The Seattle City Council has voted unanimously to say that any department (presumably just the police, but I’ve got my eye on you animal control) that wants to have drones or other surveillance equipment has to get it approved by the council and submit a plan for how they’re going to do that.
The Council has set out hoops through which the cops, or any other city department, much jump through before any big brother starts watching. Before acquiring surveillance equipment, the Seattle Police must obtain approval by the the Council. The police must propose protocols that disclose how cameras will be used, how and where data will be retained and stored and accessed.
The Council legislation requires Seattle Police to provide a description of “the nature and extent of public outreach conducted in each community in which the department intends to use the surveillance equipment.” And the police will have to explain “how the department’s use of the equipment will be regulated to protect privacy and limit the risk of potential abuse.”
The police would have to say how long data would be retained, and how it would be labeled or indexed, and who would have access to it.
If the Council has approved a request to purchase surveillance equipment, the Seattle Police cannot install cameras until the Council has formally set rules for its operation.
It’s obviously a better protection for civil liberties than the status quo, so great. We’ll get to have better knowledge and a chance to weigh in on future surveillance before it goes into action. Still, it doesn’t forestall abuse by the city. It only makes it somewhat tougher and more transparent. So vigilance is, as always, needed.
Well, it looks like they exempted the police from some of the provisions in an amendment that was tacked on:
Except for police, use of drones would need city’s OK
But the bill included a last-minute amendment that exempts the Police Department for temporary uses if the technology is part of a criminal investigation or approved under a search warrant. Privacy and civil-rights advocates objected that the change had not received public scrutiny and could weaken the bill.
“We have a real concern about that,” said Doug Honig, spokesman for the ACLU of Washington, after the council hearing. “It appears to lower the standards for when surveillance cameras can be used.”
Drones might be very useful in monitoring the police. The police don’t like to be monitored or filmed much, but they sure as heck want to be able to monitor or film everyone else.
@2 Yeah, there’s a lot of police departments and cops who didn’t get the memo that standing in your own yard with a videocamera is a constitutional right in this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJpL2ZdWVI
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I hope this woman got a million dollars when she sued the police, but she probably settled out of court with the city for $50,000 to $100,000. And the legal settlements should be docked from the cops’ pay every time they get sued for this. There’s no reason why taxpayers should pay for their Nazi behavior.
Let’s see what the victim could sue them for here: False arrest, false imprisonment, physical assault, libel and slander, and how about a section 1983 action for triple damages for violating her federally guaranteed civil rights.
@3
Wow. Do what we say, we have the guns, that’s the message.
They obviously think that saying “we don’t feel safe with you there” allows them to do any damn thing they want.
In a free society, any necessary function that occasionally requires coercive force, ie the police, needs to be observed and regulated VERY closely.