Seattle Police Department launches long-planned system to voluntarily register private security cameras

This has been long mentioned at community meetings as being on the way – and now it’s just been officially announced: The Seattle Police Department is launching a system to register private security cameras, so if and when crime happens, they know who nearby has a camera. The announcement just arrived in email from Southwest Precinct Crime Prevention Coordinator Jennifer Satterwhite, pointing to this new website for the program. The site says the Community Camera Registry is voluntary and does not allow police to connect to your camera – just lets them know you have one (or more):

We are building an interactive map of security cameras in Seattle that will:

-Be accessible to the Seattle Police Department investigators
-Increase the efficiency of direct video evidence collection
-Provide immediate contact information to investigators for camera owners
-Enable communities to work together to create a safer Seattle

Camera registration takes less than one minute via our secure online portal. Registering your cameras does not allow the Seattle Police Department access to your live video stream – it only enables investigators to know a camera is present at your location and easily request video evidence should an incident occur. You are under no obligation to provide video if requested.

The FAQ about the program says the resulting camera map will only be accessible by “authorized Seattle Police Department users” but also notes that “your information can be disclosed as part of a public disclosure request as long as the requestor is not using it for commercial purposes.” That refers to the information on the registration form, which the site says includes your name, address, phone number, email address, and the number of cameras (outdoor and/or indoor) you have. While as mentioned this doesn’t seek to automatically tap into your cameras, the potential for that sort of future connectivity was mentioned when SPD showed off its Real-Time Crime Center two months ago.

admiral admirable September 23, 2025 (2:13 pm)

how many times do we find these surveillance programs misused? Police stalking ex-girlfriends, turning information over to ICE, etc? I would urge my neighbors not to submit to the encroaching police state. Maybe if we had a trustworthy government, but certainly not during these fraught times. We need to be clear-eyed in defending our freedoms. This includes freedom from constant surveillance. Give up your anonymity at a cost.

EVGuy September 23, 2025 (4:14 pm)

These cameras are recording right now already – you have no freedom from them, because they’re on private property recording said property or the public views thereof. All this is doing is telling the police who has cameras, so they can more quickly know who to talk to when they need to get video evidence of a crime. No one is misusing this data because there’s nothing to misuse – if the police want the video, they’ll get it via subpoena.
- Seattlite September 23, 2025 (6:40 pm)
  
  I think it is a good idea to have registered private cameras to assist law enforcement as long as the information (mapping of cameras) is not misused in any way by any individual. There should be consequences to deter misuse of private camera information. However, there are pros and cons for registering a private camera that home/business owners should take into consideration before registering a private camera.
Lauren September 23, 2025 (5:43 pm)

💯 agree. This is especially troubling with our country’s rapid move toward authoritarianism.

Rhonda September 23, 2025 (2:38 pm)

No, thanks. The Soviet KGB registered citizens in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and their other occupied countries to voluntarily be their “eyes and ears” during the Cold War. If a crime occurs and a private camera owner catches it they have always been able to bring it to SPDs attention, no registration required. If SPD needs it unvoluntarily then they can get a warrant.

Mike September 23, 2025 (4:18 pm)

Exactly
WSEnvironmentalist September 23, 2025 (5:57 pm)

Not saying that you are incorrect but it’s important to note that the United States advised citizens to report their neighbors during WWI, WWII, and the McCarthy Hearings. Now, we have cameras and social media which amplifies it all.
- Rhonda September 23, 2025 (8:21 pm)
  
  Yes, WSEnvironmentalist, but those were wartime events. We shouldn’t have a survievallance state during peace time✌️☮️
  - Watertowerjim September 24, 2025 (6:19 am)
    
    During Covid people in some states were literally asked to “snitch” on neighbors.
  - CarDriver September 24, 2025 (7:05 am)
    
    Rhonda. What exactly is your issue? EVERY retail business you enter is recording every person and has been for a long time. You don’t know what they’re doing with the video but betting you’re not confronting management. A huge number of homeowners have camera’s that are showing more than their property, Are you confronting them? What about all the people with their cell phones taking pictures and video? Are you confronting them asking to see what they’re filming? Don’t forget all the commercial and private vehicles with cameras. What are they doing with that video, Moral of my story is that if think keeping the “government” away from video but letting EVERYONE else have it doesn’t make you “safer”.
    - Rhonda September 24, 2025 (12:34 pm)
      
