says, referring to conversations with neighbors in the Constellation Park area, where one of the cameras is installed. He says everyone is bothered by “the fact this was never brought to our attention … we never had a discussion about this.” He says the sentiment is that it’s a symptom of a growing “police state.” Seventh speaker says she is concerned about “be(ing) fearful of who I’m being watched by” as she is out walking her dog on Alki. She says she speaks for a friend who couldn’t be here but isn’t happy about being watched either. She says that if the cameras “were only meant for port security, they would only be facing the port.” She doesn’t want to feel like she’s being watched by somebody “for some reason or another … every time I walk out of my house.”

Eighth speaker is another Alki beachfront resident who says he lives just down the street from some of the cameras. He wants to talk about history. “Coming from a law enforcement family, I’m disappointed that a choice was made to purchase this technology that breeds complacency on the job.” He says this is the first time he’s spoken at a Council meeting. Ninth speaker is John Loftis, a former vice chair of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, and 20-year Alki resident. “It is not a high-crime area … One of the main reasons for this is that Alki is flanked by a high-density residential neighborhood. Most of us seldom close our blinds … and represent hundreds of sets of eyes at any one time.” He says that’s a very effective type of surveillance and “don’t need this type of camera to monitor the beach.” He thinks someone should be embarrassed that one of the cameras is across the street from a popular volleyball and sunbathing spot, and calls it Bikini Cam. “One of these women might have a bomb in her bikini top, I guess.” He says he just hopes his wife does not become “Miss Torso” to someone who can point and zoom the camera.

Tenth speaker is a woman who says she doesn’t want to be seen on camera because she doesn’t want the government “all in my business. … I’m calling you out because you’re wrong.” She says “I came down here to say you’re out of control.”

At 2:32 pm, the briefing begins as SPD and others introduce themselves. Councilmembers sit at a smaller table during committee meetings. Harrell and O’Brien still are the only members here. Councilmember Licata has not arrived (he is due at an unrelated West Seattle meeting tonight, though).

**EDITOR’S NOTE, POST MEETING – IF YOU ARE READING THIS FROM THE HOME PAGE TO GET THE REST OF OUR AS-IT-HAPPENED COVERAGE AT THIS LINK:

Seattle Police Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer starts by saying “We are in a very, very dangerous time … all of these things call for us to be as vigilant as we can be … to interdict effectively where the next hazard, next catastrophe is going to come from.” He says the ports are the top vulnerability, and this project is a technological way to protect and deter.

Councilmember Harrell says all the discussion so far has not covered the fact the cameras are “on residences.” Kimerer counters that and says, they are not on residences. He refers back to Dr. Washington’s testimony (Beach Drive resident) and says “these are NOT cameras that look into people’s living rooms,” reiterating the masking capabilities of the cameras.

Det. Monty Moss, point person on the project, now takes up the PowerPoint (see link at the start of this story) and explains the “wireless mesh” system – with a diagram showing the transmissions point-to-point. The background information says the network will, when complete, include 158 access points and “up to 30 cameras.”

Harrell says he doesn’t need a long briefing about the non-camera aspect of the network and wonders, regarding the cameras, why this conversation is being had now, given the “Seattle sensitivity.”

Det. Moss says “This entire project, cameras and wireless mesh network, has been a (multi-department) collaborative project since the beginning.”

Det. Moss shows the extensive downtown mesh network area. City Councilmember O’Brien asks if the system would work for various agencies “if somebody came along and unplugged the cameras.” Basically, SPD says, yes. (A bit of applause ripples from somewhere in the gallery.”

SPD now stresses that none of the cameras are operational. (The background doc above explains exactly which ones are installed so far and which are not. Subsequently, SPD here says two were installed this week on the Ballard Bridge, one in Fremont. Next they show the slide of West Seattle cameras that are now installed. Apparently Admiral would have been installed by now but “somebody drove over the pole” that they wanted to use.)

They’re now showing something you won’t see in the PDF of the PowerPoint – the masking demonstration (which has previously been shown in a video attached to an SPD Blotter post – we’ll go back and add illustrations to all this).

Deputy Chief Kimerer says they’re not just making up the masking spots – they will “go to the community” to ask about them. (We were told in an interview on February 1st that no community discussions were planned.) The masking will be part of what is recorded by the digital-video recorder – it cannot be removed after the fact. He says, for example, “The Alki neighborhood can help us” determine the masking. (We will follow up to ask how citizens can help and when.)

Det. Moss says someone using the system will have to be authorized – including using the recorder that is capturing the images. “Everything they do (will be) tracked,” for “an audit trail,” he says.

