Sponsored link
Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsSupes delay SFPD spy policy after alarming presentation by Chief Scott

Supes delay SFPD spy policy after alarming presentation by Chief Scott

'There are cameras on every block' and SFPD wants to access them just because they think there might a crime at some point.


The Board of Supes Rules Committee delayed action today on a new policy that would give the cops extensive new authority to use private cameras to spy on San Franciscans after a rather alarming presentation by Chief Scott.

The chief explained how the department wants to use cameras in real time to monitor, for example, not only drug dealing but drug use on the streets. “Open-air drug use is just as much a problem as dealing,” he said.

Chief Bill Scott said it’s fine to spy on people who are doing drugs or might commit a crime

He said there are “pervasive felonious acts involving narcotics” and that the use of spy cameras could lead to more arrests.

The policy also allows the police to seek access to cameras for misdemeanors.

Scott told the supes that “there are cameras on every block in the city,” meaning that the cops potentially could have the ability to monitor almost every piece of outdoor real estate in San Francisco.

More: The chief said that there are circumstances where the cops think there might be a shooting, and they would like to spy on that area just in case someone does pull a gun:

We have locations in the city where we have gun violence that is pretty pervasive and—traditionally, there are intersections and corners we see the same thing repeated over and over. If we have information, about the possibility of shooting and ingredients are there for this event to happen, to me it just makes sense to tap in if surveillance cameras are there that are privately owned.

Sup. Rafael Mandelman: The notion is you think something bad will happen and it’s not super useful to have police on hand. But you want to respond in real time because someone showed up and you know when you see that person show up you know somebody will get shot.

Scott: Right. We think it will help.

So: There is a possibility of a shooting, and “the ingredients are there,” whatever that means, but instead of sending cops over to try to prevent it, the chief wants to watch the video so that if someone does get shot, they can move in quickly.

I’m not an expert, but this sounds like a combination of racial profiling and bad police work to me. On a stunning level. The cops apparently aren’t there to prevent crime; they are sitting behind a monitor so they can catch someone after a shooting they predict will happen, happens. And they know that because of … “the ingredients.”

Matt Cagle, staff attorney at the ACLU, put it this way:

Chief Scott gave the game away. SFPD wants to co-opt private cameras, apparently to place certain neighborhoods under near constant, preemptive surveillance. Police commandeering people’s cameras to spy on their neighbors doesn’t reduce crime but it will fuel inequality and invite racial profiling.

I was worried about this plan before the hearing started, and so were 17 local civil-liberties organizations. The more I heard about it, the worse it sounded.

Sup. Aaron Peskin suggested he would like to see the policy amended to eliminate the provision allowing surveillance whenever the cops suspect felonies and misdemeanors. That seems like the minimum here.

Cagle said that the level of surveillance the cops are asking for is “unprecedented in city history. It allows the police to monitor First Amendment protected activity, and broadly share the footage with police in other states.”

He also noted that the policy is “deeply unpopular,” and that polls show roughly two-thirds of likely November voters think this is a very bad idea.

Another key element: Many callers noted that the policy requires a level of trust in the intentions and actions of the San Francisco Police Department, which has repeatedly violated the public trust.

As one caller put it, “any technology will be abused by the people who have the authority to abuse it.”

Deputy Public Defender Niki Solis called in to point out that the SFPD has misused DNA from sexual assault cases. And we are supposed to trust the same cops not to misuse spy data?

“There have to be safeguards,” Solis said.

Peskin said he is in discussions with the SFPD and the Mayor’s Office, and that an new version of the policy will come back before the Rules Committee next week.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.


Opinion: San Franciscans know a lot about tech. That’s why they should vote No on E

Everything new is not good—and we can't trust SFPD with uncontrolled surveillance

Under the Stars: A quick check-in with the incredible Lætitia Sadier

From Stereolab to Noise Pop, she still charms. Plus: chokecherry, Angelo Outlaw, Caroline Polachek, more great music

Restaurant Week season steps up to the plate

March and April mean two solid months of discounts at restaurants around the Bay Area.

More by this author

Prop. C won’t produce much housing—but could cost the city a lot of money

Breed's plan is probably worthless, city economist says—but if it works, it will cost millions.

PG&E keeps charging us more for worse service; there’s a much better alternative

Plus: A direct indictment of the state's housing policy (mandates, but no funding). That's The Agenda for Feb. 25 to March 3

Three of Breed’s police commissioners suddenly reverse on racist pretext stops

Bizarre excuses as commission votes 4-3 to limit traffic stops that have no public safety value
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED