Oakland accepts federal funds for controversial vast surveillance setup

Promises to get data retention, privacy policies in place later.

Read the whole story

 

[Zyrxil]

The same Oakland whose Police Department that has come with a millimeter of a court ordered Federal takeover multiple times due to massive systemic misconduct (still under supervision due to reforms not taking place). Fantastic idea.

 

[Taantric]

All these Orwellian happenings are turning me into a Luddite. In the last two months I have given up

- Gmail
- Google search
- Microsoft account
- cloud storage (Bittorrent Sync works fucking brilliant btw)
- tons of apps,
- smartphone location always off
- device backup to cloud off
- app settings sync to cloud off and all previous sync data stored online deleted.


And Life goes on without a hitch. Turns out, didn't really need all that crap.

 

[Solomonoff's Secret]

This homeland security money is a huge waste. It would be so much better spent on community programs to keep kids off the streets or hundreds of other things. But because of the terrorism panic, the feds get away with dumping billions of dollars on useless shit across the country. I'd much rather have taxation be local and have communities do cost/benefit analyses for expenditures, with states/feds only getting involved to provide general assistance to poor communities. Oakland would never spend its own money on shit like this.

 

[dm00]

What council wouldn't vote to accept $2 million?

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Meaning the surveillance would last 2 years, and the council members' families/friends would have to find new jobs unless the government adds more funds to the pile.

What astounds me to the core, is that they're putting up expensive, high-tech surveillance in high-crime areas, and the criminals aren't stealing the cameras en masse.

 

[..BlahBlahBlah]

We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

 

[Spazmodica]

Nice to see where our priorities are. I would argue that a far more serious threat, especially in cities like Oakland, is the proliferation of young punk gangsters with readily available handguns.

How many murders every day? Compared to how many death-by-terrorist incidents?

 

[AdamM]

dm00[/url]":2vlxd2bi]What council wouldn't vote to accept $2 million?

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Meaning the surveillance would last 2 years, and the council members' families/friends would have to find new jobs unless the government adds more funds to the pile.

What astounds me to the core, is that they're putting up expensive, high-tech surveillance in high-crime areas, and the criminals aren't stealing the cameras en masse.

And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

 

[Quiet Desperation]

Taantric[/url]":1t4d84cf]And Life goes on without a hitch. Turns out, didn't really need all that crap.

But you posted here about it! Now they know! They're coming to get you! Booga booga booga!

 

[Quiet Desperation]

..BlahBlahBlah[/url]":1wh1krds]It's beyond baffling.

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

AdamM[/url]":1wh1krds]And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

 

[Gunslinger13]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":1ouuoyyr]

..BlahBlahBlah[/url]":1ouuoyyr]It's beyond baffling.

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

I believe there is an adage about insanity that applies here. It goes something like 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.'


*edit to clarify

 

[Biceps]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":2e7xp8ii]

Taantric[/url]":2e7xp8ii]And Life goes on without a hitch. Turns out, didn't really need all that crap.

But you posted here about it! Now they know! They're coming to get you! Booga booga booga!

Uh, actually, yeah. The way I understand it, just the fact you have switched all those things off will create a hole in data that previously existed which will, most likely, create some sort of flag that will mark you as a Person of Interest. The thinking being that once you realized you were being tracked, you hid, so therefore you must have something to hide.

All thank you to your traitor friends over at Palantir. Oh, if you work at Palantir and are reading this, yes, please know I believe you are a traitor. You suck.

 

[..BlahBlahBlah]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":5l9vz4ip]

..BlahBlahBlah[/url]":5l9vz4ip]It's beyond baffling.

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

AdamM[/url]":5l9vz4ip]And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

It's baffling to me that the vast majority of voters, directly or indirectly, time and time again support laws and politicians that are consistently and blatantly against the interests of the people. You're right, the politicians don't care. But interestingly enough, it seems not everyone knows that. That's what's baffling.

