San Francisco Police Illegally Spying on Protesters

Last summer, the San Francisco police illegally used surveillance cameras at the George Floyd protests. The EFF is suing the police:

This surveillance invaded the privacy of protesters, targeted people of color, and chills and deters participation and organizing for future protests. The SFPD also violated San Francisco’s new Surveillance Technology Ordinance. It prohibits city agencies like the SFPD from acquiring, borrowing, or using surveillance technology, without prior approval from the city’s Board of Supervisors, following an open process that includes public participation. Here, the SFPD went through no such process before spying on protesters with this network of surveillance cameras.

It’s feels like a pretty easy case. There’s a law, and the SF police didn’t follow it.

Tech billionaire Chris Larsen is on the side of the police. He thinks that the surveillance is a good thing, and wrote an op-ed defending it.

I wouldn’t be writing about this at all except that Chris is a board member of EPIC, and used his EPIC affiliation in the op-ed to bolster his own credentials. (Bizarrely, he linked to an EPIC page that directly contradicts his position.) In his op-ed, he mischaracterized the EFF’s actions and the facts of the lawsuit. It’s a mess.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit wrote a good rebuttal to Larsen’s piece. And this week, EPIC published what is effectively its own rebuttal:

One of the fundamental principles that underlies EPIC’s work (and the work of many other groups) on surveillance oversight is that individuals should have the power to decide whether surveillance tools are used in their communities and to impose limits on their use. We have fought for years to shed light on the development, procurement, and deployment of such technologies and have worked to ensure that they are subject to independent oversight through hearings, legal challenges, petitions, and other public forums. The CCOPS model, which was developed by ACLU affiliates and other coalition partners in California and implemented through the San Francisco ordinance, is a powerful mechanism to enable public oversight of dangerous surveillance tools. The access, retention, and use policies put in place by the neighborhood business associations operating these networks provide necessary, but not sufficient, protections against abuse. Strict oversight is essential to promote both privacy and community safety, which includes freedom from arbitrary police action and the freedom to assemble.

So far, EPIC has not done anything about Larsen still being on its board. (Others have criticized them for keeping him on.) I don’t know if I have an opinion on this. Larsen has done good work on financial privacy regulations, which is a good thing. But he seems to be funding all these surveillance cameras in San Francisco, which is really bad.

Posted on January 20, 2022 at 6:13 AM38 Comments

Comments

Clive Robinson January 20, 2022 7:01 AM

@ ALL,

San Francisco police illegally used surveillance cameras at the George Floyd protests.

Not exactly unexpected,

There’s a law, and the SF police didn’t follow it.

Again not exactly unexpected.

So there is a law suit, and the police will probably get bad publicity and might even get fined.

But ask yourself this,

Based on history do you expect anything to change?

Of course not, for that to happen seniors have to loose not just their credibility in the public eye, they have to loose there jobs and pensions and do jail time as any other law breaking criminal should. Also they should be barred from any form of public office or involvment with public office (so no consolation jobs as an industry advisor or the like).

In fact they should know better, and thus get treated less leniently, so an increased tarriff of 20% that must be served before any other considerations should be considered appropriate. So if they get sentenced to three years eligable for parole after a year… What should happen is they serve 20% or 7months and a week without any consideration of time served. Then when that has passed they spend another year before parole considerations kick in.

Then maybe they will realise that they are in a position of trust and breaching it is not a game where they will either win or not loose, they need to realise they could loose big time.

But also the “lackless oversight” has to stop, citizens should expect those who stand in positions of trust to be tested and verified not just on entering office/employment but continuously. That needs competant and effective oversight.

Cajun January 20, 2022 7:43 AM

@Winter @RealFakeNews
At what point should it be allowed? I believe blatant surveillance on your average day should receive major backlash. But what about protests? What about violent protests? There must be a line somewhere. Of course, these crossed lines must not be used as an excuse for creating overreaching laws (a la patriot act), but we know they will.

@John
This is probably the best solution, but it’s a very optimistic one. We are too quick to act on opinions of politics. Should we end the War on X? That is, should we stop hyper focusing on the distant or intangible problems and create unison? I believe so, but the news networks would be inclined to prevent this; all they want to do is fill you with such emotion.

Ted January 20, 2022 7:45 AM

This seems like a fog of war scenario where some people are acting on their baser instincts. Hopefully the courts will reign back on the abuses of the law, highlight and build precedent on the language of the law, and put safety measures in place.