Deputy Chief Kimerer asks Assistant Fire Chief AD Vickery, sitting next to him, for his thoughts. He mentions post-incident analysis.

Councilmember Harrell looks at the one of the frames in the powerpoint and says he thought the existing cameras downtown were just looking at cars – but this frame shows three people who probably didn’t know they were on camera – so what’s the camera’s purpose? Det. Moss says it’s from one of four cameras deployed around the Columbia Center – and privately owned. They’re in “testing” mode, Moss reveals, without police and fire access.

Councilmember O’Brien now has a question about the masking: “there’s a fear for me that if all this is is some programming, who’s to say that in some emergency someone can’t just go in and take this off – and internally all this seems to be monitored by the police, is there some third party (auditing)?” Det. Moss says basically, trust them, even though they’ve had trust issues lately, they are professional and will control access.

3 PM now, and Harrell is moving toward wrapping this up, saying “we’re not going to solve this today … but just wanted to identify the issues.” Chief Kimerer says they’re here to talk further about “collaborating on accountability.” Det. Moss notes that the people shown on camera in the demo are not identifiable and that SPD does not have any technology to identify them.

O’Brien says the fear isn’t that, but “what if someone immoral DOES have access to this … the fact that this is available is what folks are nervous about … I think we really want to understand … and I think this does get to a bigger issue – this is the second meeting (of the committee) in a row where we are talking about (new types of) surveillance … and it’s further along, in a direction none of us anticipated.” He mentions the legislation that’s being worked on by Councilmember Licata and others for “some guidance.”

Revelation – the proposal for cameras in Golden Gardens (on all the maps we’ve been given) have been withdrawn, says Det. Moss. They’re now looking for a “non-park location” in Shilshole. Apparently, according to someone reading from the rules, “explicit council approval” is required for cameras installed in parks (because of previous situations). Without mentioning Alki, Harrell asks what about cameras pointed AT parks (as at least four of the West Seattle cameras are – by Constellation Park, by Statue of Liberty Plaza, across from Seacrest Pier, by the Shoremont Apartments on Alki).

No audio, and the video is stored for 30 days (we’ve reported both of those before) – with an audit log that will be kept for 90 days, regarding who’s using camera/video.

Questioned by Harrell, SPD reiterates that March 31st is their goal for activating the cameras – that’s when some degree of “spending authority” ends. Harrell notes that more public notice of all sorts of things related to this is important – even WHEN this kind of technology is to be purchased.

So when is there going to be outreach? is what Harrell seems to be asking now. “These questions need to be answered before they’re turned on.” Kimerer agrees March 31st is not likely achievable. So, asks O’Brien, what WOULD have to happen before you turn them on? Come back before this committee? Have a public meeting? The policy, says Kimerer, would be subject to “a little more public (discussion).”

Then comes the revelation that apparently Det. Monty Moss is coming out to Alki “tomorrow’ to talk about the cameras with someone. With whom, we’re working to find out – neither we nor the Alki residents who came out to speak at this hearing had heard about this.

ADDED 3:46 PM: The hearing is over but the meeting continues. We have been outside chambers talking with Deputy Chief Kimerer, Det. Moss, and others. So far it appears the meeting tomorrow might be the Alki Community Council – we’re checking with its leadership. SPD also says there will be two “big public meetings” – though the reps here did not know when/where, they thought one would be in West Seattle. And yes, they said, in retrospect, they wish – “politically” – that they had talked to the community about this in advance. The Assistant Chief we spoke with on February 1st, Paul McDonagh, was not here, we learned, because he’s out of town; Dep. Chief Kimerer was filling in. When we have more confirmed information about public discussions, we’ll publish a separate update as well as adding the information here. What exactly must happen next to satisfy the mayor and some councilmembers’ concern of “public vetting” still isn’t entirely clear.

6:06 PM: We’ve confirmed the Alki discussion tomorrow is during an Alki Community Council board meeting – public welcome – 7 pm Thursday, Alki UCC (62nd and Hinds).

ALSO: Lisa Herbold from the office of Councilmember Licata points out he was testifying on an unrelated matter in Olympia today and unable to be at this hearing – but he just wrote extensively about the issue here, and there should be word of the aforementioned legislation soon.