 

[Drakkenmensch]

Okay, I wonder if that sign has a hidden message to it.
Hold on, let me put my polarized shades on...

I knew it!

 

[scotts13]

You have to think like a caveman: "Feds offer money. Me like money. Me take money, do what Feds say." I work with school districts every day; I can point to dozens of projects started with grant money, then abandoned and made useless when that ran out.

In this case, abandonment is the happy scenario.

 

[Taantric]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":2pzzxgtu]

Taantric[/url]":2pzzxgtu]And Life goes on without a hitch. Turns out, didn't really need all that crap.

But you posted here about it! Now they know! They're coming to get you! Booga booga booga!

I am not hiding. It is the casual, mindless gathering and easy access to personal data that I object to.

This story is hitting the wires today -

The Guardian has released more information about a program that appears to let the NSA access almost any part of a web user's digital life. According to The Guardian, XKeyscore is available not only to members of the NSA but to outside analysts like Edward Snowden, who worked as a contractor for Booz Allen before his flight to Hong Kong, and its vast database allows users to find people by email address, name, phone number, type of browser, language used, IP address, or specific keywords.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/j ... nline-data

 

[Bigc]

..BlahBlahBlah[/url]":14phfy2k]We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

...not surprising in a Country where 45% of the people believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago...

i.e., ignorance is bliss

 

[mdporter]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":38dw8hns]This homeland security money is a huge waste. It would be so much better spent on community programs to keep kids off the streets or hundreds of other things. But because of the terrorism panic, the feds get away with dumping billions of dollars on useless shit across the country. I'd much rather have taxation be local and have communities do cost/benefit analyses for expenditures, with states/feds only getting involved to provide general assistance to poor communities. Oakland would never spend its own money on shit like this.

The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

 

[jarvis]

..BlahBlahBlah[/url]":3uspmxbv]We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

No kidding. Doesn't sound like much of a home worth securing nowadays does it? :-(

We are spending all this time/money trying to stop the "unintended consequences" of the decisions being made, instead of targeting the cause of these problems directly.

 

[Deleted member 1]

AdamM[/url]":b9g007q3]

dm00[/url]":b9g007q3]What council wouldn't vote to accept $2 million?

She added that the federal government would provide grants for the operation of the facility for the first two years, but that after that, it would be incumbent on the Port and the City of Oakland to staff the DAC.

Meaning the surveillance would last 2 years, and the council members' families/friends would have to find new jobs unless the government adds more funds to the pile.

What astounds me to the core, is that they're putting up expensive, high-tech surveillance in high-crime areas, and the criminals aren't stealing the cameras en masse.

And like your typical council they fail to look at the long term costs. So the Federal government funds this for the first 2 years. How much is it going to cost for the city to monitor 130 or so cameras after that?

Whats so shocking is that its only 130 cameras.

If they are going to have a 24/7 center at the very least you need thousands of cameras that at every intersection in the city. If you are going to something dumb like this at least provide a real service in order to prevent crime on the city streets.

 

[Gunslinger13]

mdporter[/url]":32jra31t]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":32jra31t]This homeland security money is a huge waste. It would be so much better spent on community programs to keep kids off the streets or hundreds of other things. But because of the terrorism panic, the feds get away with dumping billions of dollars on useless shit across the country. I'd much rather have taxation be local and have communities do cost/benefit analyses for expenditures, with states/feds only getting involved to provide general assistance to poor communities. Oakland would never spend its own money on shit like this.

The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

Sure they can. They have a massive amount of funds provided by your hard earned tax dollars to do it with.

 

[Trout Mask Replica]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":2uj33o9r]

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

I edited the above for clarity ( but did not alter anything QD wrote ).

The problem is, the system is completely rigged to serve sociopaths. Not just voting, the whole system. It is designed to keep people ignorant and powerless, and keep the sociopaths in positions of power. It matters not who you vote for, and even if an honest person who truly wants to better things gets in, they will be quickly neutralized in whatever manner is most effective with the least trouble.

