City Council votes to expand surveillance-camera network for SPD’s Real-Time Crime Center

Two months ago, we and other media got a look inside SPD’s Real-Time Crime Center, in which SPD tracks incidents shortly after they happen. The center’s access to cameras will expand after two City Council votes tonight – here’s the meeting video:

The votes (on legislation linked on agenda page 7) followed more than 100 people speaking almost entirely against the expansion, but only two councilmembers – citywide rep Alexis Mercedes Rinck and Northwest Seattle’s Dan Strauss – voted no. Many of the people who urged the council to reject the bills said it wasn’t even so much the cameras themselves that they opposed, but the possibility that the images and information they gather could be used against particularly vulnerable residents such as immigrants and LGBTQIA+ people. Councilmembers, particularly Public Safety Committee chair Bob Kettle, insisted that the bills have more safeguards than similar ones in other cities. But more than anything, the councilmembers who supported the surveillance expansion said that they were most moved by crime victims they’ve heard from and met with, and they felt cameras would be an important “investigative tool.” They also said immigrants are concerned about crime too, not just federal enforcement; District 1 Councilmeber Rob Saka said he’s sensitive to immigrants’ concerns since he represents areas including South Park and High Point, and is the son of an immigrant himself.

While one part of the legislation will install new SPD cameras in new locations – the “Capitol Hill Nightlife Area,” the stadium area, and the Garfield High School vicinity – another part will connect the Real-Time Crime Center to ~150 SDOT cameras (city traffic cams are mapped here, including the ones in West Seattle). The camera’s project’s goals are stated in one of the agenda documents:

In regard to overall outcomes, the goals of this project are:
1. Reduction in gun violence, human trafficking, and other persistent felony crimes in selected areas.
2. Reduction in 911 calls in selected areas.
3. To minimize crime displacement outside of selected areas.
4. Improved police response times, crime clearance rates, and community satisfaction measures.

SPD will also report the rate of arrests and prosecutions that occur as a result of the initial pilot and any negative unintended consequences, such as over or under policing. The program will be data-informed and guided. It will terminate if data suggests the technology is ineffective.

Five amendments were considered before the final vote; the one that passed would enable a 60-day “pause” in the program if there was evidence the data could be or was being accessed for civil immigration enforcement.

18 Replies to "City Council votes to expand surveillance-camera network for SPD's Real-Time Crime Center"

  • Rhonda September 9, 2025 (9:38 pm)

    Fascism.

    • Jake September 10, 2025 (9:34 am)

      Rhonda, for once, I agree with you!!! How could we allow them to pass this? And then put it in the most vulnerable areas too!

    • Mr J September 10, 2025 (2:45 pm)

      Rhonda. We know who you voted for so maybe sit this one out.

    • helpermonkey September 11, 2025 (8:54 am)

      the absolute audacity of a trumper screaming about fascism. 

  • Derek September 9, 2025 (9:52 pm)

    And this council doesn’t have a clue. Keep passing unpopular things and wonder why you get voted out in record landslides. Before people go “you have no right to privacy” and “there’s already cameras everywhere!!” except they’ll use AI to face scan, and use it against citizens constantly. Plus zero data it resolves or helps crime and is more often used for unintended creep. It erodes anonymity and is constant risk of data misuse. Also it is used constantly in marginalized neighborhoods further putting these people into poverty. It’s never in Magnolia or Admiral.  Those goals are a joke and shame on Saka, Juarez, and Hollingsworth for using the weaponizarkon of their own identity politics. Can’t wait for the end Sara Nelson.

    • Frog September 10, 2025 (12:16 pm)

      Are you sure Admiral wouldn’t welcome cameras?  Also, check your fax — this measure seems to be just giving the “real-time crime center” access to existing SDOT cameras, of which two are in Admiral (according to the linked map).  The cameras seem to be mostly on major streets or highways prone to traffic backups.  WSB publishes stills from lots of those cameras.  Not much material there for facial recognition, and no cameras in Alki.

      • Frog September 10, 2025 (1:49 pm)

        Sorry, that was from a strictly West Seattle perspective.  They would be adding cameras in a couple other parts of the city.