Winter January 20, 2022 7:51 AM

@Cajun
“But what about protests? What about violent protests?”

The law is quite clear, blanket surveillance of protests is not allowed. If the police suspect violence or criminal behavior, they can get a warrant to do the surveillance.

The fact that they did not seek a warrant tells us they are trying to circumvent (break) the law.

Clive Robinson January 20, 2022 8:54 AM

@ Cajun, ALL,

Should we end the War on X?

Do you know how many “Wars on X” there actually are? And how often they are supposed to be reviewed by the folks on the hill?

It might shock you… Untill of course you realise they are used as ways to divert tax dollars to “friends” and “places”… That not only keep those folks on the Hill not just well oiled one way or another, but on the Hill and even some of their voters in jobs…

The good old American way, which many others would call sleaze.

Winter January 20, 2022 9:01 AM

@Clive, Cajun
“Untill of course you realise they are used as ways to divert tax dollars to “friends” and “places””

The “War on X” is always directed against those who vote for your opponent.

SocraticGadfly January 20, 2022 9:59 AM

There’s further background. SF’s mayor has proposed expanding police powers to use such cameras.

So, Clive, no, I don’t expect anything to change.

Cajun January 20, 2022 10:02 AM

@Clive
That’s why its X instead of anything specific! Naming any number of instances of X would not convey the scale. The pattern of needless spending and diverting of attention is harmful to our country. The pattern of misleading the masses for some form of advantage.

@Winter
Most of them, yeah. Other times its used to fear people rather than solve a problem (War on Drugs). Other times its used to initiate some plan militarily, politically, socially or any combination (War on Terror). But most of them aren’t named, and do as you said; they serve to pit one against another or isolate some from many.

Winter January 20, 2022 10:22 AM

@Cajun
“Other times its used to fear people rather than solve a problem (War on Drugs).”

Bad example. The war on drugs was started by Nixon to criminalize anti-war protesters and Black Americans. Both groups were “not friendly” towards Republicans in general and Nixon in particular. Btw, Nixon was a champion of the dog-whistle. The war on Drugs was one gigantic dog whistle if there was ever one.

ht-tps://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

ht-tps://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

ht-tps://www.huffpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_n_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1

yet another Bruce January 20, 2022 10:27 AM

@Clive

There’s a law, and the SF police didn’t follow it. Again not exactly unexpected.

I do expect law enforcement to follow the law themselves and follow it strictly. I believe that this is a central pillar of the “rule of law”. Letting our expectations slide is giving up on democracy.

People who believe strongly that the San Francisco Police Department should be able to employ this sort of surveillance should try to change the law.

Clive Robinson January 20, 2022 11:10 AM

@ Cajun

The pattern of needless spending and diverting of attention is harmful to our country. The pattern of misleading the masses for some form of advantage.

Yup, you’ve got it, but one thing also to note, it’s never “your or my” advantage always “theirs”…

@ yet another Bruce,

People who believe strongly that the San Francisco Police Department should be able to employ this sort of surveillance should try to change the law.

They are already not just trying to do that one way or another –mostly underhandedly– but are succeeding. Because from their point of view they suffer no losses so all they do is just keep going chipping away untill they get gains…

However, even if they were never to make gains, it is still a misuse of public funds and other resources.

From which other “friends” get much advantage…

So expect the same blind eye on the telescope of oversight…

Ted January 20, 2022 12:45 PM

San Fransisco Mayor London Breed wrote an interesting piece on public safety. Her piece addresses the 2019 ordinance on police use of surveillance technologies.

She says legislation will be put forth in January that will propose amendments to the earlier legislation.

https://twitter.com/londonbreed/status/1470830101348577285

Does anyone know anything about the ballot measure that was proposed on Tuesday?

JonKnowsNothing January 20, 2022 1:04 PM

@ Ted, @All

re: This seems like a fog of war scenario …

Fog of War implies actions are instinctive, without forethought, primarily for self-preservation.

Using high end surveillance requires a considerable amount of thought.

Even though the Police Command Centers have walls of monitors and automatic rotating camera views with continuous live stream storage, it’s not auto-magically run. There is not just 1 person in the room but dozens are in the room from many different “departments and agencies”, with command structures indicating which views to focus on and what extras to capture for forward sharing.

