By JW August
The San Diego Police Department currently has 439 street surveillance cameras (smart street lights) installed across the city.
Police Chief Scott Wahl says that some of the cameras currently in position will be moved to six new locations in Hillcrest in advance of the Pride Parade. He is concerned about the growing number of hate incidents targeting the LGBTQ+ community. The chief’s announcement that he was using his emergency powers in a public setting is, says City Councilmember Marni Von Wilpert, “wildly opposite how street lights were deployed the first time” referring to previous Mayor Kevin Faulkner’s administration.
At that time It was a secretive process which upset many in the community and led to the creation of an ordinance requiring transparency when any technology is deployed. Von Wilpert chairs the Public Safety Committee and she explained at their recent meeting it wasn’t the venue to discuss the police chiefs use of emergency powers to move the cameras.
She did point out that while the Transparent and Responsible Use of Surveillance Technology Ordinance is vital and important for San Diego, it has created a bureaucracy which meant the police chief would have had a “six to nine month” slog through the various levels, including the privacy advisory board, the safety committee and the city council. Wahl was forced to use his exigent powers as chief of police, which is a legal term for something that needs to be acted on immediately given its serious nature.
There were speakers who spoke in opposition to the cameras being moved into Hillcrest, seeing it as an infringement of the privacy of citizens.
Ike Anyaneu, a member of the citizens Privacy Advisory Board, asked the committee what will happen to the cameras in Hillcrest if they are no longer needed? Was there any “after the fact” plan in place for camera removal? These questions and concerns will be part of a future city council meeting, as the committee agreed 3-0 to forward the information onto the full council.
The hearing evolved into describing what has happened in the past seven months since the cameras have been deployed— with success stories provided by SDPD officers from the Special Projects and Legislative Affairs unit. They described how the technology aided in the recovery of 100 stolen cars, the arrest of 95 individuals, including numerous felony suspects involved in various criminal acts including kidnap and murder. It wasn’t just the cameras being highlighted, this also included another technology that’s been deployed by PD, the license plate recognition system.
The officers highlighted cases from every council district including the arrest of identity thieves, a rare occurrence given the nature of the crime. A camera identified what was a stolen vehicle moving along Nimitz Drive. SDPD pulled the car over and found several drivers licenses, paperwork belonging to other people and a controlled substance. Two suspects were arrested and face charges of auto and i.d.theft.
The most dramatic capture involved a man grabbing and trying to run away with a six year old girl in Mission Valley. When she screamed, he let her go and ran away. Two days later he tried unsuccessfully to grab another child, this time near Inflatable World in the Valley. The car’s description and the license plate information were in the license plate recognition system. Shortly after the second attempted kidnapping the car’s location popped up when the suspect passed under a reader in downtown San Diego. Von Wilbert commented this demonstrated the value of the system, noting that many police resources would have been engaged to find the would-be kidnapper, in a city that is already short on police staffing.
You can see current locations that have been approved and are now deployed here.
JW, respectfully, von Wilpert’s claim that it takes 6-9 months for a surveillance proposal to get through the oversight process is 100% false, and you are repeating it here as though it is simply true. It’s easy: how long will it take for last week’s proposal, that sailed through public safety, to sail through council? If you believe Chief Wahl’s statement, the whole thing will be done in July.
You can cherry pick crimes that you believe would only have been solved using rights-violating mass surveillance all you want. It cant be proven or disproven. You know what I can prove? In the police department’s own report they included a section for any abuses or discipline they handed out for misuse of the system. Did any intrepid reporters bother to check that disclosure? Or are you all just too enamored with the story being spun for you by the public relations department?
While I agree that Seth is a little rough here, he does ask two good questions. I had a skeptical reaction when I read what Wilpert said about it taking six to nine months. That sounded like BS. And, I did not like her comment that this was not the venue to discuss the Chief’s use of “emergency powers.” If not there, then where?
And, the part about cherry-picking crimes supposedly solved was very true. If the claims were true, then great but considering the source…
That said, Seth, JW presented a report with lots of good information. Sometimes, it is enough to report the facts and not necessarily chase down every question. The great thing about the comments section in The Rag is that knowledgeable people pitch in and provide more good information, or corrections. you seem to know something, maybe you could be more specific.
GP – have not heard back from you in latest round of emails re ADU contest.
Disappointed in the Rag for publishing this City sponsored propaganda.
Seems like everyone’s in a foul mood today.
I had no idea there were so many streetlight cameras! Keeping that balance between safety and privacy is tricky.