SDPD Hopes to Know About Everybody Everywhere All at Once
Crime is big news these days, as state and local Republicans have decided it’s an issue worth exploiting by scaring the crap out of people. As a tactic, being tough on crime and accusing your opponent of not doing enough has a proven track record.
The San Diego Police Department is asking for permission to access 500 street level cameras and enable license plate readers. Evidently they have decided that the “cooling off” period since the last scandal is over, and it’s time to upgrade and revamp portions of the 3000 cameras installed earlier.
From the Union-Tribune:
Because the Smart Streetlight cameras had not been well maintained over the years, the city would need to install new cameras. Adding the license plate reader technology would mark the first time the city of San Diego would have the readers in fixed locations.
This is the first big push for surveillance technology in San Diego since the city approved ordinances last year specifically setting rules to govern this kind of technology in light of privacy concerns.
Those ordinances lay out the lengthy process to win permission to use surveillance tech, and include holding community meetings to gather public input. There are 10 meetings planned throughout the city next week, and the department will accept public comments until 5 p.m. March 10.
In 2020 the city removed police access to the video feeds of 3000 cameras, at least without a warrant. It was the end of the wild west days for spy cams video gear installed without public knowledge and absent any policy of how collected data could be used. And there was also that little thing about certain neighborhoods in the city –which just happened to be mostly black and brown– getting more attention.
In the summer of 2022 the discussion about surveillance tech came to a point where the City Council was asked to approve policies concerning their deployment and use. It was hailed as a major victory for a coalition of community groups seeking input on future policy via the establishment of a Privacy Advisory Board.
From the Union-Tribune:
Under the ordinance, the City Council must approve the use of technology that can monitor and identify individuals. City staff members will need to issue reports that outline the intended use of such technology, and the public and a newly created privacy advisory board will be asked to weigh in.
Six months later, that advisory board has yet to meet. This was to be expected, as previous efforts at establishing a civilian police oversight entity approved by a supermajority of voters, were bogged down, thanks to the skills of SDPD unions and assorted apologists.
Three of the ten community meetings are south of Interstate eight, long recognized as San Diego’s red line between white suburbia and “everything else”. The SDPD knows where the voters live who will feel good about this and that is their “target market” for this copaganda.
The mayor -who I envision as often going through the motions with a police union gun aimed at his head– was thrilled to make an announcement.
I agree that in a better (not even perfect) world where law enforcement acted as if it was cognizant of the people they’re supposed to be serving, street cameras, license plate readers, and the technology capable of utilizing data from outside sources could be a net positive.
The fact is that I don’t and you shouldn’t trust the SDPD. Time and again they’ve marched to the beat of their own drummer, public interest be damned. People with different appearances or perspectives are ”otherized” and treated with contempt, while a sort of omerta most of the time keeps good officers from pointing out bad conduct.
The mass “revolt” within the police department over COVID vaccinations wasn’t based on science–it was based on far right conspiracies promulgated by politicians with authoritarian agendas. Shouldn’t that be taken as a clue to where their political agenda is coming from?
Remember that, prior to the wingnut claims appearing on social media, police departments around the country were complaining about not being at the front of the line for vaccinations. Then getting poked became symbolic of “wokeness” and whatever names Fox news talking heads could conjure up.
If you think this sort of conduct is all water under the bridge, think again.
There is a proposal –The PROTECT Act– coming before the city council this year (probably) that aims at restricting so-called pretextual traffic stops by SDPD. This is about traffic stops for minor violations like a broken tail light often used by police as an excuse for unrelated interrogations and involuntary searches.
Drivers with equipment violations would receive “fix-it” notices in the mail instead of being stopped.. The ordinance, as currently written, would also require probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion to stop a person.
I can easily understand why law enforcement officers would object to changing the way things have customarily been done. But they need look no further than the mirror to understand why such an act is under consideration.
There are now three, count ‘em three, studies in San Diego showing SDPD officers being more likely to pull over black drivers than white drivers, and more likely to search them, even though white drivers are more likely to be carrying contraband.
The activists working with Council member Monica Montgomery Steppe include the ACLU, the United Domestic Workers Union, Community Advocates for Just and Moral Governance (MoGo), the Center on Policy Initiatives, and fourteen other organizations.
While there can be no doubt about the liberal leanings of the group, all of them are publicly committed to working within the current political system. Nobody from these groups has been arrested for any act endangering the public. Not a bomb thrower in the bunch.
Yet the San Diego Police Officers Association is conducting a text messaging and public relations campaign against the PROTECT ACT smearing the lot of them as a “fringe group” spreading “dangerous misinformation.” The message says that drunk drivers and violent suspects will be scott free to wreak destruction on communities.
From CBS 8 News:
“This is the most dangerous, this is the most extreme answer to disparate impacts on policing anywhere in the United States,” said SDPD Captain Jeff Jordon earlier this month, during a presentation to the La Jolla Town Council.
Jordon said pretext stops make communities safer, because officers find guns, illegal drugs, and arrest drivers with warrants.
“Oftentimes little stops lead to big stops. And I will tell you right now, the little stops that you're talking about, motor vehicle stops -- in the 27 months we studied those stops -- led to recovery of 2,400 guns that would still be on the street if that ordinance passed,” he said.
Here’s my compromise: Pass the PROTECT ACT after it’s been evaluated by legal beagles, give the police access to the cameras, etc., and establish real and serious consequences if the SDPD is caught violating the city’s privacy policies. The department must also take steps to identify and get rid of officers associated with extremist groups as defined by the Department of Justice. (Trust me, they’re in there.)
Knowing full well that the POA has constructed a shield against interference, it will take some creative thinking to define penalties for breaking the rules as set out by the city council. Maybe we could get the Privacy Board to meet on this topic, since they’ve thus far proven worthless.
Maybe a level one punishment could be requiring all officers to wear tu-tus while on patrol.
***
Call it coincidence or not, as the SDPD is trotting out proposals for enhanced surveillance capabilities, the LA Times & Union-Tribune both ran a front page story about companies pitching “co-appearance” or “correlation analysis” software.
It can find anyone appearing on surveillance frames within a few minutes, note an individual’s proximity to others who might be considered suspicious, differentiate those who may have been near the primary suspect a time or two, and zero in on someone who has appeared 14 times.
Jay Stanley, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who first highlighted Vintra’s video presentation last year in a blog post, said he is not surprised some companies and departments are cagey about its use. In his experience, police departments often deploy new technology “without telling, let alone asking, permission of democratic overseers like city councils.”
The software could be abused to monitor personal and political associations, including with potential intimate partners, labor activists, anti-police groups or partisan rivals, he warned.
Danielle VanZandt, who analyzes Vintra for the market research firm Frost & Sullivan, said the technology is already in use
***
Meanwhile over at the County Sheriff’s Jail, an inmate starved to death.
You can follow me at:
Twitter (for now)---> @DougPorter506
Post —→DougPorter@wordsdeedsblogger
Tribel ——> DougP Porter@dougporter506
Mastodon ——> DougPorter506@mastodon.social
NEW! –Spoutible —>@dougporter506
Facebook —----> https://www.facebook.com/WordsAndDeedsBlog
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com
I don't trust the SDPD. I think they want a police state which violates our privacy. Additionally, they don't do their job. 2 social workers reported my previous IHSS homemaker for elder abuse and possible Munchausen by Proxy. They reported him to Adult Protective Services and to the SDPD. I also reported him. A detective from the Elder Abuse department of the SDPD called me and then he dismissed the case without investigating, even though he said this man is "very well known to the SDPD."