The software systems are highly sophisticated, and with “unauthorized, just looking” systems in place, plus the “unauthorized OTHER” systems active at the time, the ML/AI is spitting out all types of indicators.

It’s not a fog at all, it’s very well directed.

To see such in action, where most of the system is not hidden, consider: China. A good part of their capability is in full public view, it works better that way.

The WinterO’s will be happening soon, and a entire bunch of DOHs are going to run smack into China’s ML/AI policing systems. Frowns are not allowed.

Curious January 20, 2022 1:08 PM

A lawyer once commented that having a directive for storing private data online for some time, would be as if treating everybody as a suspect (as if all the time I would think). Presumably, the same objection would be relevant for any argument tailored for having general surveillance and general monitoring in a city.

A simple thought of mine, is that substituting police work with mass surveillance is a bad thing, I guess because this in turn becomes something of a circular argument that way. Like, as if one generally argued that: “We improve our police work by relying on mass surveillance, and we rely on surveillance to improve our police work.”

I suppose, given some time, surveillance placed cameras here and there, might one day just become this critical mass of cameras that ends up being this huge camera surveillance network without any political decisions ever coming into it.

This is all very simplistic, but I think it makes good sense. Why not just try plan policies ahead of time, instead of moonwalking backwards into a future that end up forcing in things that would otherwise be deemed problematic from the start?

Ted January 20, 2022 1:27 PM

@JohnKnowsNothing

Fog of War implies actions are instinctive, without forethought, primarily for self-preservation.

Well the ordinance as it stands currently allows for the use of this technology (and does not require an approval process by the Board of Supervisors) when there is a threat to life or the threat of physical harm.

So perhaps its the drive for self-preservation that makes this area so intensely contested.

Hedo January 20, 2022 1:41 PM

Tech billionaire Chris Larsen is on the side of the police. He thinks that the surveillance is a good thing, and wrote an op-ed defending it.

Riiiight Mister Chris Larsen, riiight, until, maybe, one day it is used on/against you. There is absolutely nothing I hate more than hypocrisy.

ResearcherZero January 20, 2022 4:36 PM

@Clive Robinson

Based on history I do not expect things to change, even when all intelligence is in foreign hands due to Fourth Party Collection.

“Chinese hackers breached a Google database through a backdoor meant to only provide access for the U.S. government.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hackers-who-breached-google-gained-access-to-sensitive-data-us-officials-say/2013/05/20/51330428-be34-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767

If an abused employee account – or an employee himself – can become the weak link who has access to the general decryption key, all data is at risk of falling into the wrong hands.
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2020/06/blueleaks-exposes-files-from-hundreds-of-police-departments/

“ten years of data from over 200 police departments, fusion centers and other law enforcement training and support resources,”
“among the hundreds of thousands of documents are police and FBI reports, bulletins, guides and more.”
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/emma-best-ddosecrets.php

Total surveillance was never an option in the offline world: It is not illegal to lock ones door. It is not illegal to whisper. It is not illegal to walk out of sight of a CCTV camera.
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/five-eyes-nations-to-force-encryption-backdoors-511865

Russia and China think they can avoid Fourth Party Collection, and also have a surveillance state.

In practice, surveillance, censorship, and internet isolation are deeply entangled in Russia.
That allows the Russian state to use physical coercion—showing up and throwing someone in jail for saying the wrong thing online—alongside technical internet restrictions.
https://slate.com/technology/2020/09/russia-internet-encryption-protocol-ban.html

China is reported to have blocked newer encryption protocols such as Transport Layer Security 1.3 and the Server Name Indication (ESNI) extension, which would warn users that their communications are being intercepted.
https://www.itnews.com.au/news/india-and-japan-join-five-eyes-push-to-break-end-to-end-encryption-554534

A surveillance state and secrecy at the same time? Personally I think they are dreaming. ‘1984’ is probably more likely than ‘Brave New World’. I’ve already been involved in the secret wars of Oceania, and they were s**t.

(Though the way people have been acting lately it’s possible many are already on drugs.)

A totalitarian oligarchy superstate sounds quite plausible, a tad radioactive, and quite possibly partially on fire at any one time, if the recent weather is anything to go by. Fried dog will be popular, as you can just pop the little guys out on the pavement.

None of it makes sense to me, as the government never listens to all the intelligence that is collected anyway. It’s almost like some politicians are only interested in ‘money’ and ‘power’, and people keep voting for politicians who promise ‘lower taxes’ and ‘security’.

