On one side, Michael O’Brien, the Port of Oakland’s Facilities Security Officer says, “This will be critical in the event of a full-scale emergency response in Oakland. Therefore having all relevant information is essential.” The 1.6 million contract with Schneider Electric, if approved, would be used to design, build and maintain a surveillance system that would integrate cameras at the Port of Oakland with Oakland traffic cameras for possible monitoring around the clock. To be able to integrate their cameras with Oakland Police and Fire systems since they would be first responders to any emergency, terrorist attack, or hazmat situation at the port.
On the other side, opponents call it a spy center, saying the system could be expanded without limits to include cameras at transit agencies, schools, or neighborhoods. They also have concerns about how the data will be used and whether it would be shared with federal authorities. “There are no privacy policies in place, the transparency is very little, people don’t know what they’re going to be doing with the data,” said Allan Brill, an Oakland resident.
Oakland crime rates* (2011)(*number reported crimes per 100,000 population) had a homicide rate of 26.3, robbery at a rate of 851.2 and aggravated assault at a rate of 754.1, it would make sense to install surveillance in areas around Oakland that has a high volume of crime. At a time where people are extra sensitive about how and when their information is shared without “consent” or a sense of control of whose hands the data falls into has made this issue a contentious one. Though the port assures the opponents that they have no agreement with the NSA, CIA or the FBI to be able to access their databases or the information in the center.
Dovetailing this whole issue with the piece by David Alan Slansky and his article on the Persistent Pull of Police Professionalism, it rings of the term Predictive policing which is the “new era in policing.” It calls upon putting intelligence collection and data analysis at the center of police decision making with an emphasis on directed, information based patrol, rapid response tactics, strategy and policy. It seems logical to install this surveillance system in Oakland that would hook right into the Oakland Police and fire systems since they are first responders to emergencies. If surveillance expanded to other parts of the city, it would make sense for citizens to want this surveillance present to try to lower the crime rates in Oakland that have been consistently high for many years. With all the protest, it makes one wonder if there is so much opposition, are they worried about what they are doing is going to get them caught doing something they are not supposed to be doing?
“We need other tools to monitor some of the activity that’s happening because the reality is Oakland is challenged when it comes to crime,” says Council member Noel Gallo. Staffing of the surveillance center could cost about $100,000 a year. We will see what happens in the following weeks if the opponents have a change of heart and want to make their city safer.
Sources:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-tables/table-4/table-4-alabama-california
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/oakland-city-officials-delay-vote-new-surveillance/ndTJ6/
https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232676.pdf
It is difficult to have a clear-cut opinion on this issue. Both sides have reasonable positions. On the one hand, surveillance in public areas where there is no expectation of privacy – especially in high crime areas – makes perfect sense. Certainly, a criminal would be less inclined to mug someone if he knew that he was being watched and could be immediately identified. Certainly, crime would decrease or even become non-existent in areas where there are cameras everywhere you turn. Only the most stupid and brazen criminal would want his illegal acts recorded for posterity. On the other hand, Orwell made a good point in his novel, 1984. Big Brother was literally everywhere in the form of cameras, watching and evaluating every citizen, not for the purpose of crime prevention, but for the purpose of absolute control. We, as a country, are still far away from Orwell’s dire prediction, but I fear we are headed in that direction. Already, we’ve seen the abuses of the NSA spying on law-abiding citizens. If we start sliding down this slope, how much longer will it be before there are government cameras in our homes? (For our own “safety,” of course.)
ReplyDeleteJESSE RYCKMAN
I agree with the fact that more needs to be done in order to reduce the crime rate in Oakland. However, it seems that there needs to be some other way of trying to achieve this instead of the proposed integration of the Oakland Port cameras with the city’s traffic cameras. It is not hard to imagine that, if allowed, the data would be used in ways that were not the initial purpose. As we have seen in class, other electronic devices that we use for specific purposes are sometimes used by those that can access our data for other purposes that we may have not agreed to or even known about.
ReplyDelete