State of Surveillance: Police, Privacy and Technology

State of Surveillance: Police, Privacy and Technology


Narrator:
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED BY
THE GRUBER FAMILY FOUNDATION AND BY THE MEMBERS OF KQED. A CO-PRODUCTION OF KQED AND THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING. Vu:
CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES CHANGING THE WAY
POLICE FIGHT CRIME. McNutt:
WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY DO IS
A LIVE VERSION OF GOOGLE EARTH, ONLY WITH
A FULL TiVo CAPABILITY. Iketani: WE, BASICALLY,
KEPT IT PRETTY HUSH-HUSH. Vu:
THE POWER TO TRACK MORE PEOPLE
AND DATA THAN EVER BEFORE. Wiltz: IT’S GONNA BE
WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD. Lynch:
THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT ANYBODY COULD END UP
BEING IN THAT DATABASE. [ SIREN WAILS ] Vu: WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
BETWEEN SECURITY AND PRIVACY? McNutt:
THERE IS A TRADE-OFF. [ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ] Halverson:
JUST LOOK HERE, PLEASE. Vu: A LOOK AT
THE STATE OF SURVEILLANCE. HELLO, AND WELCOME
TO THIS SPECIAL PRESENTATION, “STATE OF SURVEILLANCE.” I’M THUY VU. LAST JUNE, WE LEARNED
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY HAS BEEN COLLECTING AMERICANS’
PHONE RECORDS AND E-MAIL FOR YEARS. AS A NATIONAL CONVERSATION
CONTINUES ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S
ACCESS TO PRIVATE INFORMATION, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN CALIFORNIA ARE EXPERIMENTING
WITH NEW CRIME-FIGHTING TOOLS — EYES ON THE STREET
AND IN THE SKIES, FEEDING IMAGES
TO COMMAND CENTERS. AMANDA PIKE WITH THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING SHOWS US SOME OF THE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES NOW BEING TESTED. Pike:
OFFICER ROB HALVERSON OF THE CHULA VISTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT IS TESTING A TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD CHANGE
HOW POLICE FIGHT CRIME. [ POLICE RADIO CHATTER ] HE’S ON A CALL TO VERIFY
THE IDENTITY OF A WOMAN JUST ARRESTED
FOR POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS. [ DOG BARKS ] HE DOESN’T NEED TO ASK HER NAME
OR CHECK HER I.D. HE JUST TAKES HER PICTURE. Halverson:
JUST LOOK HERE, PLEASE. Pike: HIS TABLET USES
FACIAL-RECOGNITION SOFTWARE TO FIND THE SUSPECT’S MUG SHOT
AND CRIMINAL HISTORY. Halverson:
YOU CAN LIE ABOUT YOUR NAME, YOU CAN LIE
ABOUT YOUR DATE OF BIRTH, YOU CAN LIE ABOUT YOUR ADDRESS. BUT TATTOOS, BIRTHMARKS,
SCARS DON’T LIE. Pike: POLICE HAVE ACCESS
TO MORE DATA THAN EVER BEFORE, RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THAT
INFORMATION IS USED AND STORED. THE TABLET IS PART OF A PILOT
PROGRAM IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. Halverson:
IT’S BEEN VERY HELPFUL, AND SOME PEOPLE
JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE THREAT OF “OKAY, YOU DON’T WANT
TO TELL US WHO YOU ARE. “WE’RE JUST GONNA
TAKE A PHOTO OF YOU, AND WE’RE GONNA BE ABLE
TO COMPARE.” AND THEN,
WHEN PEOPLE KIND OF REALIZE THE TECHNOLOGY WE NOW HAVE, THEY’RE MORE LIKELY TO TELL US
THEIR REAL NAME AND THAT. Pike: MORE AND MORE,
POLICE ARE USING BIOMETRICS — BIOLOGICAL MARKERS FROM
FACE SCANS AND PALM PRINTS — IN ADDITION TO FINGERPRINTS,
TO IDENTIFY SUSPECTS. FINGERPRINTS THEMSELVES
HAVE BEEN REVOLUTIONIZED. NOW THEY’RE TAKEN
ON A MOBILE SCANNER. THEY’RE SENT
THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY TO THIS HIGHLY SECURE
FBI COMPLEX IN WEST VIRGINIA. McKinsey: THIS IS
NEXT GENERATION IDENTIFICATION. Pike:
THESE SERVERS ARE THE HEART OF THE FBI’s NEXT GENERATION
IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM, OR NGI. OFFICIALLY LAUNCHING
THIS SUMMER, THE BILLION-DOLLAR PROGRAM WILL ADD FACIAL SCANS
AND OTHER BIOMETRICS TO THE EXISTING TROVE
OF 137 MILLION FINGERPRINTS. THESE COMPUTERS ANALYZE EACH FINGERPRINT AND PHOTO
THAT OFFICERS SEND. McKinsey:
IT COMES TO THESE SERVERS, AND THESE SERVERS
ACTUALLY DO THE SEARCHES — ALL 137 MILLION OF THEM — AND THEN IF THEY GET A HIT,
THEY GO DOWN AND PICK SOME INFORMATION
OUT OF THE STORAGE TO SEND THE CRIMINAL HISTORY
BACK TO THE QUERYING OFFICER. Pike: THIS DATA CENTER RUNS
UP TO 160,000 SEARCHES A DAY. McKinsey: IT’S A BIG ONE. YOU CAN PICTURE IT AS BEING A FOOTBALL FIELD ON TOP
OF ANOTHER FOOTBALL FIELD. Pike: THE FBI HAS BEEN
COLLECTING FINGERPRINTS SINCE THE EARLY 1900s. PRINTS WERE ORIGINALLY CHECKED
BY HAND, AND IT COULD TAKE MONTHS
TO FIND A MATCH. NOW COMPUTERS DO THE SAME WORK
IN MINUTES. BUT UNTIL RECENTLY,
THE FBI HAD NO EASY WAY TO SEARCH PALM PRINTS
AND MUG SHOTS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF ARREST. THAT FRUSTRATED AGENTS
LIKE JEREMY WILTZ, THE ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION SERVICES. Wiltz: WE COULD DO VERY LITTLE
WITH THE MUG SHOTS THAT WE HAD. IF WE WERE COLLECTING
PALM PRINTS, WE COULD DO VERY LITTLE
WITH THOSE. WE HAD NOTHING
THAT REALLY SEARCHED THOSE. SO FOR UNSOLVED CRIMES, YOU WOULD STRUGGLE TO BE ABLE
TO SEARCH THAT STUFF. SO INSERT NGI. Pike: ANY LOCAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER CONNECTED TO NGI CAN SUBMIT AN IMAGE AND GET A LIST OF FACES
WITH MATCHING FEATURES. Wiltz: SO THESE WOULD BE THE
CANDIDATES THAT WOULD COME BACK. Pike: THE FBI IS ALSO ADDING
IRIS SCANS TO THE DATABASE BECAUSE EACH PERSON’S EYE
CONTAINS A UNIQUE PATTERN THAT’S EASY TO CAPTURE. FOR WILTZ, THE REAL VALUE OF NGI
