SF cops got warrant-free OK to watch protest via private security cameras

San Francisco cops earlier this year obtained permission to access 450 surveillance cameras belonging to private businesses to live monitor protests expected following the killing of Tyre Nichols, it emerged today. That permission was sought under a controversial surveillance rule approved last fall in the US city. The …

[VoiceOfTruth]

What is needed

Is surveillance of the police by the public. The police have far too many powers which they consistently misuse. They are not to be trusted, which is why they all need to be put under surveillance.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: What is needed

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear

[Brian 3]

Re: What is needed

I remember the case of those two cops who ignored a burglary call right next to them to plat pokemon go instead, and how they were able to try and argue that the conversation that was recorded wasn't admissable because it was 'personal' talk or some such... which was thrown out of course, dereliction of duty and all going on...

[Doctor Tarr]

Chipping Away

Our gummint don't need any encouragement but Speedy Sue’s going to love this. Provided her actions are not recorded.

Our ability to disagree with the Government is being removed, piece by piece.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Chipping Away

I can't see this sort of thing being allowed in the UK.

A constitutional right to protest against the government? That's terrorism

[Cav]

Re: Chipping Away

Nonsense. You are allowed to protest. There's nothing wrong with the police watching out for non-peaceful protest. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.

[mmccul]

Okay, I must be missing something, because everything I'm reading explicitly states that the police must obtain permission from the camera owner. Yes, we can all imagine the permission clause being abused, but it's a pretty big barrier to certain forms of misuse, because a camera owner might very well withdraw said permission if they feel it is bad for them. Current culture that I see in the Bay area I've seen includes refusal to offer even non-real time view into the cameras to police even if a crime has been committed, so I don't see it as overly likely that many camera owners will cooperate unless they see it as explicitly to their advantage.

[IGotOut]

A dozen police turn up and say "We think a bunch of trouble makers are going to riot outside your shop". Can we have access to your camera.

In reality it's a bunch of people wanting civil rights, just matching and waving a few flags.

Then do the cops come back and say. Ok done, please revoke our access and permission?

I think not.

[Michael Wojcik]

Yes, it's just possible there's some imbalance of power potentially affecting the camera owner's decision to permit or refuse access.

There is a reason for the principle of requiring warrants for searches. That reason does not magically go away when the police promise to be nice and a craven city government rubber-stamps their requests.

[Cav]

How is this an abuse of rights when there is no expectation of privacy in a public place?