Update on Somerville surveillance cameras?

[enhf94.livejournal.com]

Given the recent news that a district court has recently affirmed that the TSA can order local goverments to lie does not have to tell the truth about security camera use, I wonder if it's time to revisit our local discussion of the surveillance cameras installed in Somerville five years ago, and the cameras installed on Somerville police cars. (This discussion might also be usefully informed by recent revelations that the NSA can break most encryption on the internet.)

At the time, I understood that the city officials were surprised that public responses to installing the cameras were limited to a public hearing, some discussions on the Davis Square LJ, and an editorial in the Somerville Journal. I was surprised, too.

In 2008, the Somerville City goverment (to my surprise) refused to disclose information about where the cameras were placed, although when public interest peaked, several cameras were identified by the public. I don't have any data more current than that.

Also in 2008, Somerville became the first city in MA to install automatic license-plate checking cameras on police vehicles, which at the time could check 1500 license plates per hour (functionally, all clearly visible plates).

I think it's reasonable to wonder about any of the following: the software has been upgraded since 2008, more cameras may have been installed since 2008, the data may be kept for longer than the originally-stated two weeks, and it is likely that the cameras have been connected to a larger Homeland Security surveillance system.

Several folks on the DSLJ suggested a trial period of a year, which has passed. I don't know of any evidence that the cameras have been useful in deterring crime. Private cameras were, apparently, key, in identifying the Marathon bombers. I do know of abuse of CCTV; here is an example using license-plate-lookup cameras. Here is an example (original article behind paywall; link is a cut-and-paste) of Detroit law enforcement's abuse of databases to track ex-lovers, extort money, and run plates of political opponents' supporters.

I found this locally-written essay particularly cogent - questioning the effectiveness, value, and potential for abuse of these systems.


TL;DR: Somerville is watching you with Homeland-Security-connected cameras. Effectiveness is unproven, but in other locales, abuse is documented; also, local governments have, at times, been ordered to lie about camera use. All sources verified non-wingnut in my view.

ETA: based on first comment, changed language about TSA case to more accurately reflect Schneier's verbage.

Comments

[dashford.livejournal.com]

Here is the actual ruling by the district court -- decide for yourself whether it affirms that "the TSA can order local governments to lie about security camera use."

http://tsaoutofourpants.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/corbett-v-tsa-full-dismissal.pdf

[enhf94.livejournal.com]

relevant text: At any rate, assuming without finding that Broward did not comply with the FPRA when denying the existence of the requested footage, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s FPRA claim—which seeks only injunctive relief “requiring the production of all documents requested” (First Amended Complaint, D.E. 20 at 15)—is now moot, as the TSA has produced the requested footage subject to appropriate redactions. On this basis the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Broward.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

That, however, appears to be one of the key arguments of the appeal to the Court of Appeals - that fighting an FOIA-request until it goes to court, then providing the requested info in order to create "mootness" is an abuse of the FOIA system (and of the courts) - it's gaming the system to require the citizenry to file in court what should be a simple administrative request.

[keithn.livejournal.com]

You're going to have to spell it out for me. What does "NSA can break most encryption on the internet" have to do with license plate scanners on Somerville police cars?

[misterthorn.livejournal.com]

That when you give people or groups of people broad and unsupervised powers of surveillance, they tend to drift toward using those powers in a manner more consistent with their own self-interest than with that of the public good.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

If you care about this, express your opinion to your city councillor. Otherwise, the authorities have no reason not to use a system that is subject to abuse ... by the authorities.

[enhf94.livejournal.com]

While I hadn't intended to, uh, track DSLJ readers, I happened to use bitly for this post, which tracks clicks (but only shows me number of clicks, not individual user behavior).

The link to DSLJ's previous conversation about security cameras got 39 clicks, the highest of all links.
The link to Police Officers tapping databases to harass their ex-wives new dates got 0 clicks, the lowest.
Most of the other links were clicked by between 25-35 people.


accidental tracking headdesk. Still, interesting.

New Somerville Policy First in MA to Add Controls, Require Public Transparency for Surveillance Tech

[filing_davis]

from the article:

As surveillance technology use grows nationally, the City of Somerville has joined 19 U.S. cities and two states working with the ACLU to protect individual rights while preserving public safety. On Oct. 4, with the full support of the Somerville Police Department, Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone signed the Executive Policy on Surveillance Technology, which is believed to be the first such policy implemented in the Commonwealth.


http://bit.ly/2z3p4Mj

Mayor Curtatone's executive order

[filing_davis]

http://bit.ly/2zkNCl7