IS SOLVING COLD CASES. Wiltz: THINK ABOUT
HOW POWERFUL THAT IS. I CAN’T WAIT TILL
THOSE SUCCESS STORIES COME OUT. IT’S GONNA BE
WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD, OF WHY WE DEVELOPED NGI. Lynch: THE BIGGEST CONCERN
AND WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT NEXT GENERATION
IDENTIFICATION IS THAT ANYBODY COULD END UP
BEING IN THAT DATABASE. Pike:
JENNIFER LYNCH IS A LAWYER WITH THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION, WHICH IS SUING THE FBI TO FIND OUT EXACTLYWHATDATA
THE AGENCY IS COLLECTING. Lynch:
THE WAY THAT NGI IS SET UP,
THE FBI HAS SAID, IS THAT THEY’RE JUST INCLUDING
MUG SHOTS, BUT THAT IS REALLY JUST A POLICY
THAT THE FBI HAS TAKEN. THERE’S NO LAW THAT SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO LIMIT THE INCLUSION
OF IMAGES TO MUG SHOTS. Pike: THE FBI ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ITS FACIAL-RECOGNITION
SYSTEM SOMETIMES FLAGS
THE WRONG PEOPLE. 15% OF THE TIME, THE SUSPECT
WON’T BE AMONG THE TOP 50 HITS. Lynch: THOSE PEOPLE
WHOSE FACE IMAGES COME UP SUDDENLY HAVE TO PROVE
THEIR INNOCENCE, RATHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT
HAVING TO PROVE THEIR GUILT, AND THAT’S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT,
AGAIN, FROM HOW OUR DEMOCRACY
HAS BEEN SET UP. Pike: PRIVACY ADVOCATES WORRY
THAT A GROWING WEB OF TRAFFIC MONITORS,
LICENSE-PLATE READERS, AND NETWORKED SECURITY CAMERAS WILL SOON ALLOW POLICE
TO TRACK OUR EVERY MOVE — ALL WITHOUT A WARRANT. THE LEGAL ISSUES OVER HOW
THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED AND WHO HAS ACCESS
TO ALL OF THIS INFORMATION ARE FAR FROM SETTLED. IN CALIFORNIA, ONE OF 10 STATES THAT GUARANTEES
A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, THE NEW TOOLS
POSE A CHALLENGE — WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN
SAFER STREETS AND SPYING. [ TELEPHONE RINGING,
RADIO CHATTER ] AT A HIGH-TECH NERVE CENTER
IN LOS ANGELES, POLICE GRAPPLE
WITH THIS QUESTION EVERY DAY. Romero:
ABOUT 1,000 CAMERAS IN THE CITY
ARE FED AND MONITORED HERE, MOSTLY
FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES. Pike: CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO COMMANDS THE REAL-TIME ANALYSIS
AND CRITICAL RESPONSE DIVISION, WHICH TRACKS CRIMES
ACROSS THE CITY, WITH AN UP-TO-THE MINUTE MAP OF
EVERY INCIDENT THAT’S REPORTED. Romero:
A SMALL PICTURE OF A BOMB
WOULD BE A BOMB CALL. THE MASKS ARE ROBBERY CALLS. THE FISTS ARE ASSAULT CRIMES. Pike:
ROMERO SAYS NEW TECHNOLOGIES ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT
TO DO PREDICTIVE POLICING, DETERMINING WHEN AND WHERE
CRIMES ARE MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR. AS PART OF A NEW INITIATIVE, POLICE ALSO MONITOR PRIVATE
CAMERAS NEAR THE HOLLYWOOD SIGN AND WARN OFF INTERLOPERS
THROUGH A SPEAKER. Romero: THEY ARE TRESPASSERS,
AT THIS POINT. Pike:
ROMERO BELIEVES THAT, WHILE THE PUBLIC MAY BE UNEASY
ABOUT BEING WATCHED, THEY’LL SOON SEE THE BENEFITS. Romero:
IN EARLY AMERICA, WHEN WE
STARTED PUTTING UP STREETLIGHTS, PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THIS IS
THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SEE WHAT WE’RE DOING AT NIGHT
TO SPY ON US. AND SO, OVER TIME,
THINGS SHIFTED, AND NOW IF YOU TRIED
TO TAKE DOWN STREETLIGHTS IN LOS ANGELES OR BOSTON
OR ANYWHERE ELSE, PEOPLE WOULD SAY,
“NO, IT’S A PUBLIC SAFETY. “YOU’RE HURTING
OUR PUBLIC SAFETY JUST SO YOU CAN SAVE MONEY
ON LIGHTING.” I THINK THAT THE CAMERAS
WILL EVENTUALLY GET THERE, WHERE CAMERAS WILL NOT BE
A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE. Pike: ACROSS TOWN,
SERGEANT DOUG IKETANI OF THE L.A. COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT RECENTLY SUPERVISED
AN EXPERIMENT INVOLVING CAMERAS
ON A WHOLE NEW LEVEL. HE GAVE THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING AN EXCLUSIVE ACCOUNT
OF THE TEST. Iketani: THE SYSTEM
WAS KIND OF KEPT CONFIDENTIAL FROM EVERYBODY IN THE PUBLIC. A LOT OF PEOPLE
DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE EYE IN THE SKY —
THE BIG BROTHER — SO IN ORDER TO MITIGATE
ANY OF THOSE KIND OF COMPLAINTS, WE, BASICALLY,
KEPT IT PRETTY HUSH-HUSH. Pike: THE ARRAY OF CAMERAS
ON THIS AIRCRAFT RECORDS HIGH-RESOLUTION IMAGES
OF A 25-SQUARE-MILE AREA FOR UP TO SIX HOURS. IT CAN TRACK EVERY PERSON
AND VEHICLE ON THE GROUND, BEAMING BACK THE PICTURES
IN REAL TIME. IT’S CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE
ON AN UNPRECEDENTED SCALE. McNutt:
WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY DO IS
A LIVE VERSION OF GOOGLE EARTH, ONLY WITH
A FULL TiVo CAPABILITY. IT ALLOWS US TO REWIND TIME
AND GO BACK AND SEE EVENTS THAT WE DIDN’T KNOW OCCURRED
AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED. Pike:
ROSS McNUTT IS THE PRESIDENT OF
PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS IN DAYTON, OHIO, ONE OF THE FEW COMPANIES
IN THE U.S. THAT DOES
WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE. McNutt: PROBABLY A LITTLE EASIER
TO FOLLOW, ISN’T IT? Pike: McNUTT DEVELOPED A SIMILAR
SYSTEM IN THE AIR FORCE THAT WAS USED
IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. McNutt: IT WAS AT THE HEIGHT
OF THE I.E.D. PROBLEM, AND OUR OBJECTIVE WAS TO BE ABLE
TO FOLLOW THE BOMBERS FROM WHERE THE BOMB WENT OFF BACK TO THE HOUSE THAT THEY WERE
BUILDING THE BOMBS AND BE ABLE TO USE THAT. TOWARDS THE END OF THE TIME
WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS DEPLOYED, WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, “HEY, THERE’S SOME REAL
LAW-ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS TO THIS.” Pike: McNUTT HAS TESTED
THE TECHNOLOGY IN PHILADELPHIA, BALTIMORE,
AND DAYTON, WHERE HE SAYS IT PROVIDED POLICE
WITH USEFUL LEADS ON SHOOTINGS, ARMED ROBBERIES,
AND NARCOTICS CASES. THE L.A. COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TESTED WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE
IN 2012 OVER COMPTON, A COMPACT CITY
WITH A HIGH CRIME RATE. McNutt: WE LITERALLY WATCHED
ALL OF COMPTON DURING THE TIMES
THAT WE WERE FLYING. ANYWHERE WITHIN THAT WHOLE AREA, WE CAN ZOOM DOWN,
LIVE OR AFTER THE FACT, TO RESOLUTIONS JUST BARELY
TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW PEOPLE. Iketani:
MY FIRST INITIAL THOUGHT
WAS LIKE “OH, BIG BROTHER. WE’RE GONNA HAVE A CAMERA
FLYING OVER US.” BUT WITH
THE WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SOLVE A LOT
OF THE UNSOLVABLE CRIMES WITH NO WITNESSES,
NO VIDEOTAPE SURVEILLANCE, NO FINGERPRINTS. Pike:
FROM A MOBILE COMMAND CENTER,
McNUTT MONITORED 911 CALLS AND COORDINATED
WITH OFFICERS ON THE GROUND. McNutt: THERE HAD BEEN
A RASH OF CRIMES IN COMPTON WITH PEOPLE
GETTING NECKLACES SNATCHED. SO THE L.A. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
ASKED US TO INVESTIGATE THIS. Iketani:
YEAH, I REMEMBER THIS CALL. IT WAS BASICALLY
OUR TYPICAL MIDDLE-AGED WOMAN WALKING DOWN THE STREET
WITH A FRIEND OF HERS HAVING A CONVERSATION. A YOUNG MALE APPROACHES HER. AND AS HE’S JUST WALKING DOWN
THE STREET, SHE THINKS HE’S JUST
A REGULAR PEDESTRIAN, DOESN’T NOTICE ANYTHING
ABOUT HIM. GRABS THE NECKLACE OFF OF
HER NECK, RUNS DOWN THE STREET. [ SIREN WAILS ] IN TRADITIONAL POLICING, WE WON’T BE ABLE TO SOLVE
THESE TYPES OF CRIMES. 99% OF THE TIME,
WE’RE NOT GONNA FIND ANYBODY. McNutt: WE WENT TO THE ADDRESS,
AND WE WATCHED IT, AND WHAT WE SAW WAS SOMEBODY
GETTING OUT OF A CAR HERE. AND THEN THE PERSON
WALKS DOWN THE STREET HERE, WHILE THE CAR CIRCLES AROUND
TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK. AND WHAT YOU HAVE IS A PERSON
WALKING DOWN THE ROAD THERE. IN JUST A MOMENT HERE IS
WHERE THE NECKLACE IS STOLEN. RIGHT THERE. AND THEN THE PERSON’S
GONNA RUN OFF QUICKLY TO GET INTO THE CAR, BACK INTO THE CAR
THAT’S DRIVEN AROUND THE BLOCK. AND THEN WE CAN
FOLLOW THAT PERSON OFF. Pike: THE SYSTEM DOESN’T HAVE
THE RESOLUTION TO IDENTIFY LICENSE PLATES
OR PEOPLE. A PERSON IS JUST A PIXEL. ANALYSTS TRACK THE CAR AND RELY ON CAMERAS AT
TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR GAS STATIONS TO CAPTURE A CLOSE-UP IMAGE. IN THIS CASE, THE SUSPECTS EVENTUALLY DROVE
OUT OF CAMERA RANGE WITHOUT BEING IDENTIFIED. BUT IKETANI SAYS THE EXPERIMENT STILL GAVE POLICE
SOME VALUABLE LEADS. Iketani: NOW WE KNOW THAT
THAT CAR WAS INVOLVED. SO THAT WAY, OUR DEPUTIES CAN
START MONITORING THOSE STREETS. MAYBE THEY WILL SEE THAT CAR
DRIVING BY WITH THE TWO BAD GUYS IN THERE, AND MAYBE WE CAN STOP THEM
AND ARREST THEM. Pike:
SO FAR, NO POLICE DEPARTMENT
HAS PURCHASED THE SYSTEM. IKETANI SAYS IT CAN’T PROVIDE
THE KIND OF DETAILED IMAGES THAT WOULD HOLD UP IN COURT. Iketani:
IT WAS A GREAT EXPERIMENT,
BUT IN THE END, THE RESOLUTION
JUST WASN’T ENOUGH FOR US TO USE IT HERE
ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. Pike:
McNUTT BELIEVES THAT PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE COULD
LEAD TO A LASTING DROP IN CRIME, BUT ACKNOWLEDGES
PRIVACY CONCERNS. WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES? IS THE FUTURE A PERMANENT RECORD
OF OUR EVERY MOVE? McNutt:
THERE IS A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN SECURITY
AND SOME ASPECTS OF PRIVACY. BY THE FACT THAT WE’RE ACTUALLY ABLE
TO PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION AGAINST MULTIPLE CRIMES
PER MISSION AND CONTRIBUTE TO SOLVING
EVERYTHING FROM MURDERS TO, IN THE CASE YOU SAW,
A NECKLACE SNATCH, THAT ALLOWS US
TO PROVIDE MORE SECURITY WITH LESS LOSS OF PRIVACY THAN ANY OF THE OTHER OPTIONS
THAT ARE OUT THERE. Pike: FOR NOW,
DEPUTIES ARE BACK TO PATROLLING THE STREETS OF COMPTON
FROM THE GROUND. BUT THEY SAY THAT
IF THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES, THEY’LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK
AT WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE. Iketani:
I’M SURE THAT PEOPLE, ONCE THEY FIND OUT
THAT THIS EXPERIMENT WENT ON, THEY MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW,
A LITTLE UPSET, BUT KNOWING THAT WE CAN’T SEE
INTO THEIR BEDROOM WINDOWS, WE CAN’T SEE INTO THEIR POOLS,
WE CAN’T SEE INTO THEIR SHOWERS, YOU KNOW, I’M SURE
THEY’LL BE OKAY WITH IT. WITH THE AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY
OUT IN TODAY’S AGE, WITH CAMERAS ON ATMs, AT EVERY
7-ELEVEN, EVERY SUPERMARKET, PRETTY MUCH EVERY LIGHT POLE,
ALL THE LICENSE-PLATE CAMERAS, THE RED-LIGHT CAMERAS, PEOPLE HAVE JUST
GOTTEN USED TO BEING WATCHED, FOR THE MOST PART. [ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ] Pike: BUT NOTEVERYONE.THESE PROTESTERS IN OAKLAND FEAR THAT POLICE WILL SOON BE ABLE
TO WATCH ANYONE, ANYTIME WITH LITTLE OVERSIGHT. Woman: JUST SAY “NO”!
JUST SAY “NO”! Pike: FOR MONTHS,
THEY FOUGHT A PLAN TO CREATE WHAT THEY CALLED
A CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, AN EXTENSIVE NETWORK
OF LIVE-CAMERA AND DATA FEEDS. [ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ] IN MARCH, THEY CONVINCED THE CITY COUNCIL
TO SCALE BACK ITS PLANS — FOR NOW. Man:
DEMOCRACY IS WORTH IT! Pike:
BUT AS POLICE EXPERIMENT WITH EVER-MORE-SOPHISTICATED
TECHNOLOGIES, THE DEBATE WILL CONTINUE ON THE BALANCE
BETWEEN SECURITY AND PRIVACY AND WHERE TO DRAW THAT LINE. Vu: A KEY TOOL FOR SOLVING CRIME
USED TO BE EYEWITNESSES — SOMEONE WHO SEES SOMETHING
WITH THEIR OWN EYES AND DESCRIBES IT TO POLICE
OR IN COURT. BUT AS WE JUST SAW, ELECTRONIC EYES AND EARS
CAN CAPTURE MORE INFORMATION — NOT JUST OF CRIMINALS,
BUT ALL OFUS.HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY,
AND AT WHAT COST? SCOTT SHAFER TAKES IT FROM HERE. Shafer: NEW AND EVOLVING
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY — WHAT DOES IT MEAN
FOR POLICE, PROSECUTORS, AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
WORRIED ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY? JOINING ME
TO DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS ARE MIKE SENA, DIRECTOR OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER, DAVID GREENE,
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION, AND JENNIFER GRANICK,
CIVIL LIBERTIES DIRECTOR AT THE STANFORD CENTER
FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY. WELL, LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU,
JENNIFER. WE HEARD THAT SHERIFF’S DEPUTY
FROM LOS ANGELES SAYING WE’RE ALREADY BEING ON-CAMERA
EVERYWHERE, WITH ATMs AND RED-LIGHT CAMERAS,
FasTrak. SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?
HOW ISTHISDIFFERENT? Granick:
WHAT’S DIFFERENT IS WHETHER ALL
THAT INFORMATION IS AGGREGATED AND ONE PARTY —
IN THIS CASE, THE GOVERNMENT — CAN GET AHOLD OF ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE IT MEANS
THAT THEY KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT US THAT WAS REALLY SOMETHING
THAT WAS NEVER RECORDED BEFORE, OR EVEN WAS JUST RECORDED
FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, AND NOW IT CAN BE USED
FOR MORE GENERAL POLICING, OR IT COULD BE ABUSED. Shafer:
BUT FOR GENERAL POLICING,
ISN’T THAT A GOOD THING? DON’T WE WANT TO BE SAFE? Granick:
THERE’S AN ASSUMPTION THAT
IF THERE’S LESS PRIVACY, THERE’S AUTOMATICALLY
THIS UPTICK IN SECURITY AND THAT PEOPLE WANT THAT. I DON’T THINK WE CAN JUST ASSUME THAT WE’RE TRADING PRIVACY
FOR SECURITY EVERY TIME AND PEOPLE LIKE IT. IT’S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. Shafer: WELL, MIKE SENA,
YOU’RE THE DIRECTOR OF THIS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER, THESE SO-CALLED FUSION CENTERS. THERE ARE SIX OF THEM
IN CALIFORNIA. YOU’RE CONSTANTLY IN TOUCH WITH
OTHER LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, SHARING INFORMATION,
COLLECTING INFORMATION. WHAT’S THE BEST RATIONALE
FOR DOING THAT, FOR COLLECTING ALL THIS DATA
AND KEEPING IT? Sena: WELL,
THERE’S ALSO A MISPERCEPTION ABOUT WHAT DATA
IS BEING COLLECTED, HOW MUCH DATA THERE IS
OUT THERE. WE HAVE PIECES OF DATA. WHEN YOU LOOK AT
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACROSS AMERICA, THERE’S 18,000
LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ALL USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS. SO OUR BIG FUNCTION,
FOR THE MOST PART, IS TRYING TO COLLECT WHAT LAW-ENFORCEMENT DATA
ALREADY EXISTS AND BRING THAT INTO OUR CENTERS. Shafer:
SO, WHAT’S THE MISPERCEPTION? Sena: THAT WE HAVE ACCESS
TO THINGS LIKE THE FasTrak, THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO CAMERAS
ALL OVER THE PLACE. THERE REALLY AREN’T
THAT MANY CAMERAS, AND THERE’S A MISPERCEPTION OF WHAT THE EFFICIENCY IS
OF CAMERAS. TECHNOLOGY ALONE
DOESN’T SOLVE ANY CRIMES. IT’S A COMBINATION OF PEOPLE,
ANALYSTS,ANDTECHNOLOGY, BUT IF YOU DON’T HAVE
ALL THOSE PIECES, YOU CAN’T REALLY BRING THAT DATA
TOGETHER EFFICIENTLY. Greene: I THINK WHAT WE HEARD
THE L.A. SHERIFF SAY WAS, “WELL, PEOPLE HAVE CAMERAS
ON THEM ALL THE TIME. IN A FEW YEARS,
THEY’RE NOT EVEN GONNA CARE,” AND I ACTUALLY FIND THAT
VERY DISTURBING. AND I DON’T KNOW
THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT THAT AND THROW IN THE TOWEL AND SAY,
“WELL, WE HAVE CAMERAS ON US, SO WE DON’T HAVE ANY RIGHTS
AT ALL.” Granick: THE THING
WE HAVE TO REALIZE IS THAT CRIME IS NOT WHAT MOST OF US
ARE DOING MOST OF THE TIME. MOST OF THE TIME, WE’RE JUST LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
GOING ABOUT OUR BUSINESS, AND TO BE UNDER SURVEILLANCE ALL
THE TIME HAS A CHILLING EFFECT, AS WE GO TO THE DOCTOR, AS WE GO
TO OUR CHURCHES OR MOSQUES, AS WE INTERACT WITH OUR FRIENDS,
OR POLITICAL MEETINGS, AND THEN
WHEN YOU SEE POPULATIONS THAT ARE RECEIVING THE ATTENTION
OF EXTRA POLICING, A LOT OF TIMES,
PEOPLE DON’T LIKE IT. YOU KNOW, OAKLAND DIDN’T WANT
THE DOMAIN AWARENESS PROGRAM. NEW YORK CITY
HAD A LOT OF OPPOSITION TO THE STOP-AND-FRISK. Shafer: WELL, AND, MIKE SENA,
THAT’S A GOOD POINT. IS THERE AN ELEMENT OF PROFILING
THAT’S NECESSARY HERE? Sena: NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE CRIME IS OFTEN — IT’S RANDOM, YOU KNOW? YOU HAVE NO CLUE
OF WHERE IT’S GONNA BE OR WHAT CAMERAS
WILL BE ABLE TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION YOU NEED. YOU LOOK AT
THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING. IF THOSE PRIVATE CAMERAS HADN’T
BEEN OPERATING AT THAT TIME, THERE’S A GOOD POSSIBILITY THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT
WHO COMMITTED THAT CRIME. Shafer: WHAT’S THE RISK —