Three weeks after we published first word of the Homeland Security-funded, Seattle Police-managed surveillance cameras installed from Alki to Fauntleroy – and destined for dozens of other spots in the city – the City Council committee that approved them last year will talk about them again. We had first word last week from Councilmember Bruce Harrell that the Public Safety, Technology, and Civil Rights Committee, which he chairs, will talk about them during its meeting tomorrow at 2 pm. Here’s the official reminder sent out today:

Councilmember Bruce Harrell, chair of the Council’s Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee, will have the Seattle Police Department at the committee table this Wednesday to discuss the port security cameras along Seattle’s shoreline. The security cameras are part of a wireless Mesh Network, a network composed of wireless access points and fiber optic cables around the city to provide first responders like SPD, Fire, and the Coast guard access to a dedicated wireless network during emergency responses.

The equipment included in the funding package from the Port Security Grant Program is vital in advancing our goal to make Seattle the most prepared city in America. City departments, along with regional and federal partners determined prevention and protection was not adequately represented in the region. Such prevention, protection and response capabilities is particularly important for public safety to the Port of Seattle, the sixth busiest in the US, Harbor Island, Washington State Ferry terminals, and cruise ship terminals.

At the committee hearing in May of 2012, the committee determined that SPD had made a strong business case for the use of these public safety cameras as part of the municipal mesh network for use only on waterways, port facilities and facing the Puget Sound. Installation of surveillance cameras installed in recreational/residential zones for general surveillance was and will not be supported by the committee.

Before the cameras can go online, the committee will have legislation in place to restrict and regulate its use to protect the public’s privacy and civil liberties.

While cameras were mentioned by SPD in the May 2012 committee briefing, Councilmember Harrell said they were not at the time described as being destined for recreational/residential areas – yet the six that were up in West Seattle by the time WSB readers pointed them out to us in late January are all in such areas.

Mayor McGinn, meantime, first told WSB on February 11th that the cameras would get a “thorough vetting” before they can be turned on.

The system apparently has been on the drawing boards since long before even the Council discussions last spring; the first version of the camera map shown publicly, displayed to us at Police HQ downtown February 1st and then published on SPD Blotter February 4th, is dated July 2010 – follow the link and note the lower-left corner.

P.S. All WSB coverage on this topic, dating back to when we broke the news about the cameras January 29th, is archived here, newest to oldest.

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

More new developments today in the saga of the federal Homeland Security-funded Seattle Police surveillance cameras installed from Alki to Fauntleroy and destined for other waterfront spots in the city as far north as Ballard.

The agenda is now out for the first City Council committee briefing on the cameras since WSB broke the news of the unannounced installations January 29, following questions about the cameras that readers started noticing the preceding weekend.

We first reported here two days ago that the briefing is set for the Council’s Public Safety, Technology, and Civil Rights Committee next Wednesday afternoon; agenda details, and more of our correspondence with committee chair Bruce Harrell, later in this story. It’s the same committee that, as reported in our second story after discovering the camera network, gave its blessing last May to Seattle Police receiving the $5 million Homeland Security grant that is funding it with a “wireless mesh” communications system. That briefing mentioned cameras but in the port-security context, with no mention they would be installed in recreational/residential areas like Alki.

First: What the ACLU is asking, in a letter sent yesterday afternoon to the mayor – who finally spoke out about the cameras back on Monday, telling WSB they wouldn’t be activated without a “thorough public vetting” – and council. The letter from executive director Kathleen Taylor is summarized by an ACLU spokesperson as follows:

The ACLU expresses concern over the City of Seattle’s practice of accepting federal grants to acquire and implement surveillance technology with no public input or oversight by elected city officials.

The ACLU is calling upon the City’s elected leaders to re-examine the extensive surveillance camera system being implemented along Alki and the waterfront. The ACLU also is calling upon elected leaders to develop a public process with public input and full disclosure of plans when the city is considering acquisition of surveillance technology and implementation of surveillance programs.

You can read the entire letter here. Taylor writes that the ACLU “supports the use of technology that improves policing and keeps us safer (but not) the use of devices that collect, store and share data about legal behavior and innocent conduct.”

We’ll also be checking on any formal response to the ACLU’s letter. Meantime, the agenda is out for the City Council committee briefing next week:

This is the first item on the Wednesday (February 20th) agenda for the Public Safety, Technology and Civil Rights Committee, which meets at 2 pm, City Hall downtown. The meeting begins with up to 20 minutes of public comment. Then the first formal item:

1. Port Security Surveillance Camera Project Discussion

BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION (20 minutes)

Presenter: Deputy Chief Clark Kimerer and Monty Moss, Seattle Police Department; Mark Schmidt, Department of Information Technology; Dan Eder, Council Central Staff

There are no documents attached; to date, this updated map of the 30 planned cameras is the only city document that’s been distributed.