Clive Robinson January 20, 2022 5:11 PM

@ ResearcherZero,

It’s almost like some politicians are only interested in ‘money’ and ‘power’, and people keep voting for politicians who promise ‘lower taxes’ and ‘security’.

Isn’t that “the atraction of opposites” at work?

They promise “the opposite” of what they intend, and people that don’t think or pay attention “are attracted” to it…

Which begs the question,

“What becomes of the awkward few who do think and have payed attention?”

Do they just “steal away into the night” or are they “stolen”?

A look at Argentina from half a century ago should be an objective lesson… But they have chosen to forget, because they don’t think it can happen again…

Clive Robinson January 20, 2022 5:36 PM

@ Curious,

A lawyer once commented that having a directive for storing private data online for some time, would be as if treating everybody as a suspect

Funny that’s what the Saxon’s and especially the thieving Normans thought about William I’s “great survey” that we now tend to call “The Doomsday book” that was finished in 1086.

In a way they and the lawyer are right because the Doomsday Shadow still falls on courts to this day…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book

Clive Robinson January 20, 2022 6:01 PM

@ Ted,

This seems like a fog of war scenario where some people are acting on their baser instincts.

The “Fog of War” arises from “unplanned” or “unpremeditated” events.

This unlawful use by the Police was clearly, unequivocaly, and unquestionably, “premeditated” with considerable afore thought and malfeasance.

But was it known about and ignored? some think so, after all the malfeasant spending was not hidden.

A lot of people are leaving the area moving entirely out of California. The question some should be asking is why?

You might want to read,

https://nypost.com/2021/12/15/behind-london-breeds-defund-the-police-turnaround-in-san-francisco/

But remember it is a “red top organ” so as Sam Clements observed,

“To read the papers you first have to know how to read the papers”.

ResearcherZero January 20, 2022 6:06 PM

@Clive Robinson

I’ve seen the police conduct illegal spying in Australia also, using Hacking Team software. Dropping into onto phones via compromised public WIFI.

They also like to do the following in rural towns:

“I saw the same attitude in every officer and every person,” he said. “That’s why I hesitated to fight it. They were doing the same thing to every person that was there. They own the town.”

Perez, it appears, was right.

Months of research and dozens of interviews by AL.com found that Brookside’s finances are rocket-fueled by tickets and aggressive policing. In a two-year period between 2018 and 2020 Brookside revenues from fines and forfeitures soared more than 640 percent and now make up half the city’s total income.
https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police-in-this-tiny-alabama-town-suck-drivers-into-legal-black-hole.html

The local cops here lost their jobs after they got caught. Maybe smashing people’s heads gave it away. All those people turning up to court battered and bruised after being in police custody, and the large numbers of names called who didn’t actually exist. Fabricating evidence then lying in the court is likely recorded on the transcript, and blaming “computer problems” does not solve that problem.

When arrests rise from 5 or 6 a week, to 100, it draws a little attention with so many outside the courthouse. But there was a large state inquiry into ‘institutional abuse’ on at the time, so they had to beat as many witnesses as possible to deter them. And by those means, the larger goal was accomplished.

The suicide rate for victims of abuse is already naturally high, the extra beatings would not have contributed much, and by the time they went in the ground the inquiry was already done.

ResearcherZero January 20, 2022 6:12 PM

@Clive Robinson

A look at Argentina from half a century ago should be an objective lesson… But they have chosen to forget, because they don’t think it can happen again…

You are certainly right there. This bit from the article says it well.

“This is shocking,” said Crowder. “No one can objectively look at this and conclude this is good government that is keeping us safer.”

Because people overwhelmed by debt have been shown to turn to crime to pay their fines “an argument can be made that this kind of policing creates crime,” Crowder said.

https://www.al.com/news/2022/01/police-in-this-tiny-alabama-town-suck-drivers-into-legal-black-hole.html

lurker January 20, 2022 6:21 PM

@Winter

Nixon might have pinned a name on it, War on Drugs, but it was going on long before J.Edgar Hoover picked on it as a useful tool, q.v. Reefer Madness.

lurker January 20, 2022 6:35 PM

@ResearcherZero, re 5EY+IN+JP wanting to peer into e2ee

Encryption is an existential anchor of trust in the digital world and we do not support counter-productive and dangerous approaches that would materially weaken or limit security systems.

