The date for the first in what may be a series of public forums to discuss the future of surveillance cameras in Cal Anderson Park has been announced. As we first reported in March, City Council parks committee head Sally Bagshaw is leading an effort to decide what should be done with the surveillance technology currently operating — but un-utilized — in Capitol Hill’s central park. CHS broke the news about the status of the cams and delved into the issues surrounding the technology here.
The surveillance program has ruffled the feathers of privacy advocates, to be sure, but its biggest weakness appears to be its ineffectiveness. A City Auditor’s report concluded that the cameras had not been effective at deterring criminal activity and the only documented time SPD utilized any footage was during the investigation of reports of a roving gang attacking people in the park in August 2009. Today, the only people who can view the tapes are a select few in the Seattle Police Department. While the Parks owns the equipment, staff cannot view, operate or utilize any of it, according to a Parks department spokesperson.
East Precinct Commander Capt. Jim Dermody has voiced his support for the program and asked that it be continued. According to the SPD, while the cameras continue to operate, the department is not currently utilizing the technology pending the decision by the Council whether to continue the program. SPD says there have only been five requests for live monitoring since the cameras were installed in 2008 and not all of those could be filled. There were six requests for reviews of footage as part of criminal investigations. SPD says that none of the evidence provided by the cameras was useful in the investigations.
Councilmember Bagshaw to host public discussion on Cal Anderson Park surveillance cameras
SEATTLE – On Monday, May 3, Seattle City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw will take public comment regarding the Cal Anderson Park surveillance camera system pilot project immediately following a special meeting of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee.
What: Parks and Seattle Center Committee Meeting, followed by public comment on Cal Anderson Park surveillance camera program
When: Monday, May 3, 2010
5:00 p.m. Sign-in
5:30 p.m. Committee meeting6:30 p.m. Public comment
Where: Miller Community Center, 330 19th Avenue East, Seattlehttp://www.cityofseattle.net/Parks/centers/miller.htm
In June 2008, the City Council passed Ordinance 122705, which authorized a pilot program to place a total of 12 surveillance cameras in four Seattle parks: Cal Anderson, Hing Hay, Occidental Square, and Victor Steinbrueck. Due to City budget constraints, only three of the cameras were ever installed, all in Cal Anderson Park. The pilot phase of the surveillance camera program concluded in late January 2010, and the City Council now seeks input from the community to inform their decision on the future of the camera program.
The City Auditor’s Office conducted an evaluation of the pilot program in October 2009.
Councilmember Bagshaw is committed to holding one committee meeting per quarter outside of City Hall in the spirit of open government and with a focus on civic participation. Regular committee business will be conducted in the first hour of this special meeting before opening the floor to public comments regarding the surveillance cameras.
Seattle City Council meetings are cablecast live on Seattle Channel 21 and Webcast live on the City Council’s website at http://www.seattle.gov/council/. Copies of legislation, archives of previous meetings, and news releases are available on http://www.seattle.gov/council/. Follow the Council on Twitter and on Facebook at Seattle City Council.
I don’t do anything questionable in the park.
There are *hundreds* of cameras within a few blocks of Broadway. Practically every building (colleges, financial institutions, hospitals, grocery and drugstores, taxicabs, A.T.M.) and businesses inside and out have cameras. Heck the Teriyaki restaurants even have them. Two or three in a public park, with strict controls on access, that only get viewed after a crime has been reported five or six times a year doesn’t sound extraordinary. My concern isn’t so much privacy concerns when I’m in a very public place, but cost vs. benefit.
Based on what I’ve read about the low benefit to high costs of security cameras, I’d like to see the camera’s budget go instead to supporting officer patrols and other more effective forms of police work.
This article from (security expert) Bruce Schneier is a good one about the limitations of video cameras in this kind of context–it also links to many (15+) studies / articles about how cameras have consistently failed to make a difference in solving or preventing crime:
Spy Cameras Won’t Make Us Safer, by Bruce Schneier
http://www.schneier.com/essay-309.html
One good line:
“Cameras afford a false sense of security, encouraging laziness when we need police to be vigilant.”
Other facts are pretty accessible via a Google search like:
http://www.google.com/search?studies+on+effectiveness+of+sur
Absolutely. Pay for officer patrols, not unwatched cameras.
I’m in favor of spending the camera budget on more foot patrols. Given what I’ve read that seems like a better way to go. Besides which the cameras just feel creepy.
You really shouldn’t leave your home then. There are cameras in every business you enter.
There’s quite a difference between private businesses installing security cameras and our government installing cameras in parks to perform surveillance of the public.
_ _
We can safely assume MOST all of us here posting do NOTHING questionable in any park.
The issue is police power and public space and civil liberty and spending city funds and do they deter crime.
Ok, fine, let’s play that logic card:
I also do nothing “questionable” in the park.
Nor any other park. Yet there’s no camera in any other park – and the crime maps on SPD’s website suggest that there are parks where MUCH more crime happens than at Cal Anderson. (also gotta ask: Victor S park has considerably more criminal activity… why did SPD/SPR not install the cams there?)
Also playing the logic game:
I don’t do anything questionable in the bathroom. But the police don’t have a camera THERE, (so they shouldn’t have one in my park either).
— (aka hyphenhyphen): those cameras:
-Aren’t paid for with tax dollars
-aren’t often actually on (many are decoys)
-aren’t usually trained on public space – space paid for with tax dollars (i.e. you can vote your disapproval with your dollars, in regards to a private business – but a park you pay for whether you like it or not)
-are arguably for a slightly different use
-are linked to crappy time delay recording tapes rather than a wired connection to city-owned offices
– are erased/recorded over with alarming frequency rather than stored indefinitely
– are (many are anyway) motion/activity activated rather than on 24/7
-most private cams “make back their investment” via civil suits and perceived prevention – that is, by being highly visible. The Cal Anderson cams do neither.
The creepiness issue isn’t subject to the Simpleton logic that “there are cams everywhere”. – We’re talking about human nature & the ideals behind the laws of the US Constitution… it’s a little more complex and deep.
There isn’t an annual camera “budget” that could be cut and devoted to supporting more foot patrols. The Cal Anderson Park project incurred a one-time $177,000 expense in early 2008 that covered equipment and installation. Now that they’re up, there’s very little annual expense associated with keeping them running – it’s basically electricity and the SPD staff time to review footage if/when the need arises.