AND I’LL PUT THIS TO ANYBODY — OF THE WRONG PERSON
BEING FINGERED AS THE ASSAILANT? Sena: IN THAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY
THAT THEY DEMONSTRATED THERE, OR ANY OF THE TYPE
OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT
THEY HAVE OUT THERE, THEY AREN’T THE ONE THING THAT
SAYS, “THIS PERSON IS GUILTY.” AND IT’S UP TO THE PROSECUTOR
TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, “DO WE HAVE ENOUGH TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE PROSECUTION?” IT’S UP TO A JUDGE AND A JURY TO DECIDE
WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE. Shafer: JENNIFER OR DAVID,
WHAT CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE IN THAT REGARD —
ABOUT THE INNOCENCE? Granick: WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS
I THINK IS REALLY DIFFERENT IS WHEN YOU’RE COLLECTING
INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME, WHEN THERE’S NO CRIME
WE KNOW THAT’S BEEN COMMITTED, AND NOTHING’S HAPPENED,
AND THE GOVERNMENT’S JUST COLLECTING INFORMATION,
JUST IN CASE. THAT’S A BIG DIFFERENCE
FROM WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS, LIKE THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING AND YOU GO TO INFORMATION THAT’S
IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE PARTIES THE GOVERNMENT GETS —
SOMETIMES WITH A WARRANT, SOMETIMES
WITH OTHER LEGAL PROCESS — AND THEN STARTS
TO PIECE THE CASE TOGETHER. WE KNOW
SOMEONE’S DONE SOMETHING, AND WE’RE LOOKING
FOR THAT PERSON. Shafer: BUT IN THAT CASE,
YOU DID HAVE TO WATCH EVERYONE TO LOOK FOR THE RIGHT PERSON. Granick: WELL, NO, BECAUSE THE BOMBING HAPPENED
AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION. SO THEN YOU GET THE CAMERAS
FROM THAT LOCATION. IT WASN’T THAT THERE WAS A PLANE
THAT WAS FLYING OVER ALL OF BOSTON, ALL OF MIAMI,
ALL OF CHICAGO, ALL OF NEW YORK, AND THEN WE WERE JUST SORT OF
LOOKING THROUGH THOSE PICTURES OR KEEPING THEM, JUST IN CASE. Shafer:
DAVID, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE,
IN YOUR MIND, BETWEEN
WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WITH A LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
DOING SURVEILLANCE, VERSUS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK
AND LinkedIn COLLECTING ALL THIS INFORMATION
WITH OR WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE? AND THEY’RE USING IT
TO MAKE MONEY. THERE’S REALLY
NO PUBLIC PURPOSE. IT’S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE,
IN THAT SENSE. WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? Greene: WELL, I THINK
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE GOVERNMENT — AND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN PARTICULAR — THAN WE DO
WITH OUR SEARCH ENGINE. OUR RELATIONSHIP
WITH OUR GOVERNMENT, I THINK, IS ONE OF NOT BEING WATCHED
BY THEM ALL THE TIME. WHAT WE DO SEE WITH GOOGLE AND YAHOO!
AND INTERNET-SERVICE PROVIDERS IS, AT LEAST,
THE ABILITY TO TRY AND CONTROL. IT MIGHT REQUIRE YOU TO BE A
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONSUMER TO DO SO, BUT TO HAVESOMECONTROL OVER HOW MUCH
OF YOUR INFORMATION IS COLLECTED AND WHAT USE IS MADE OF IT, AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY
TO OPT OUT OF THAT, AS WELL. IT’S HARD TO OPT OUT
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. Granick: THE INTERNET COMPANIES
ARE USING OUR INFORMATION TO MARKET THINGS TO US. THE POLICE ARE USING INFORMATION
TO PUT US IN JAIL. Sena:
I’D ACTUALLY LIKE TO DISAGREE. OUR GOAL ISN’T
TO PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL, BUT IT IS
TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY. AND AS FAR AS THE GATHERING
OF INFORMATION AND WHAT WE DO, AS FAR AS THE AGGREGATION
AND FOLLOW-UP, IT ALSO HELPS US
TO IDENTIFY FOLKS THATHAVEN’T
BEEN ENGAGED IN CRIME, ELIMINATING FOLKS
THAT COULD BE POTENTIAL SUSPECTS WITH THE DATA
THAT WE’VE COLLECTED. ME, AS A CITIZEN, AS WELL, I DON’T NEED TO BE FOLLOWED
ALL DAY LONG, AND THAT’S NOT THE ROLE
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT’S NOT TO FOLLOW FOLKS
ALL DAY LONG. BUT THE TECHNOLOGY ACTS
AS A POINTER SYSTEM. IT DOESN’T TELL YOU THAT SOMEBODY COMMITTED A CRIME
SPECIFICALLY. IT JUST POINTS
IN THAT DIRECTION. Shafer:
HOW LONG IS THIS DATA KEPT? Sena: PHOTOGRAPHY,
VISUAL COLLECTED DATA, AUTOMATED
LICENSE-PLATE READERS — IT’S 12 MONTHS. THAT’S THE GOVERNMENT CODE
IN CALIFORNIA, AT LEAST FOR VISUAL DATA. Shafer: MIKE,
IS THERE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR THIS SURVEILLANCE
AND PRIVACY, WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, SAY,
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, VERSUS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHERE YOU’RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE
WHO SNATCHED A PURSE? Sena:
THERE ARE RULES REGARDING THE
WAY INTELLIGENCE IS COLLECTED, THE WAY INFORMATION IS COLLECTED
IN THE COUNTRY. AND AFTER SEPTEMBER 11th,
THERE WERE FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY WANTED TO GET RID
OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS. BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT — FOLKS THAT I REPRESENT — THAT SAID,
“NO, WE NEED TO KEEP THIS.” OUR ROLE AS PUBLIC SAFETY
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, BUT ALSO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES. Shafer: JENNIFER,
WHAT WOULD YOU ADD TO THAT? Granick:
I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT. UNFORTUNATELY,