Please explain how allowing access for a third party does not materially weaken or limit a security system.

V January 20, 2022 7:52 PM

Court cases are destined to be futile unless San Francisco renounces sovereign immunity for any and all involved, including those giving orders, those following orders and those ignoring orders.

Ted January 20, 2022 8:41 PM

@JMC (@Clive, give me a moment more to respond)

Thank you so much for finding that June ballot. I have no idea how much popular support it has, but it was interesting to read.

It does look like an expansion of legal surveillance. I have no expertise in this matter. So I don’t know how to gauge it or its appropriate balance or oversight.

It looks like Mayor Breed is going to try to introduce legislation to amend the current ordinance at a supervisor’s meeting next week. The June ballot would only move forward if the board votes against her legislation.

Several supervisors are proposing their own legislation that they believe will add better transparency and oversight.

It looks like EFF and the ACLU are asking for a summary judgement on their lawsuit this Friday. There’s an article that says the proceedings will be livestreamed tomorrow at 9:30 am Pacific time with a link.

I haven’t been following the case, so of course, I don’t know the details and will be curious how it turns out.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2022/01/20/sfpd-surveillance-ballot-measures-mayor-london-breed-board-of-supervisors/

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202201/san-francisco-faces-hearing-for-summary-judgment-in-protestor-surveillance-lawsuit

RealFakeNews January 20, 2022 8:46 PM

@Winter

What you are saying is that the police has no duty to follow the law if it involves a political protest?

The Police absolutely must follow the law, however in the extremely limited circumstance of a political protest with (I would argue) very high probability for violence to break out, it is right that they are pre-emptive with surveillance measures. If nothing happens, then there is no reason to keep the recordings. If something does happen however, then there is evidence for any legal proceedings.

We saw this to great effect in the Rittenhouse trial. Police drone footage and other eyewitness footage proved that he was being chased. Not only that, but it proved that at least one of the prosecution witnesses lied. Had that footage not existed, a great miscarriage of justice would have occurred.

I don’t care what people’s political beliefs are; at the end no-one is entitled to fabricate facts to fit an agenda. Floyd’s death and subsequent trial are no doubt heavily politicized with little basis on the facts. If he couldn’t breathe, how the hell could he talk? A person is rendered unconscious in under 3 minutes. He had hours. Fentanyl is deadly in almost any dosage depending on the person. Forget medical facts though.

So yes, in this specific instance, it was justified.

@Cajun

But what about protests? What about violent protests? There must be a line somewhere. Of course, these crossed lines must not be used as an excuse for creating overreaching laws (a la patriot act), but we know they will.

As long as there is robust handling of evidence, and in the case of surveillance of a protest, if nothing happens and the evidence is correctly destroyed afterwards, I don’t see the problem. Protests are well-known to cause trouble, whether directly or indirectly, or just opportunism by a group with an agenda.

I’m also not beyond thinking that some protests are set up and are not actually genuine protests at all, but are honeypots for people of that persuasion to join in order to create a narrative.

Ted January 20, 2022 9:33 PM

@Clive

That was an extremely interesting NY Post article. Thank you so much for sharing. We’ll see how the community starts voting on these things I suppose.

From the EFF complaint, are they saying these weren’t exigent circumstances and therefore did not qualify for emergency surveillance? Was this or something else the unlawful event? I guess I am confused.

Winter January 21, 2022 12:47 AM

@RealFakeNews
“The Police absolutely must follow the law, however in the extremely limited circumstance of a political protest with (I would argue) very high probability for violence to break out, it is right that they are pre-emptive with surveillance measures.”

If this was true, why did the police not get a warrant? That is where these laws are for, all the way up to the Fourth Amendment of the US constitution. If surveillance was justified, they should have gotten a warrant or other dispensation.

@RealFakeNews
“If nothing happens, then there is no reason to keep the recordings.”

History shows that the US police have ample reasons to keep any information they can use to harass and single out and people, especially, African Americans. History also shows that victims of abuse of such unwarranted surveillance have no recourse, redress, or reparation.

Given that the police have not bothered to follow the law in this case, I do not see why they would follow the law in how to handle these recordings right. Moreover, it is also telling that this was a protest against police officers murdering unarmed people, by the people who are the target of these brutal murders.

Petre Peter January 21, 2022 6:45 AM

I am glad that EFF is taking this on. I don’t see the social networks helpful on fighting this surveillance.

