Wow! We've been fearing this for a while. San Leandro will be turning into 1984 in front of our eyes. Will Chief Spagnoli ask next that we put cameras in our houses so the Police can watch us all the time?

I'm surprised to hear they plan to use these cameras for surveillance. For years they've given reassurances that the cameras were not and would not be used for this purpose.

Britain has more cameras than any other city and while it has not reduced crime, it has increased illegal surveillance activity against innocent people, including harassment and stalking.

I would hope that San Leandro would see that this is a bad idea and will more than likely lead to abuse of power by those in charge of it.

Will they put them in the board rooms and city hallsl? That would be a good idea, since a lot of criminal activity takes place there as well ;)

Fran, you are so right!

anthony, what exactly is so 1984 about having the government monitor your every movement outside your home? Hmm, I don't know, think about that really hard. Same thing about the difference between surveillance cameras throughout the city simultaneously recording the actions of hundreds of people vs. one officer noticing something.

And yes, I would deny the same intrusion to a private company.

What about ALPR systems (automatic license plate recognition). The point I'm trying to make is many new technologies of crime prevention and prosecution are being watch-dogged away on the premise of potential abuse, while at the same time law enforcement is being assailed as ineffective. My pet peeve with the Orwell reference has more to do with the need for proles, and a social dynamic hard to imagine with today's information exchange. What if a private security camera shooting "wide" happens to catch criminal activity in public space. Do we argue again that this is an invasion of privacy? Personally, having a system recording, say at a publicly operated parking structure, is comforting to me.

Just about every business in San Leandro has video surveillance already so you're already on camera. What's wrong with checking traffic cams if a crime was committed in a particular area. Maybe I watch too much TV but I thought they did this already. Besides, Google knows way more about who you are and what you are doing than the police do.

Private surveillance systems are not coordinated, have to be subpoenaed, and really, no, not all businesses have cameras and one has the right not to patronize those establishments. All of which are not true of government surveillance. And yes, I have a problem with the license plate scanners as well though mostly that our police departments keeps the records forever. Most departments have a 2 year limit, or the like, and then the data is deleted for the sake of privacy concerns.

But really, I'm not an expert on this, and the cases have been made before, better, by others. Here's a good example.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance

(I know, it's the ACLU, but don't confuse the messenger for the message. And besides, who would one expect to produce such a document, Homeland Security?

I don't have to admit something that's not true. I don't agree that most businesses have outdoor cameras that the city can access without public scrutiny of some sort. When the system is entirely behind the curtain of government, then it can become a much more systematic, unaccountable problem.

As for commercial services, one can opt out of using those services. Yes, even Google, and many people do. And yes, Homeland Security considers these outliers who actually value their privacy to be people of interest in their investigations of terrorism. The default is now that engaging in privacy is itself considered suspect.

Am I concerned that our police department might use the means without their power for ends other than purely crime solving related? History shows, both locally and everywhere else, that abuses of power occur eventually everywhere.

Using these kinds of measures to "make us safer" does not. Not only is there evidence that it doesn't affect traditional crime, but it introduces two new avenues for crime... abuse of the powers locally and abuse of the powers nationally.

I should point out that being concerned that my government will use their powers against me does not preclude me being concerned about private companies using their powers against me. That there are other, possibly greater threats, is not an argument for or against this one.

I had a chance to hear the Chief of Police speak on the rationale of such camera use at a community business council meeting. She states her side well, I'll giver her that, but she contended that if the cameras could prevent/resolve just 1 child abduction, that parents would absolutely be willing to allow such a use of these cameras.

I think the concern though is, where does it end? If we implant every child with a locator microchip, then we might be able to prevent any and all child abductions. So, would the police and our government seek mandates for that as well?

I suppose privacy in public is a mere perception anyways, as are the fact that Nuclear Weapons actually make us safer. Perceptions don't always, if ever, mirror reality, but ultimately play more a part in our decions and actions.