I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE WAY OUR COURTS AND OUR INVESTIGATORS
ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT. THERE’S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SHARING INFORMATION PROPERLY CAN HELP SOLVE CRIMES. I THINK THE HARD QUESTION IS
WITH SOMETHING LIKE CAMERAS. YOU HAVE THIS ABILITY TO FOLLOW PEOPLE AROUND
ON THE PUBLIC STREETS. TRADITIONALLY, THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT DIDN’T PROHIBIT A SINGLE POLICE OFFICER
FROM FOLLOWING YOU, BUT IT WAS JUST INFEASIBLE FOR EVERYONE TO BE FOLLOWED
ALL THE TIME. NOW WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT
MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO SEE WHERE EVERY CAR OR WHERE EVERY PERSON —
OR ALMOST EVERY PERSON — IS. Shafer: MIKE. Sena: LAW ENFORCEMENT
DOESN’T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY TO TRACK PEOPLE
24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK. YOU KNOW, THE TECHNOLOGY
ISN’T QUITE THERE. Granick: YET. Sena: THERE ARE THINGS
IN THOSE VIDEOS AND PICTURES. AND, FOR ME, EVEN A PERSON THAT HAS WORKED
IN THE TECHNOLOGY FIELD WITH THE FOLKS
THAT ARE DESIGNING THINGS AND WHATEVER THE FEATURE MAY BE, I DON’T SEE THAT IN MY CAREER. Greene: WE KNOW THAT LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTUALLY HAS THE TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY OF
ACTUALLY TRACKING MOBILE PHONES, AS YOU WALK AROUND
WITH YOUR MOBILE PHONE, EVEN IF YOUR PHONE IS OFF. Shafer: WE’VE TALKED A LOT
ABOUT THE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS AND SOME OF THE RISKS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. TO WHAT EXTENT
DO THE LAWS NEED TO BE UPDATED? I MEAN, TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING
SO QUICKLY. IS IT POSSIBLE
FOR THE LAW TO KEEP UP? Granick: YEAH, I’M A LAWYER, SO I LIKE TO BELIEVE IT’S
POSSIBLE FOR THE LAW TO KEEP UP, BUT WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO. YOU KNOW, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
NEEDS TO CATCH UP, BECAUSE WHAT IS OUR PRIVACY
IN PUBLIC SPACES WHEN WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY
THAT CAN MONITOR US TO SUCH A MUCH GREATER EXTENT? WE HAVE THIS AGE OF BIG DATA, WHERE DATA ANALYSIS
CAN PUT THESE PIECES TOGETHER AND FIND OUT
SO MUCH MORE ABOUT US THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL PIECE WE MIGHT GIVE UP
OR CHOOSE TO SHARE. Shafer:
MIKE SENA, YOU WERE NODDING
WHEN JENNIFER WAS SAYING WE NEED TO UPDATE THE LAWS,
SO YOU AGREE? Sena:
OH, ABSOLUTELY. I AGREE. WE DEFINITELY NEED
TO KEEP THE LAWS UP TO SPEED ON WHAT WE’RE DOING,
BUT IT’S HARD, AND IT’S NOT JUST
WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING. IT’S WHAT THE CRIMINAL GROUPS
ARE DOING WITH TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IT’S HARD FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO KEEP PACE. WE’RE ALWAYS BEHIND
IN THAT REALM. Shafer: DAVID,
WHAT SHOULD LOCAL COMMUNITIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
AND CITIZENS — WHAT SHOULD THEY
BE THINKING ABOUT? WHAT QUESTIONS
SHOULD THEY BE ASKING? Greene:
WELL, I THINK A GOOD QUESTION
TO ASK, REALLY, IS WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT AND ITS CITIZENRY? AND, TO ME, A GOVERNMENT REALLY
SHOULD BE REALLY HESITANT TO ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP WHERE IT’S JUST CONSTANTLY
COLLECTING INFORMATION. I THINK IT’S VERY EASY —
WHAT I’VE SEEN — YOU SEE IT WITH THE N.S.A., AND
YOU SEE IT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL — IS THAT HAVING THE ABILITY
TO COLLECT INFORMATION — IT SEEMS INNOCUOUS
AND IT SEEMS EASY — IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO STOP. Shafer: AND, MIKE SENA, FROM SOMEONE FROM THE INSIDE
OF THIS KIND OF AN OPERATION, WHAT QUESTIONS DOYOUASK OF THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE OVERSEEING WHAT YOU DO? Sena:
YOU KNOW, THE HARD PART IS THAT EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
IN PUBLIC SPACES. WHAT IS THAT? AND, REALLY,
THE BIGGER PART OF THIS — AND SOMETHING
THAT I’M A BIG ADVOCATE FOR — IS BUILDING COMMUNITIES
OF TRUST, ACTUALLY HAVING CONVERSATIONS
WITH COMMUNITIES. Shafer: JENNIFER,
IS THERE ENOUGH TRANSPARENCY TO EVEN KNOW WHAT
THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO ASK ARE? Granick: AT THIS POINT IN TIME,
WE HAVE ALMOST NO RULES ABOUT HOW INFORMATION IS USED
OR DISSEMINATED, AND HOW DO WE TELL
IF IT’S WORTH IT? WE NEED TO KEEP TRACK OF ABUSES, KEEP TRACK OF SUCCESSES
IN FIGHTING CRIME, AND HAVE A SENSE
OF WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO WHERE WE CAN ENHANCE
THE PUBLIC SAFETY MISSION WITHOUT OVER-POLICING. Shafer: LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
WE JUST TOUCHED THE SURFACE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. MIKE SENA, JENNIFER GRANICK,
DAVE GREENE, THANKS A LOT. All: THANK YOU. Vu:
AS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, THE STRUGGLE TO FIND BALANCE
BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY WILL PLAY OUT
IN UNEXPECTED WAYS. IT’S CLEAR THE DEBATE
AND DISCUSSION WILL CONTINUE. I’M THUY VU.
THANKS FOR JOINING US. Narrator:
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM IS PROVIDED BY
THE GRUBER FAMILY FOUNDATION AND BY THE MEMBERS OF KQED. A CO-PRODUCTION OF KQED AND THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.