(Click image for full zoomable PDF version of new map)
There was also an SPD Blotter post published February 4th, the same day we published our report on an interview with Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh, who commands the Special Operations Bureau and was described as in charge of this program, along with Det. Moss.

The committee is chaired by Councilmember Bruce Harrell (who is also a candidate for mayor). This past Wednesday, we published part of his lengthy reply to our request for comment on the cameras and the lack of public notification before they started going up – mostly in relation to the announcement of the impending committee briefing.

He also told WSB that he and Councilmember Nick Licata, who is also on the Public Safety (etc.) committee, are drafting legislation related to this kind of technology. Details are in Councilmember Harrell’s reply to our request for comment, published in its entirety as follows:

I absolutely understand the public’s concern for the use of surveillance cameras, whether they are drones or panoramic cameras on the shoreline. I do not like them and I know the public does not like them. For all surveillance equipment, we must have policies in place to regulate its use to ensure strong privacy protections. The police department made a strong public safety case for the use of drones during exigent circumstances (search and rescue, hostage situations, bomb threats, and natural disasters). That is why the committee drafted legislation to protect the public’s civil liberties but permit its use for specific situations.

Council Bill 117445 was discussed at the Public Safety meeting on May 2, 2012. Again, the purpose of the bill was to reimburse the City of Seattle for equipment and planning needs associated with preventing, responding to, and recovering from, threats or acts of terrorism under the Port Security Grant Program for Federal Fiscal Year 2008. As you may recall from the discussion, I asked specifically what the cameras would be used for and Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh answered on the waterways, water, and port facilities. In the bill’s fiscal note, it was made clear by SPD that the funding authorized by this legislation continues previous efforts and reflects a multi-disciplinary approach that recognizes the need for prevention, protection, and response capability. Such prevention, protection and response capabilities is particularly important to the Port of Seattle, the 6th busiest in the US, Harbor Island, Washington State Ferry terminals, and cruise ship terminals. Months of work by city departments, along with regional and federal partners determined this as a capability not adequately represented in the region. The equipment included in this funding package is vital in advancing our goal to make Seattle the most prepared city in America by protecting those attributes that shape the character of this city.

Again, the committee determined that SPD had made a strong business case for the use of these public safety cameras as part of the municipal mesh network for use only on waterways, port facilities and facing the Puget Sound. Installation of surveillance cameras installed in recreational/residential zones for general surveillance was and will not be supported by the committee.

I have scheduled SPD to be at the Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology committee on February 20, 2 pm to discuss this issue. The committee is currently examining legislation to prevent the cameras from operating in residential zones and disabling the 360 degree feature to prevent the cameras from viewing any residential buildings. I am requiring legislation to restrict its use and protect the public’s privacy before they can go online. I have always asked SPD to be proactive in its community outreach and SPD should have held meetings with the community adjacent to the proposed locations before any installations.

While the Public Safety committee was drafting legislation to regulate the Seattle Police Department’s use of drones, we were also examining subsequent legislation to address grants and Council approval for all public safety cameras. Councilmember Licata and I are now drafting legislation that would 1) require City Council approval for any department to purchase or acquire surveillance equipment that records or observes the public and 2) an operations protocol for the use of the equipment must be adopted by the Council as well. I have also talked with a professor at the UW Law School (Technology Law and Public Policy Clinic) to assist in identifying the best laws in addition to working with the ACLU and the Human Rights Commission.

Our first council comment on the cameras came last week; we spoke with Councilmember Tim Burgess (also a mayoral candidate) when he came to West Seattle for the Southwest District Council‘s monthly meeting. As reported here February 7th, Burgess told us he considered the installation in recreational/residential areas, without public notification in advance, “borderline problematic.”

WHAT’S NEXT: Again, the City Council Public Safety, Technology, and Civil Rights Committee takes this up at 2 pm next Wednesday, preceded by a public comment period (not limited to this topic). Seattle Police had reiterated in our February 1st interview that installation was proceeding with a goal of having the system working by March 31st, but that was before Mayor McGinn’s promise that activation wouldn’t happen until a “thorough public vetting” had happened – we don’t know yet what that is expected to entail beyond Wednesday’s briefing.

PREVIOUS COVERAGE: We have now categorized all our stories on this subject – this is the eighth – under the coverage archive “Seattle Police surveillance cameras” – find them all, newest to oldest, here. (All of our coverage categories, along with links to access them via RSS, can be seen by scrolling through our sidebar to the list toward its end.)