      CarDriver, I have ZERO problem with private cameras on private property. I do have a serious issue with punitive and surveillance-type government cameras on public property like our sidewalks, parks, roads, etc. Law enforcement and the court system need a warrant to access private cameras but they don’t for government cameras. I don’t want government officials monitoring our free population with spy cameras without probable cause or a warrant. Registering private cameras with the government for their open access is a big step towards a surveillance state.
    - K September 24, 2025 (4:01 pm)
      
      Rhonda is a cop. If she’s saying she state will misuse this power, I would believe her.
    - Scarlett September 25, 2025 (3:27 pm)
      
      CarDriver: You’re hopelessly flailing away if you are trying to find some false equivalence between a store owner capturing you on video and the arm of the state doing the same thing.
1994 September 23, 2025 (9:13 pm)

Rhonda’s comment ” If a crime occurs and a private camera owner catches it they have always been able to bring it to SPDs attention, no registration required. If SPD needs it unvoluntarily then they can get a warrant.” How is a private camera owner to be aware that a crime happened in their vicinity? The camera owner may not be aware a crime happened unless they are informed about it such as inquiries by SPD……on the flip side how would SPD know to request a warrant unless they are aware of the private camera possibly having recorded a crime? As EVGUY notes cameras are already rolling everywhere. There is already a surveillance state by an army of private citizens with cameras mounted on their homes, on their cars, and in their hands…. Why not assist the SPD by registering a private camera? People want the SPD to ‘fight’ crime so why not help them?
- Rhonda September 23, 2025 (11:39 pm)
  
  1994, for example, if one has a Ring camera and they hear there’s been an assault and battery near their house, they may check their feed when they get home from work. If they see something on it that may help SPD solve the crime they can let SPD know they have footage. It’s no different than someone calling 911 because they saw a vehicle matching an Amber Alert at a stoplight.

Derek September 23, 2025 (2:49 pm)

Voluntarily handing cops your footage is such a fools’ bet. Why fund our own panopticon?

Daniel September 23, 2025 (3:13 pm)

I would definitely be opposed to opening up a rtsp port to my camera for the cops. But if, e.g. there’s a shooting down the block and the FBI knocks on the door and asks if I have camera footage from some 15 minute window or whatever, and I can look at the footage before sending it? Maybe that’s ok? If it’s a DB that just helps expedite that query without having to go door to door and ask every house, and providing video can’t be compelled, maybe. I’d wanna be very clear on exactly what’s being asked for here.
- k September 23, 2025 (3:44 pm)
  
  You can already voluntarily hand over your own footage when asked, and you’re not required to give everything you have or give it the second they ask unless they have a warrant specifically saying so (which is unlikely the first time they come to your door). If they know you have a camera and you are not 100% cooperative in handing footage over for whatever reason (ICE is asking for it and you know they’re after your neighbor for spurious reasons, etc.), it will be a bad situation for you. The problem with obeying in advance is that you don’t have room to retreat. Your camera registry will be available to non-SPD personnel who ask for it via records requests (which the federal government have been sending to state and local jurisdictions all over to collect data on citizens. esp. in blue states).
  - Daniel September 23, 2025 (4:23 pm)
    
    Ok that makes a ton of sense. There’s also the argument that “if it’s really important enough (solving a murder or whatever), maybe they should have to go door to door or send you a letter asking or whatever”.
- Derp September 23, 2025 (6:27 pm)
  
  If, you read the story, they do not and will not have access to your cameras. They want to know if you have them, not connect to them. My god people, just takes a few minutes to read the story. Quit with your bs about them getting into your system. Please read
  - Daniel September 24, 2025 (11:29 am)
    
    At no point in this specific chain of comments did anyone say the cops would be getting direct access automatically. I merely pointed out that I would definitely draw a line against that, and then went on to expand with more details. I think you’re skimming comments a little too much and then making assumptions.
EVGuy September 23, 2025 (4:31 pm)

Are you committing crimes, in front of your camera? Because otherwise I can’t see how it leads to “panopticon”.

Yikes September 23, 2025 (2:51 pm)

Please don’t. Furthering a surveillance state and prompting more distrust of your neighbors is not how you build a healthy community.