100 Comments on "State of Surveillance: Police, Privacy and Technology"


  1. Yeah, so we are experiencing all these gun crimes because…? Predictive policing my ass. If anything it's the whistleblowers, upstanding citizens and people taking on big pharma, the military and corrupt government officials being tracked, spied on and targeted #targetedindividuals #darpa #haarp #newworldorder

    Reply

  2. Technology ………… this is a great way to watch the poor masses ! If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide from your masters!

    Reply

  3. Interesting debate but I'm surprised that nobody touched on the "totalitarian two step" concept. I feel it is a fine line between law enforcement and tyranny when that switch eventually gets flipped. They move these intrusive devices and laws in on US ALL slowly and with enough push back they back off but then try it again and again one little increment at a time and eventually they will have US ALL in their sights. Does that make sense? If it doesn't… you watch too much TV and buy all the PRO-PAGAN-DUH the 4th arm of fedgov pushes at you

    Reply

  4. It's amazing to me how so many cops have no problem violating people's civil liberties, do recruiters screen through potential candidates to find the dicks? When all the constitutional civil servants are weeded out the cars will just say OBEY, replacing Serve and protect.

    Reply

  5. The National Security Agency needs to create a Satellite View Camera that records from above, So they can go back to the crime scene to see where suspects travel and track them.

    Reply

  6. I feel that there should be more public "video" surveillance. I put quotes around "video" as everyone is worried about Big Brother watching everyone. This way, no one is watching. Video surveillance systems can be put on every street corner, facing down each street, and each one can be a self contained system that can only be viewed by downloading recorded video from that spot, physically at that location. This ensures that public that these cameras are not manned by anyone who is "watching" them. If a crime or investigation deems it necessary to view video evidence, someone would have to physically go to each location to download the video recordings to get the video evidence.

    As for space on each of these system, have them record over old video after a certain predetermined amount of time has passed, looping over old video as it records new video. This will be sufficient enough to help court cases dealing with local crimes that have had reports filled out about the crime shortly after the crime has happened. If no crime has been reported, and the video feed is erased, then we simply end up where we are today with no video footage to help solve the crime. This would support and encourage ppl to report crimes as soon as possible so that the video footage can be retrieved before it is erased, as well as being a deterrent for criminals to commit crimes if they know there is a more likely chance they will be identified committing the crime.

    Also, there could be a program to promote home owners to put up video surveillance systems like this on their own homes to help with catching evidence of criminal activities. A system similar to the government's solar power grants to promote home owners to put solar panels on their homes. And why stop there? What about a program that would lower your insurence or reward you with a percentage of fines collected from those who break the law when you are driving down the road? Put dash cams in your vehicle. You witness someone breaking the law and get it on camera, and then turn that video footage into the police, you can get a monetary reward if there is a conviction. It would backfire as well if someone was trying to bare false witness and turn in false video footage.

    It is a fact that people are less inclined to commit crime when they think they are being watched of feel there is a higher chance they will get caught. When you have no idea who is going to turn you in, everyone becomes part of the public surveillance system, not just the government. I would go as far as saying that the government is cut out of these systems, except for the end portion of the legal process…that being the court or police investigations. No monitoring.

    I am a strong believer in recorded video surveillance in public places. When you are in public, you are not in private. You are in public. How can their be an argument about that?

    Reply

  7. We all know – irrespective of the country we live in – that the authorities LIE… they've been caught lying over and over again about everything. But when it comes to surveillance data, we're all suppose to suddenly trust them when they say "We delete all data after 'x' months!" Yeah, sure! Once on a database, always on a database!

    Reply

  8. the problem is not just potential abuse but actual abuse when said systems assist in punishing people for breaking "unjust" laws

    Reply

  9. We are all walking in to a police state, and everyone is just letting it happen, we are all FUCKING STUPID MORONS,, But the governments around the world just LOVE US….

    Reply

  10. Peaceful revolution.. destroy the police state by taking their funding and firing anyone that invades privacy. i'm disgusted.

    Reply

  11. Absolutely no comparison between introducing streetlamps and every aspect of your life being tracked in the modern age!

    Reply

  12. "We kept it hush hush to mitigate complaints about privacy" That was somehow justification – just say "So we know it's a privacy violation that's why we didn't tell you we are doing it!"

    Reply

  13. Dumb asses have a overload of information and cannot pinpoint anyone ! not terrorists or domestic freaks !! they are sinking themselves in a hole and don't even know it ,scary !!

    Reply

  14. the manipulation of real life events through intervention of those in these network observation centers and extended foot soldiers interfere with and distort the natural and supernatural interactions anticipated by those with Religious and Spiritual belief. Keep surveillance on to protect peaceful citizens but stay out of areas that concern that which should remain sacred.

    Reply

  15. When somebody does something "hush-hush" doesn't necessarily mean it is legal.

    Perhaps they did it quietly was because they knew damn well it was illegal.

    Reply

  16. They spy on the innocent people with technology there not telling you about listening to your phone calls watching u thru your cell phone camera's.""WHEN YOU GIVE UP LIBERTY FOR SECURITY YOU DESERVE NEITHER BENJAMIN FRANKLIN""

    Reply

  17. the machines are turning our world more like theirs through us. we are buildin our own prison/death sentence

    Reply

  18. this stuff is the favorite of squirrel cops. they have even better tech than what is shown here. these people like to watch women undress and go to the toilet. i can name names and addresses if anyone feels froggy…

    Reply

  19. speaking of the Boston marathon bombing, there was no expectation of privacy since the cameras were recording in a public environment, any one can do this legally. But… in Compton it seems as though everyone with a back yard had their privacy rights violated by the sheriff's department. i don't believe they had permission to obtain any form of media from all of the people who live there, where there is an expectation of privacy (Their inclosed back yards) .

