We got an email last week about a new initiative called CommunityCam. It’s a website that maps out the video security cameras at businesses across San Francisco. Camera locations are crowdsourced, e.g. the information is provided by members of the community.
We entered 94118 into the search field and were surprised at how many teardrop locators appeared on the map. Not surprisingly, most are concentrated along the commercial corridors of Clement Street and Geary Boulevard.
When you click on a locator icon, it will show you the exact street address of where the cam is located, but does not include the name of the business/building, or any information about what the security camera is monitoring. It’s unclear if these cameras are monitoring just the interior, or also the exterior of businesses.
CommunityCam says they have mapped over 1,000 private and business security cameras in San Francisco. Their objective is “to make the community safer by providing local citizens and law enforcement with the tools necessary in the unfortunate event of a crime. If something does happen, people can look at the map to find out whether the crime may have been caught by local surveillance cameras.”
In the Boston Marathon bombing, it was grainy photos from a video camera outside a business that led to the initial identification of the suspects.
But video surveillance cameras are controversial – some people feel they are an invasion of privacy, while others believe them necessary to effectively police communities.
London, England is a big proponent. Their “Ring of Steel” surveillance system set up in 1998 uses nearly a half million cameras, roadblocks and license plate readers to monitor central London. They can track anyone going into or out of the area.
New York has a similar system called the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative. It monitors 4,000 security cameras and license plate readers south of Canal Street. The project uses feeds from both private and public security cameras, which are are monitored 24 hours a day by the NYPD.
Although CommunityCam is attempting to document where video cameras are in the neighborhood, we’re a long way from those feeds being monitored in real-time, in a centralized fashion like they do in London or New York.
We toured the Richmond District police station a few years ago and they still had a dot matrix printer next to their computer terminal. So don’t expect SFPD to begin monitoring your movements around the neighborhood anytime soon.
We found the CommunityCam website to be a bit buggy – it worked best in Google Chrome for us. Keep in mind this crowdsourced project is being promoted by a for-profit video surveillance company in Portland, Oregon that sells equipment.
San Francisco is the second city in the CommunityCam project. And while an (free) account is required to add a camera to the map, there doesn’t appear to be any verification for whether the cameras really do exist.
But assuming this data is accurate, how do you feel knowing there are dozens of security cameras in the neighborhood that may be capturing your activity? Does it make you feel safer, or more paranoid? Leave a comment to let us know.
Sarah B.
I went to the site and looked up my zip code of 94121, and found far, far fewer cameras in the Outer Richmond zip, probably because that area is much more residential.
I don’t think “privacy” exists when you’re outdoors, on a public street — it does kind of creep me out to think I’m on film walking down the street, but I can’t pin down exactly why.
Having just returned from London where I felt completely safe walking at night, I’d love to see more cameras in our neighbourhood. Outer Richmond could really benefit from it as it’s so remote and there doesn’t tend to be as many people out in terms of neighbourhood watch. It might make our area just a little safer.
Noticed that a few of the more obvious outdoor surveillance cameras near me (ie. Congregation Beth Shalom & Congregation Anshey Sfard & traffic cams on Park Presidio) aren’t shown. Perhaps the map is just indoor cameras?
Hey Burglars and thieves,
If you don’t want to get caught, here’s the spots to avoid.
:/
so if you are getting robbed, run in front of these camera like 2 Chainz
I’m all for it. I would feel more safe. It’s a great deterrent for people with bad intentions.
We need MANY THOUSANDS of these cameras all over San Francisco – and we need a centralized feed from every one of them to the police, and then re-distributed, live, to local stations.
security cameras do not make communities safer. but getting to know your neighbors and improving lighting does. i much rather have mrs. kravitz watching over me than big brother.
short article on the dangers of cameras: https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/whats-wrong-public-video-surveillance
longer version https://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/aclu_issues_new_video_surveillance_report.shtml
Yes, the ACLU is a great resource for neutral, scholarly views. Can someone also please make a similar post citing Glenn Beck / Beck University?
From Amy’s ACLU link:
“THE BOTTOM LINE: A LACK OF PROPORTION BETWEEN BENEFITS AND RISKS
Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This technology (a) has the potential change the core experience of going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and “mission creep,” and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given that, its benefits – preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none – are disproportionately small.”
_____
What? From a series of Straw Man arguments that predict what will happen with surveillance. What really gets me is the assumption that these systems cannot be controlled, and that they will prevent “few” street crimes. Garbage in, garbage out…
Like we can’t learn from the British experience to improve on systems, including system transparency. So far, I see no proof that surveillance cameras are ALWAYS improperly used, or do not deter street crime. Instead of straw man points, I wish the ACLU would stop trying to brainwash people with it’s absurdly extreme points of view. btw, I’m a political moderate, and think the ACLU is the analogue for the GOP’s Tea Party. They have both lost touch with reality, and believe their own nonsense.