EVGuy September 23, 2025 (4:08 pm)

These cameras are ALREADY ON AND RECORDING! Letting the police know they exist is just a courtesy to help speed up their data collection work, it’s not changing the fact the cameras already exist and are already recording!
- Lauren September 23, 2025 (5:45 pm)
  
  I mean I’m guessing a lot of folks here take issue with the fact that they’re already on and recording as well…
  - EVGuy September 23, 2025 (6:48 pm)
    
    Yes, apparently there’s a lot of people in west seattle concerned that they’re going to get recorded committing a crime.
    - Lauren September 24, 2025 (11:23 am)
      
      Nope, zero concern about being recorded committing a crime. A LOT of concern about eroding civil liberties and encroaching police states 👍
    - Scarlett September 25, 2025 (12:14 pm)
      
      Communist E. Berlin, circa 1980’s, is calling, EVGUY, they want you want. Yes, I’m sure everyone here who is concerned about the the release of footage that might invade their privacy, that might be used for other surveillance purposes, are criminals.

Carson September 23, 2025 (3:53 pm)

I don’t think I would ever grant anyone access to my cameras but I have provided a copy (and it led to an arrest and conviction) of a crime in my neighborhood. That being said, my camera, my discretion. If it’s serious crime no question but if it’s a local kid doing something stupid ( stealing change from an unlocked car for example) I would prefer it be taken care of locally.

CarDriver September 23, 2025 (4:05 pm)

Reading the comments I get the distinct impression that the commenters have never been a victim of a serious crime that was caught on tape.. I’m betting if they were and the only evidence of the perpetrator was a video they’re not going to say “I don’t want that video shown. I’m happy to let the perpetrator walk free”

K September 23, 2025 (6:08 pm)

Your impression and assumptions are incorrect. It’s best to speak to your own experiences rather than arguing against imagined circumstances of people you disagree with.

EVGuy September 23, 2025 (4:07 pm)

What’s with all this “police state” nonsense? People this is a _voluntary_ registration of your camera with the police – you’re letting them know, “I have a camera here”. You’re not giving them access anytime they want, because guess what – they can already get that, via a subpoena! You’re merely helping shorten the work required to figure out who might have a camera when a crime is committed in the area. Everyone here complains when we don’t catch people firing off rounds in random neighborhoods, then complains when the police try and do something about crime.

Literacy is free September 23, 2025 (4:52 pm)

Maybe spend less enriching Musk. “ We are building an interactive map of security cameras in Seattle that will:-Be accessible to the Seattle Police Department investigators”is literally the first requirement. If you think only a select few will have access then your brain is not developed and you should probably get that checked out.
- EVGuy September 23, 2025 (6:47 pm)
  
  Maybe someone who thinks “literacy is free” needs to get their brain checked out, since it took (at least) several well trained, not so well paid educational professionals to get you to be able to read. Also, not sure if you’ve been living in a cave for the last decade, but more companies than Tesla make electric cars. I don’t care who has access at SPD to the LIST OF CAMERAS – heck, they can post the list of cameras TO THE PUBLIC WEB for all I care, and in fact would support that (look, there’s a camera here, go crime somewhere else). If they want access to the footage, there’s one way to get it and it’s spelled “subpoena”, and nothing short of that or my own express permission will get access to my camera footage. Nothing in that respect is changing with the publishing of the list, I’m just helping SPD better handle the data necessary to fight crime.
  - Scarlett September 25, 2025 (3:52 pm)
    
    What percentage of people who register voluntarily do you think are going to ask the police probing questions as to why they need to see the video footage and/or demand a subpoena? I think we can both assume it is a very, very low percentage. Now for a question takes a little more thought: Do you think this sort of thing brings out the best qualities in people and is a good look for our society? During the 60’s there were many average Americans who voluntarily agreed to spy on fellow Americans with absolutely no clue as to how the FBI would use that information (and didn’t care) and what lives might be unjustly ruined in the process.

Christopher B. September 23, 2025 (4:38 pm)

I just tried to add my location to the database but was unable. There seems to be something preventing it from recognizing the information inserted into some of the fields. Tried a couple different (Mac) browsers and got the same result. They might need to do a bit more debugging.

North Admiral Cyclist September 23, 2025 (5:53 pm)

Glad to see this program come about. SPD needs all the tech help they can get to catch the bad guys. Thanks for posting the article.

Joe September 23, 2025 (5:59 pm)

The purpose of this is to keep our streets safe. We have enough crime as it is. I’d gladly hand my video footage over to the police. Even ICE for that matter!