    Reply

  20. I see nothing wrong with this I have nothing to hide or worry about I have my own business and I prefer security to keep my business and my family safe so if your against this then your a criminal or support illegals immigrants

    Reply

  21. i'd rather have a criminal get away with stealing my phone or even stabbing me than having to live in a reality that i'm being monitored in such an invasive way

    Reply

  22. Cock suckers. 99.9999% of the population have to be vialated so that you fucks can carry out witch hunts. What if the public gather together wearing their own 24/7 cameras?? We want our own database called civilian 20/20. Every government employee would have their I'd entered into the public 20/20 system. Now wussup!

    Reply

  23. Insanely retarded. Their going to end up incarcerating so many good people. "Anybody could end up in that data base" Fuck you. Get real criminals. Murderers. Rapers. Robbers. Thieves. Leave every1 else alone

    Reply

  24. We kept it hush hush from the public. No shit u did cuz u and every1 in the world knows they wudnt have it. Ur spying on people against their will wtf u think. U wanna act like it's for anything else

    Reply

  25. think this is bad just wait until the 5g goes online not only extreme violations of privacy but they'll cook you and the unfortunate animals like a microwave oven

    Reply

  26. Have you witnessed human trafficking? Victims are often hidden in plain sight. @ICEgov Tip Line: 1-866-DHS-2-ICE

    Reply

  27. Its crazy, but I just don't see how they get the funding for the maintenance of upkeeping the servers

    Reply

  28. I don't know if any one caught the use of the term, only said a few times, but it should send chills down your spine. "Predictive Policing!" What is so scary about that, is the cops utilizing these "toys" are too stupid to realize that a machine or statistics can not predict crime. So, these dummies will then act on these predictive guesses, and start jamming people up who have not done shit wrong! What's even scarier is the blind faith these cops place on these computers telling them how and where and on who to do their job!!!

    Reply

  29. Wide area surveillance is the complete end of privacy and freedom! They will at first state its for cops, but then it will get out. Then try to tell your boss you are some where you are not. The first part of totally controlling some ones movements, is to first of all know where they are at all times! This is scary shit!

    Reply

  30. HEY YOU GUYS THESE ASSHOLES ARE CAMPING IN A FUCKING HOUSE HERE AND POLICE SCARING CITISENS OF OUR TOWN.
    THEY DONT TALK TO US,
    INSTEAD LIKE RIMINALS ATTACK AND USE SIRENS TO FUCK UP OUR WONDERFUL TOWN DAY AND NIGHT.
    WE WANT NAMES OF THESE CROOKS WE HAVE A LOT ALREADY.
    AND END YOUR OPERATION.
    RETURN THE KEYS AND LETS US KNOW, DONT SPY OR THREATEN US AGAIN.

    Reply

  31. let's make laws as people to wear mask and police would have to have a reason with no doubt to capture your face because walking out in public has been undermined as us free people and our body's are taking advantage of so it's time for us to protect our identity and body.

    Reply

  32. PROME RGIS DIGITAL GANG STALKERS TOP FLOOR CITY HALL – REMEMBER CRIMINALS CAN HACK INTO THESE SERVICES AND CREATE TERROR THROUGH METHODS KNOWN CURRENTLY AS GANG STALKING OR ORGANIZED MAFIA

    Reply

  33. A good idea for those with nothing to hide. I welcome it. We need to be more concerned with the real 'eye in the sky' – "And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him, with whom we have an accounting." (Bible)

    Reply

  34. Just shut Down the grid in your area and they and there technology is fucked.fucken stupid Jews want our world Fu go back to your fucked up planet Saturn isn't that where your from aren't you here to take our world .your fn traders to humanity in this world with your fn grubby dirty fn hands off our land and now we know why media keep up with the raceisum

    Reply

  35. #targetingcultureupdate 9619: Outline of targeting culture
    Here is the latest snippet from my forthcoming book
    "Targeting Culture: Making the Invisible Visible"
    https://targetingculture.blogspot.com/2019/06/outline-of-targeting-culture.html?view=flipcard

    Reply

  36. Everybody don't worry!. Government will never allowed Russia and China to use our own technology against us🤣🤣🤣

    Reply

  37. Lmao 😂 just try to stand on a public road or sidewalks and fly a drone over the pig station or any government building and see how fast your arrested you don’t even need to fly a drone just take a picture with your phone or camera and watch how fast your arrested and the camera or phone is taken !! I say if it’s filming over your property shoot it down and when they come trespassing to get it shoot them

    Reply

  38. It will increase crime. Over crowd prisons and it’s really none of your fucking buissness what we do. Fuck the government

    Reply

  39. We also hold technology against law mishandling as fraud gaming citizens. Its this advanced to capture law in crimes to themselves.

    Reply

  40. 8:00 , wtf haha what kind of logic is that!? Streetlights dont have cameras in them!, yet. D:

    Reply

  41. All these cops need a Life, Compton CA? Black community lol..why not take that bullshit on Rodeo Dr? that's where a million dollar necklace would be? This is a huge lie…all that technology for a $60 bucks chain… Blacks and Latinos will be the fall guys as always! That cop is Asian he will target all Blacks, no one in millions dollar row 90210 zip will get touched!

    Reply

  42. It is up to every private citizen that is on a jury. To commit "jury nullification" if there were no eyewitnesses, or to follow the sheep. If I was on a jury and I believed that there wasn't enough actual physical and eyewitness evidence to convict, I would vote not guilty. Even DNA evidence can be faulty if presented incorrectly. "Salting" a crime scene happens all the time, K-9 dogs can be triggered falsely. I know some police officers that worry all the time about new technology being misused, causing the innocent to be accused falsely and ruining their lives.
    If this new technology is used correctly, without personal bias or profiling, then it is good. But we all know that technology can be misused terribly, has been misused in the past, and probably will be in the future. "Who guards the guardians?" and the phrase "I would let ten guilty people go free rather than convict one innocent person" is the phrases we have been haunted with since recorded history began.

    Reply

  43. Folks. There is no privacy and the government is trying to orchestrate crimes with their technology to fraud you in courts.LIKE! YOu Folks need to wake up to a huge in framing US games against civilians…even being an honest living citizen to fraud and court frame. YOu folks need to wake up to a huge hidden corrupt US law and its entity.

    Reply

  44. WHAT IN THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU GUYS ???? YOU LET FILTHY MEN HOLD US HOSTAGE ON OUR PHONES AND PEDOPHILE US IN OUR HOMES !!!!! AND TAP OUR T.VS AND WATCH US TRASH !!!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *