We are watching Oakland [see included summary of Seattle developments]

We took a bit of a Snowden vacation here at Seattle Privacy, but this being Seattle, the main thing missed was the legal deadline for guidelines and protocols about how Seattle Police use our “waterfront” surveillance cameras. These guidelines are now months overdue, and we’re counting.

Meanwhile, things have gone completely crazy in Oakland, California, our new surveillance soul-mate to the south. In a series of events that mirror the secretive and determined behavior of the Seattle Police Department and its friends at the Department of Homeland Security, shadowy surveillance-loving operatives have tried to sell a $15.9 million network of “waterfront” surveillance cameras and other devices to the Oakland City Council, which met Tuesday night to hear about the proposal. Since Oakland is second to none as a city of active citizens, there was also a crowd well-informed privacy advocates – better informed than the council, which had no idea what it was getting into.

At Seattle Privacy, we stand proudly in solidarity with privacy and transparency activists in Oakland.

To first recap the situation in Seattle, recall that in 2012 the police (led by 30-year SPD veteran Assistant Chief Paul McDonagh and with Detective Monty Moss as technical lead) quietly applied for and received a $5 million dollar grant from the Department of Homeland Security to pay for “port security”. The security would consist of surveillance cameras along the waterfront, combined with a mixed wired and wireless network for communications. The City Council rubber-stamped the proposal without meaningful public debate in May 2012 (Ordinance Number: 123879), listing the Port of Seattle, the Coast Guard, and the Seattle Fire Department partners. By late 2012 and early 2013, equipment was being acquired and SPD was trying in some haste to line up additional partners (the Port of Tacoma, the Seattle Department of Transportation, King County Metro) and combine several other grants to build a much larger network. Controversy erupted when the first cameras appeared at Alki Beach. The mayor promised a “thorough public vetting” of the issue, and on March 26, under pressure from the public, the council passed a bill (Ordinance 124142) requiring city departments to submit formal data-use policies before undertaking surveillance. Out in the community, SPD toured a dog-and-pony-show that passed for a “public vetting” (= “Here’s what we are doing so listen closely!”) while the cameras steadily went up. Ultimately, the network will span the entire city from north to south, the “port security” rationale almost forgotten as inland traffic corridors and government buildings get wired in. There is still no official use policy.

Now back to Oakland, where the story begins in 2009 with the creation of a Domain Awareness Center (DAC), a “joint project between the Port of Oakland and the city, which “started as a nationwide initiative to secure ports by connecting motion sensors and cameras in and around the shipping facilities” (San Francisco Chronicle). However,

While the foundation for the original proposal for the DAC centered primarily on security at the Port of Oakland, it has morphed into a consolidation of many real-time data flows, surveillance cameras and law enforcement statistics in a centralized location. (Oakland Local)

As conceived, the Oakland plan is an unbelievably worse privacy threat than what Seattle has so far attempted. Among its features:

  • Integration of Oakland police and fire communications into a comprehensive surveillance center
  • Video cameras (134 so far)
  • Some cameras equipped with “motion or image recognition technology” (75 so far)
  • Gunshot detection microphones
  • License-plate readers
  • Crime-mapping software
  • Private alarm detections programs
  • Monitoring of Twitter feeds

A further $2 million grant that is being sought would further integrate sensors and cameras from

  • CalTrans
  • The Oakland Unified School District
  • The Oakland County Coliseum
  • Oracle Arena
  • Regional law enforcement intelligence centers

This latest grant proposal was supposed to be approved by the Oakland City Council at a Tuesday, July 16, meeting. Discovering that the issue was controversial, the Council postponed a decision for two weeks. Astonishingly, the city leaders seem not to have considered that years of police violence and brutal repression of protestors (some of it in the previous 48 hours), as well as the record of local and federal surveillance of peaceful political movements such as Occupy, might make the public wary of giving the Oakland police even more power to track them, all of them, all the time.