  • Mike September 10, 2025 (4:09 am)

    We really need to repeal the Patriot Act.  What the council just approved is a surveillance state in Seattle.  They’ve now approved CCP level government sponsored surveillance.  I don’t think the public truly understands how backwards this is and that it violates everyone’s constitutional rights.  It’s not just “vulnerable” groups, it makes everyone vulnerable.  It needs to stop.https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/blogs/under-surveillance-constitutional-concerns-surrounding-flock-cameras/

  • Marcus September 10, 2025 (7:39 am)

    “but the possibility that the images and information they gather could be used against particularly vulnerable residents such as immigrants and LGBTQIA+ people”

    I believe that these live feed cameras will provide a valuable safety net protecting vulnerable residents such as immigrants and LGBTQIA+ people. Particularly the recent reports of the “1st amendment auditors” in WS. I would like to see law enforcement keep an eye on these guys. Just one example.

    • Stephen September 10, 2025 (10:22 am)

      The only solution to annoying people who are trying to start a fight by filming random people is to film everyone, all the time.  Ok?

    • Desperately Seeking Saka September 10, 2025 (4:38 pm)

      The 1st Amendment auditors are just a tiny sample of people violating the privacy of innocent people in public. These cameras will do that 24/7/365 and with the force of government.

  • John S September 10, 2025 (10:09 am)

    This is just another step by govt & police that’s reactive not proactive in actually preventing crime from occurring in the first place . They can install all the cameras they want throughout the city but by the time ann arrest is made, if an arrest is made then it’s too late. Until we have lawmakers & KC judges that are willing to actually hold criminals accountable this is just another waste of tax payers money to make some citizens feel as if govt is doing what’s in their best interests when in reality they aren’t doing anything to truly reduce crime and hold actually criminal accountable at all! SMH 

  • Fairmount September 10, 2025 (10:58 am)

    How is this any different than a person recording you with their phone in public and posting it publicly on the internet? It isn’t. Get over it. This is extremely efficient. You all should welcome improvements in technology to reduce crime in our city because scaling a police force is never going to do better than this. Plus it’s cheaper long term than hiring cops. NYC has tons of cameras and it works fine there. Put one on my corner to help catch all of the blatant car break ins at 2am please.

    • Peer September 10, 2025 (11:14 am)

      “Strangers can walk by my house and see in the windows, so why should I care about someone setting up a TV van and live broadcasting the view 24/7?”

  • K September 10, 2025 (11:20 am)

    Of course.  Has there ever been a council in any city ever that has been more willing to light taxpayer money on fire in the name of optics and performative safety than the current, lame duck Seattle City Council?

  • Jim P. September 10, 2025 (12:02 pm)

    I see a lo90t of “goals” and would be this and that” but not a lot of hard data showing this actually deters or helps solve crimes.I read BBC news a lot and when the mass (many thousands) of cameras in London actually gets used to solve something it’s headllne news so it must not be common.

  • Mark Schletty September 10, 2025 (12:56 pm)

    Surveillance cameras will not do much good until there is a turnover of our Judges who keep releasing repeat criminals.  The Judges are the real problem here, and adding more authoritarian  surveillance  is a move in the wrong direction, with high risk and little likelihood of actually helping. 

  • Jort September 10, 2025 (1:48 pm)

    “I’m sure theTrump administration wouldn’t actually do {insert whatever norm-violating or law-breaking behavior you want here}” has been the refrain of clueless, head-in-the-sand so-called “liberal politicians” for the last 10 years. To hear Seattle’s, again, supposedly “liberal” City Council politicians hand-wave away the possibility that these cameras would be used by the Federal government against its own citizens is the same feckless and moronic denialism that has led us to our current national political environment. Not to mention that our own Seattle Police officers’ Union has openly advocated for pro-Trump positions, which does not give me faith that SPD would lay their lives on the line to keep federal eyes off our city’s data. Indeed, they’re probably itching to hand it over. And, at the center of all of this, is mealy-mouthed politician Rob Saka, a former corporate lawyer for Facebook, voting “yes” on anything his buddy Sara Nelson puts in front of his face. So unbelievably gross and out of touch. 

Sorry, comment time is over.