The only thing that will change it is the complete and utter destruction of the system. That won't happen by voting, or by any organized public action, the system is too powerful. It will happen though, as all powers eventually fail, rotting from the inside out until it collapses. The question is, will humanity* ever get its shit together, rise above the flaws in its nature and finally get on the right path to creating the Utopia that is possible?

* It's more than just a U.S problem, no doubt.

 

[Montaire]

I think you need to draw a distinction between cameras and a ShotSpotter system. ShotSpotter uses acoustic sensors to pinpoint the location of gunfire within an area.

In a place like Oakland there is, essentially, no downside to this. Thats a platform that could save lives and it's completely worth doing.

 

[Gunslinger13]

Trout Mask Replica[/url]":2rwrpbce]

Quiet Desperation[/url]":2rwrpbce]

Y'all keep voting for sociopaths. It's not baffling in the slightest. They are simply acting according to their nature.

They. Don't. Care.

You have to stop thinking like a sane person with a conscience, because that's not who is in power.

They do not give a flying f*** what the consequences are. They don't have the brain wiring to even do that.

I edited the above for clarity ( but did not alter anything QD wrote ).

The problem is, the system is completely rigged to serve sociopaths. Not just voting, the whole system. It is designed to keep people ignorant and powerless, and keep the sociopaths in positions of power. It matters not who you vote for, and even if an honest person who truly wants to better things gets in, they will be quickly neutralized in whatever manner is most effective with the least trouble.

The only thing that will change it is the complete and utter destruction of the system. That won't happen by voting, or by any organized public action, the system is too powerful. It will happen though, as all powers eventually fail, rotting from the inside out until it collapses. The question is, will humanity* ever get its shit together, rise above the flaws in its nature and finally get on the right path to creating the Utopia that is possible?

* It's more than just a U.S problem, no doubt.

Probably not. It seems that generally the corrupt are the ones with the desire for power. The good person rarely has the desire to rule over others.

 

[Solomonoff's Secret]

mdporter[/url]":2iipga33]

If it's that bad, there should be more police on the streets working with communities. Police should be present, involved, and ideally from the communities they're working in. Surveillance cameras are impersonal and adversarial, making people feel oppressed, which IMO does not discourage crime.

But even in poverty-stricken ghettos, it's possible to reach kids. Big brother programs give kids that don't have fathers men to look up to. Community centers provide safe places for kids to play and socialize so they don't end up on the street. After-school sports also provide safe places for kids and let them get out their energy in a constructive manner. Tutors help kids stay on track with their school work while their parents are working or otherwise absent.

 

[Tundro Walker]

jarvis[/url]":3uq4y5g6]

..BlahBlahBlah[/url]":3uq4y5g6]We have widespread hunger. A grossly disproportionate distribution of wealth and a disappearing middle class. Collapsing transportation infrastructure. Countless inner city neighborhoods that look like war zones. One of the highest infant mortality rates in the western world. One of the lowest math, science and reading rankings in the western world. The highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Yet we keep throwing money at surveillance/homeland security. It's beyond baffling.

No kidding. Doesn't sound like much of a home worth securing nowadays does it? :-(

We are spending all this time/money trying to stop the "unintended consequences" of the decisions being made, instead of targeting the cause of these problems directly.

Well, that's the genious of it all. You get all this stuff in place to "find and combat terrorism", but really it's a prep to keep the masses, that are slowly getting desperate, in check when the time comes. Frogs are boiled slowly. You can't create a police state over-night; folks would rebel. But, when you do it to "combat terrorism" and "protect the citizens" (that are having a hard time finding jobs, earning a living wage, raising a family, fending off criminals, being abused by political schemes, etc, etc) then you can slowly indoctrinate them into a police state.