Dude January 21, 2022 9:04 AM

I didn’t think there was a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-a-vis being filmed when one is out in public. These protesters were in public and visible to all (and filmable by all).

I understand that there’s some poorly conceived law that was allegedly violated by the po-po in crime-ridden SF, but it’s hard to see why some like the EFF and others here are all up in arms over this. As @RealFakeNews pointed out above, more footage of a protest/riot/fight/crime in the public space is a GOOD thing.

Curious January 21, 2022 10:18 AM

Re. what I wrote above about a directive and storing private data.

I should have been more precise and point out that this directive was officially about storing people’s internet traffic data (maybe for two years I think it was). I say this because I later noticed that I had clumsily described it as ” a directive for storing private data online for some time(…)”, which doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Quantry January 21, 2022 12:35 PM

Greetings folks.

Regards to surveilance, POINTLESS to discuss our endless
tax funding and dehumanization of personell, who are then
rebuilt as self-assured, self-entitled, psychotic thugs,
who subsequently do the exact thing they are trained for!

Peetz ache.

What we SHOULD BE DISCUSSING in detail is how the average Joe can cheaply, easily, and quickly obtain the parts for, and build (with an 11 watt solding iron and sewing maching, for a few bucks, within hours), devices and hardware that will JAM SURVEILANCE by Video and Audio (to name only two),

THESE: common items of inexpensive clothing that can effectively disable facial recognition,
A hoodie, bandana, big-nose sunglasses, hats and even common lipstick to draw extra eyes and shadows on yourself.

THESE: LED's which even if not pulsed randomly, can ACTIVELY jam a majority of cameras, if hung judiciously on your clothing.

THIS: cloth that is reflective enough to jam surveilance of body heat.

THIS: peice of electrical tape to cover your OWN cameras, and THIS: laser pointer, or spray paint against their cameras.

THIS: thumbtack to poke your cell-phone microphone so you are forced to connect via a headset.

THESE: ultrasonic transducers which, if varied randomly, can jam audio in barely audible ways, because of "gain control",

AND THESE: vibration motors and solinoids of a wide range of sizes that also obfuscate audio, again in barely audible ways... (One is used to shake ashphalt out of a gravel truck).

AND THIS: cellphone, if you insist on carrying one, that can aid in audio jamming using randomized white noise.

SO THAT THIS: is my middle finger, and THESE are my smiling teeth, while I protest unsurveiled.

Ted January 21, 2022 1:34 PM

Just an update: The “Williams v. San Francisco” proceeding for a summary judgement was heard in part today by the San Francisco Superior court.

However, the judge had a lot of questions and ran out of time to rule on this matter. The proceeding is scheduled to continue on February 1st at 9:30 am Pacific time.

It’s an interesting case. Saira Hussain represented the EFF and had concerns about what constituted a “grace period” use of the surveillance technology. There are arguments if whether a one time previous use at a Pride event before the ordinance qualified how it was used based on the language in the ordinance.

She wants to ensure the technology has democratic oversight. There were of course other legal details they rolled around.

The judge said it would have been a good case for law school. No matter what, it’s a good use of a legal forum to ensure that the law is more clearly defined and that concerned parties have a chance to pursue accountability. Looking forward to hearing more on how it turns out.

Case Number: CGC20587008

https://sfsuperiorcourt.org/

PattiM January 22, 2022 6:52 PM

Billionaires behaving contrary to goodness is not at all uncommon, thank you for standing up to him. They will literally own everything soon enough, then there will be nothing that the EFF could do about the likes of him. Guess that’s the motivator here b/c all organizations need financial support, and when only bad-acting rich boys are the ones supporting, the organizations change character or fall apart.

Faustus January 28, 2022 12:56 PM

In reading the details I was surprised that I appreciated Chris Larsen’s positions.

Obviously SFPD was wrong to break the law.

But in the overall question of cameras and fighting rampant criminal gangs I appreciate Larsen’s ideas. He wants to give community orgs the primary control over cameras. Police, the DA, defense attorneys and citizens can access the data after the fact according to community defined rules. There is no audio. No live monitoring. There is no facial recognition. The data is erased after 30 days.

Larsen supports extensive police reform. The community controls this data rather than the police. The idea is to balance the opportunities provided to professional thieves by police reform without giving the police more power.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.