Cameras do not provide safety walking. You are robbed or stabbed the same, but later the cops may be able to produce images of your assailant. So they are no defense against clueless behavior or even random acts of violence. As for the suggestion that we can limit who has access, this is a joke or dad-blamed ignorant! NSA/CIA spying on us in violation of the 4th Ammendment is no acceptable and not legal, unless again, the lawbreakers are given a pass. This is the “too big to fail” insanity that the bigger you are and greater crime you do, that you won’t be held accountable. Recall the fascinating show Frontline aired nationally on how the NSA was splitting off all our phone and internet traffic right down on 2nd street – and despite 4th Ammendment crimes, all the telcos were given a pass. Mark Klien was a genuine whislteblower:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
Our founding fathers specially named “the general search warrant of the king” as a great evil to be prevented. Warrantless searches are general searches and should never be taken lightly.
@Fay Nissenbaum What I generally find fascinating about the usual complaints re: surveillance is that they all-too-often (as in Fay’s example) conflate ANY kind of surveillance and surveillance-related targeting to the current NSA abuses, or violations of the 4th amendment, etc. etc. etc.
What really boggles is that people who make these complaints will blithely walk into Target, Macy’s, various supermarkets, etc. etc. – that are using very sophisticated tracking technology that can actually predict what you are going to do next in their store, or might do next in their store, and send you an ad on your mobile device as a suggestion. And, these technologies are at their genesis.
Another thing that gets me is that people who are against local police surveillance, basically, cut off their noses to spite their face. We KNOW that cameras are a large aid in apprehending criminal after-the fact. Knowing about the presence of cameras will deter SOME crime, but not all – and, with cameras present, SOME perpetrators will be caught so that they can’t repeat their crimes, elsewhere.
Do you use Amazon, Google, Apple, Cisco, General Motors, GE, or Microsoft technology? Do you buy things that those companies make? Guess what? YOU are being “watched” by those companies, and they SELL what they learn to other companies – or, give it away (via fiat) to the US – and other – governments!
You are being watched, and you are going to continue to be watched. Why? Because we now live in an age where just a few people – using just a basic knowledge of technology, or biology, or whatever – can cause extreme havoc.
Imagine (god forbid!) if there was a widespread terrorist attack on the US, where massive numbers of civilians were killed/maimed/harmed. Do you have any idea what would happen to your precious “4th amendment rights? (and yes, they ARE precious, as long as our backsides aren’t directly threatened). Do you really think that people would continue to be as resistant to surveillance after something like this happened? (again, god forbid!)
That said, what people are arguing for is not so much their “4th amendment rights”, when they opposed urban surveillance; they are arguing for a right to privacy that DOES NOT EXIST in public spaces, by law! Taking that to the next stage, what you are really arguing for – without realizing it – is letting the scum who commit these crimes continue to do so, unfettered by anything other than an already overworked police force that can’t possible be everywhere at once. Oh, yeah – we get people complaining about how much crime and vandalism (mostly tagging) we have, and how it’s on the increase!
We have seen an increase in crime in this area. Many of the tags you see on buildings these days are – guess what? Gang related! Drifters from GG Park see the Richmond as easy pickins’, and crimnal cruisers on bikes and group gang cars don’t mind popping out of their vehicles even during the midday in the more tony neighborhoods that norder the Richmond, because they KNOW they’re likely to strike gold.
I walk in the Richmond, every day. This month I have noticed a serious rise in the level of gang tagging. You know what that means? More crime and thuggery are on their way to the Richmond. And you’re complaining about your “4th amendment rights”?
What about the rights of law-abiding citizens, and hard-working retailers to have their persons and businesses not be victimized? What about that? Have you ever been mugged? Have you ever had your property stolen on the street? If so, were the perpetrators ever caught? My guess is that you have had none of these experiences, because if you had, you might appreciate what a local surveillance camera might have been able to do for you in the way of deterrence or resolving the crime after it happened.
Arguing against local surveillance in *public spaces* – given the increase in crime and thuggery – is essentially arguing for a further increase in same. That’s what it boils down to. It’s maddening to see people conflate a real police tool with their personal paranoia re: groups like the NSA, etc. etc. Why aren’t you railing at Google, or Amazon, or Target? How about your local school system, with cameras all over the place? It doesn’t make sense, because your argument is essentially missing the forest, for the trees.
How about anti-public-space-surveillance types start contributing to a fund to help retailers clean up the tags that they are REQUIRED to paint over, at their expense, or replace the items stolen from people as they walk our streets (often, in broad daylight)?
Frankly, with personally insulting anyone, I am sick and tired of the conflation of weak arguments against local surveillance cameras with larger 4th amendment issues – and in doing so **permitting our streets to remain more unsafe, and *encouraging* those that commit crime and mayhem.