Seattle says it won’t turn on 30 new cameras without public comment

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

The city will not activate the 30 surveillance cameras installed along the Seattle waterfront until the public has a chance to weigh in, Mayor Mike McGinn said.

“The system will not be operated until a thorough public vetting of the system has been completed and the public has provided input,” McGinn said in prepared statement.

The mayor said he has directed the Police Department to brief community groups and solicit opinions before going ahead with the cameras, which were acquired through a $5 million federal Homeland Security grant. Installed along the city’s shoreline from Fauntleroy to Golden Gardens, the cameras are designed to augment security, according to police.


Proud of Seattle right now. First the drones were garaged and now citizens actually get to voice concerns about the new cameras. I sort of wish the police dept. or whoever was in charge of acquiring the cameras had thought to ask before purchasing them, but I'll just take this as a win. I actually don't have a huge problem with cameras in the proposed area, but I do think the more we allow ourselves to be monitored the more we will be, uh, monitored. It also seems the ACLU was actually pretty useful in this instance.

Seattle Times




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Washington State and Colorado are quickly becoming some of the most progressive states in the US. Not only that, but they are actually doing things FOR the people and BY the people.

It's quite impressive if you ask me.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Pretty sure they should have asked the people first if they wanted actualy want to pay for them before the city bought them and installed.

Hey we just bought 30 really expensive cameras with your money, but dont worry we wont use them unless you say its ok?

What.
edit on 16-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
Pretty sure they should have asked the people first if they wanted actualy want to pay for them before the city bought them and installed.



They didn't buy them. It was a grant from homeland security.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


How did Homeland Security buy them?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by Tuttle
Pretty sure they should have asked the people first if they wanted actualy want to pay for them before the city bought them and installed.



They didn't buy them. It was a grant from homeland security.

~Tenth
I know that you are a mod, but did you really think about what you just wrote? Where did homeland security get the money? This is why our nation is so deeply in debt right here. Perfect example. "They didn't pay for it, the government did". OMFG!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


He was implying the residents should have decided PRIOR to Homeland Security setting them up. This is part of a National project by home land security. It's mandated.

The city is doing exactly what it should. Reaching out to it's citizens at the appropriate time for them to make the decisions.

It's not like DHS can't just remove them if they vote it down.

(PS. Being a mod has NOTHING to do with anything
)

~Tenth
edit on 2/16/2013 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Hearing about the right to travel bill was great.
Then, a assault weapons ban bill shook me a bit.
But when I read this, I could not believe that Several of the States, now WA as well, are licking the boots of the Federal agencies that give out money like candy, home and abroad.

I agree with poster that getting public opinion should have happened prior to sucking up for "free" money.
Is it Free? Hell no.

And the kicker.....

5 Million grant for 30 cameras? 5.000,000.00/30.00 = 166666.6666666667
That is like the number of the beast 4.66 times in a row.

Eerie, and of course, should a camera cost 166,666.66K? I don't think so.
Someone is lining their pockets big time.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I see what the other posters are saying. Installing something before it's been vetted seems like a waste of money, allocated or not. My real question is did someone specifically ask for the cameras, or did DHS just send a check and tell them what to use it for. I would think that someone petitioned the DHS for the money and had to state specifically what the money was to be used for, and that's the person or committee I think should have taken a step back and spoken with the ACLU, the public and other city officials first. Then again were I in that position I would be trying to get my grubby little hands on as many resources as possible for my area of jurisdiction.

I agree with you about WA tenth. I'm actually quite proud of a number of things that are going on in the state recently. Gay marriage, legalization of something that is not to be named, the ban on suppressors being lifted, reigning in the SPD... Good time to live in this state. Perhaps our politicians are starting to 'get it'. The residents too.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Yeah I do think it's strange they just set them up however. I mean unless it's considered federal land or something like that..

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


I couldn't tell if the full 5 million went to the cameras. I certainly hope not but guarantee the little buggers were much more expensive than need be.

I need to read the article again and see if it mentions if this was partial use of the monies or the whole shebang.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


My best guess is that they just weren't expecting any backlash, that people would either be grateful or that they could keep it low key. In the grand scheme of things 30 cameras on the waterfront really doesn't seem like something to get upset over, and I bet they figured the public would just accept it if they even found out. Problem with that is the whole slippery slope thing as you are well aware.

I just decided to count all the cameras I have in my living room. Yikes. One on the laptop, one on the other laptop, one on the tablet, one hooked up to the X-Box, on in my cell phone... I guess that's not all that relevant to the thread but it is kind of amazing when you stop and think about the number of recording devices aimed at you even in your own home. I probably drove past 100's on the way to the grocery store. Easy to ignore.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Creating a situation where people are ok and almost expectant of surveillance is what the government really wants. So I can certainly see that point of view.

If you lived in London it would probably be more apparent and perhaps bothersome. When you see a dozen CCTV cameras on the corner of every street, you start to wonder if they are watching for crime, or watching you.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





If you lived in London it would probably be more apparent and perhaps bothersome. When you see a dozen CCTV cameras on the corner of every street, you start to wonder if they are watching for crime, or watching you.


It seems the cameras I've seen in London are definitely more overt than the ones we have in my area. I don't ascribe to the old 'nothing to hide' adage. I don't have anything to hide so why monitor me? Ladies, you have my full permission to monitor me in public and private.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Yup, unless otherwise proven by crime statistics, there's no reason to have some giant, technical over watch of this part of the city.

It's a matter of principle. IMO people who loose their privacy and freedom, all the same time, end up being disenfranchised, disconnected and more prone to acts of cray cray.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Surely the constitution guarantees American a right to privacy?

So why do Americans not destroy any and all CCTV?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   
That is the sanest news I have heard in a while S&F for you, I was thinking of moving to colorado maybe washington though!



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
Surely the constitution guarantees American a right to privacy?

So why do Americans not destroy any and all CCTV?


I'm not sure it does, explicitly. CCTV is just your government watching out for you. You should be appreciative. They're there for YOU!





new topics
top topics
 
8

log in

join