Attorney Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted in the Chronicle that the Council had failed to provide guidelines about how all this data would be used, or how long it would be retained. “There’s no indication they’ve considered any privacy or civil liberties issue in the first place,” he said.

At Seattle Privacy, we stand proudly in solidarity with privacy and transparency activists in Oakland. Every day the gap between what our elected officials are required to do, and what they are adequately educated to do, seems to grow wider. We call for municipal governments everywhere to accept that the intersection of technology and privacy is too important and too complex to legislate without expert advice from both fields. This shouldn’t be hard to accept, elected officials seek expert advice from structural engineers, architects, water quality specialists, economists, and a host of other specialized professionals. It’s past time to bring the cryptologists and network engineers on board.

For more information:

Oakland Tribune article on Bay Area regional surveillance initiatives, including Oakland (1 July 2012).

On Twitter, follow @marymad and look for the #DAC (Domain Awareness Center) hashtag.

SPD event tonight and this week’s recommended #privacy reading

SPD event tonight:

Tonight at beautiful Golden Gardens, we’ll hear Seattle Police Department spokespeople and techies talk about the Port of Seattle surveillance cameras. If you can, please come: This is pretty interesting stuff.

Details: Golden Gardens Bathhouse, 8498 Seaview Pl. NW, Friday, May 24th at 7 p.m.

SPD also invites your e-mail comments or questions at cameraquestions@seattle.gov.

Seattle Privacy Coalition members have made it to each of the previous public meetings (at Alki and Belltown) and we plan to be there tonight.

This week in recommended reading

We don’t really mean to tell you to read Bruce Schneier every single time the man posts something, but we couldn’t resist sharing this very alarming article, which envisions all our devices, appliances, clothing, and other items tracking us and each other and reporting in: The Internet of Things.

Speaking of things that know where you are: From the opposite side of the country comes news of the Maine Senate voting to require police to get a warrant before engaging in location tracking of cell phones and other GPS-enabled devices in non-emergency situations.

We feel like we see articles almost every day that refer to new (or existing) programs and systems that gather and store data, such as ORCA and other transit cards, Smart Meters, and more.

Lately we’ve been seeing and using the term “Accidental Surveillance” to describe how, when they are all put together, these systems paint an alarmingly detailed picture of our lives and movements.

Here’s a piece by Seattle City Councilmember Tim Burgess that discusses how, starting April 1, owners of commercial and multifamily residential buildings of at least 20,000 square feet must report energy usage to the City on an annual basis. We’re all for saving energy, we just want to make sure privacy protection is part of the conversation: Tracking Building Energy Use.

Finally we saw that Woodinville plans to purchase surveillance cameras to fight crime, and is also considering the sort of automated license plate reader (ALPR) system in use currently in Seattle. Props to Mayor Bernie Talmas, the lone no vote, who was reported in The Seattle Times as voting no, “saying he was concerned about privacy issues and possible liability to the city.”

And this seems like a good moment to note that Seattle Privacy Coalition does not oppose data gathering systems, but we also are concerned about privacy issues and possible liability to our fair city, and would love to see oversight in place to review department protocols.





Recommended Reading: Bruce Schneier on Transparency and Accountability

If you missed it in The Atlantic or on his own blog, please take a moment to check out this short but compelling piece by security expert Bruce Schneier: Tranparency and Accountability. Schneier talks about almost everything we’re concerned about when it comes to the law enforcement side of data collection.

He notes that local police departments are pushed by the FBI and Homeland Security to invest in new technologies, some of them already shown to be ineffective. And he notes that sometimes lobbyists get involved.

Certainly with the purchase of drones and deployment of an extensive surveillance camera network in Seattle without public input, we’ve seen exactly what he’s talking about.

Schneier calls for oversight with teeth, and that’s exactly what we’re asking for. But we don’t want to single out law enforcement unduly–they’re just easy because they’re so visible. But Please see the Smart Meters post for an example of another a proposed investment in data gathering that cries out for public oversight.