An immediate "Big Brother" perception will form here in San Leandro should the use of these cameras be allowed, and that perception would not be changed until an actual crime was prevented, or an actual child abduction, using the chief's example, was resolved.

Ultimately as citizens each of us has a right to give up our privacy in whatever means we feel most comfortable with - credit cards, patronizing businesses with cameras, driving on roads with traffic cameras. Along those lines, I believe this camera issue should be a political decsion placed before the voters. My vote however would be "no".

Jason, you are correct that I object to the red light cameras as well, and on the same grounds... not proven effective, invasion of privacy, abuse is likely.

You are also correct that you did not mention outdoor cameras, I noted that because, as I mentioned, I can opt to not visit a business, so the indoor cameras are not really relevant to this issue.

"Regarding the traffic cameras, if they are already present and collecting data why not leverage that data more efficiently to help solve crimes?"

I'm assuming by this questions that a) you did not read the ACLU article, because it answers that question, and that b) you have no belief that any of the arguments I'm making could possibly be valid because asking me that question, again after I already provided numerous answers, leaves me with few other conclusions.

Look out indeed... those who rely on an omnipresent state to keep them safe will find they are free from all but one inescapable enemy.

Jason, I have no delusion that you will be convinced by the alternate arguments, but I do ask that you listen to the case made and consider that there MIGHT be validity to it. If you decide there is not, then it would be most appropriate, if you wish to discuss this, to make the argument against is based on facts, rather than offering "Why not?" and "but others are doing it" as rebuttal.

Wow, would you like to provide some facts regarding your assertion that video (private or public) doesn't help catch or prosecute criminals? I am not saying it makes us safer but I am saying it leads to more arrests and convictions. I would think you would be eager to enlighten me as to why with the cameras already collecting the data that it would be unwise to give the police more direct access. I am far more open minded than you might think (or be). I am ok with the cameras being used since I believe they deter drivers from running lights. I support the idea that the police should have access to the data since the city department of engineering already does and it is as much an IT efficiency issue as anything else. Do you really not visit any businesses in SL with cameras? That must be limiting.

The biggest thing you can do to keep from being monitored by anyone, public or private, is to use cash in your transactions. Just sayin.

(sorry this is broken up over a few comments, character limits you know...)

"I am not saying it makes us safer but I am saying it leads to more arrests and convictions."
What, exactly, is the point of more arrests and convictions if we're not making us safer?

"I am ok with the cameras being used since I believe they deter drivers from running lights."

And your "belief" is not supported by data. The percentage of collisions at those intersections with cams reduced LESS than those without them over the time period (and yes, I can supply data).

By what criteria should we enter into a 7 year multimillion dollar contract which puts the city at risk of at least $500,000 in losses with no recourse to end the contract for the first 5 years? Should it be your beliefs which it seems you've done nothing to verify? Or should it actual data on what has occurred at those intersections with the cameras?

"I support the idea that the police should have access to the data since the city department of engineering already does and it is as much an IT efficiency issue as anything else."

No, it's a legal access to widespread surveillance data of citizens under no suspicion of criminal activity. That's what the license plates cameras are too. Just because they aren't CURRENTLY being used that way doesn't mean they won't be or that they aren't be abused. Historic data suggest both of those things will eventually come to fruition. In our case, we already know the originally "traffic-only" cameras which previous police administrations promised not to use for surveillance is now going to be used in that manner. The most likely way we'll know if the system has been abused already, or is in the future, will be a scandal as otherwise there will be no transparency as to what individuals are using the system for.

"Do you really not visit any businesses in SL with cameras? That must be limiting."

As I said above, private data collection is not the same concern. Yes, it will become one in the future no doubt, but they are different, they are opt out, and they are not coordinated and behind a legal wall the way our police departments operate.

Now, in response to your other questions, I refer you, once again, to the the ACLU link which your question indicates you still had not read when you last posted, which if true just means you are ignoring evidence presented rather than debating the merits of the evidence.

Here's the relevant link again, it's the FIRST point made:
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance

In regard to the links you provide to refutate the ACLU report, none of them represent your case well... Let's have a look:

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Surveillance-cameras-helping-to-reduce-crime-rates-138455044.html
A local news story which quotes the police about a single incident. Neither evidence for or against.

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/97/05/,
A report from about 15 years ago which concludes with:
"Given the important role that crime prevention plays in law enforcement, surprisingly little is known about the effectiveness of new technologies such as CCTV video surveillance to prevent or discourage crime."

http://www.aclunc.org/issues/government_surveillance/asset_upload_file796_7024.pdf
This does in fact include the conclusion you note, but it's not as clear cut as that. Yes, property crimes decreased within 100 feet, but let's pick a more telling statement from the same article:
"When we extend the analysis to the areas that are 500 to 1,000 feet from crime camera locations, we find no significant changes in these areas for violent crime and no overall significant changes for property crime."

So, if you look only within the 100 feet of the camera there's a reduction of crime, but the majority of that crime simply moves 400 to 900 feet away. That makes the cameras an expensive, privacy violating, non-solution.

"I love it when people site a single link as evidence and demand I agree with them."

I've never demanded you agree. I only requested you look at the evidence presented, and been disappointed you had not done so as far as I could tell.

"Especially a link from an organization with a very well defined agenda on privacy issues."

The ACLU isn't the issue. If you disagree, what's your counter argument?

"With the internet it's very easy for me to provide you with evidence too from sources of varying levels of credibility."

I'm sorry you seem to have missed the opportunity to provide a single credible article or study that supports your beliefs.

I'll help you... Here's one:
A REPORT TO THE US CONGRESS
https://www.ncjrs.gov/works/wholedoc.htm
"The effectiveness of CCTV in open spaces is unknown due to the lack of significance tests." ... "Absent evaluation results from installations in the United States, the level of uncertainty about CCTV effectiveness is too high to advocate its use except to test its effectiveness."
Nope.

Maybe this?
http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/surveillance_cams_report_121306.pdf
Nope

Aha, here's one...
http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/today-s-news-analysis/single-article/report-surveillance-camera-benefits-against-crime-vary-by-city/8a8326fbec6d4a82b707387c929e1239.html
Of course, it's from the Homeland Security site, and honestly, if you read it, it's a pretty mixed bag as to whether and where the cameras are working.

"I've never demanded you agree. I only requested you look at the evidence presented, and been disappointed you had not done so as far as I could tell."

Please stop with the ignorance stuff. I have read your report and still you suggest I have not. Your attitude that if I don't agree with you then I'm ignorant of the facts is, well, ignorant.

Weren't we talking about the cameras that are already installed and being used for a primary purpose of traffic enforcement? Did you link any article saying there is no benefit to using these cameras in law enforcement investigations? No, you linked the ACLU article against installing public surveillance cameras. But that's not even what is being proposed here. The cameras are already present, right? Any secondary benefit is on top of any benefit that the city and citizens already receive from the traffic cameras. All of the articles linked show the data on cameras and crime is "a pretty mixed bag". The term mixed bag cuts both ways and any increment benefit will be a good thing.

found a few more that might fit the fray...http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/Video_Surveillance_Guidelines_Report_w_Model_Legislation4.pdf ( found that at http://www.constitutionproject.org/ ) if you search this site for "video surveillance" , I think it does a fair job for both sides. http://ag.ca.gov/publication/summary_public_records_act.pdf http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-1259.pdf ... ( this one runs a little long but gets close around page 36 on) Most of this material deals with law enforcement, varied surveillance potentials, and how they can be utilized without compromising individual's rights.

We just learned of the first, high profile incremental benefit from using traffic cameras in law enforcement investigations in San Leandro. A knife wielding, meth-using, burglar and rapist is in custody. "Police say the suspect, Claysor Diaz, was arrested with help from images captured on a neighborhood surveillance camera and a city traffic camera." Great job SLPD for getting this guy off the streets.