I remember my humanities teacher saying about a country taking over another country ... the first generation experiences oppression, the second generation experiences acceptance, the third generation experiences assimilation. (Something like that).

People today are upset over what's going on, b/c they see the change. But, people tomorrow (kids today) won't be. They will have been raised in an environment that already has all of this in place. And they will just accept it as common place.

Now get back to work, Citizen 092834. Your 10% behind quota for the day. You don't want another demerit, do you? Your family won't get food for today if you do.

 

[John Is My Name]

Solomonoff's Secret[/url]":131guj40]

mdporter[/url]":131guj40]

If it's that bad, there should be more police on the streets working with communities. Police should be present, involved, and ideally from the communities they're working in. Surveillance cameras are impersonal and adversarial, making people feel oppressed, which IMO does not discourage crime.

But even in poverty-stricken ghettos, it's possible to reach kids. Big brother programs give kids that don't have fathers men to look up to. Community centers provide safe places for kids to play and socialize so they don't end up on the street. After-school sports also provide safe places for kids and let them get out their energy in a constructive manner. Tutors help kids stay on track with their school work while their parents are working or otherwise absent.

We're talking about decisions made by politicians here. Begone with all your sensible logic stuff.

 

[toyotabedzrock]

Did the port just shift its financial burden of having video monitoring staff to the federal government and in two years to the tax payers of Oakland?

 

[roadsquish]

I think this might be useful if, say, a child was kidnapped and the culprit was fleeing. Immediate, connected tracking could prove to be the difference in acquiring the child alive. I'd have great misgivings about the current, federal implementation of this however. I think these are the kind of restrictions I'd want in place:

- System would be owned and operated by the judicial branch, not the executive. The executive branch would have to ask the judicial branch for the data/feed.

- Encryption and permission restrictions would need to be in place and security-expert vetted BEFORE it is implemented and goes live.

- Operators would have to clear a significant background check.

- Warrants would absolutely be required and the need must be for immediate danger.

- Retention would be for a short while only (say a week) and then the data would be hard purged. This would enforce it's usage for immediate need only and limit any kind of fishing expedition.

I'd probably be on-board if restrictions like these were in place.

UPDATE:

One other requirement: I'd want accountability and transparency in place too.

 

[gravcrash]

If it saves even one life it's worth it! <Brought to you by your friends at Homeland Security>

 

[AkeemMcLennon]

To be honest, I was hoping that this program would make Oakland more of a police state than it actually does (which is to say, not really). Regardless of the means of doing so, I feel like Oakland has a serious crime and violence problem that needs to be addressed. Will these cameras help improve the situation? Probably not.

 

[Sobad]

Considering Oakland is one of the worst cities in the country to live in, no real loss. Let them get the bugs out in the crappy cities first.

 

[sparkleytone]

mdporter[/url]":2y8jnzea]

The kids on the streets in oakland really are the terrorists. That place has moved far beyond the need for hearings and feelgoodism, to requiring armed individuals on every street corner.

Assuming this is literally true, how did it get to be that way? You don't have an opinion worth considering if you haven't thought about this, and you clearly haven't.

I personally do not see the surveillance setup changing anything, especially when they can't put cameras everywhere.

Yep, lets just keep throwing money and technology at the symptoms of an ill society. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[NicoleC]

roadsquish[/url]":doab4qs8]I think this might be useful if, say, a child was kidnapped and the culprit was fleeing. Immediate, connected tracking could prove to be the difference in acquiring the child alive.

You can always come up with a scenario whereby if we just did this one bad thing, lives would be saved. After all, if we *just* locked up all the males post puberty, there'd be no male on female rape. If we *just* required all children be raised in a locked creche by robots, there'd be no child abduction. If we just required every citizen wear a behavior modification implant, there'd be no ______.

While I mostly agree with your post -- freedom and security are a balance, not absolutes -- as soon we indulge in playing the what-if scenario game there's no logical end. There's always another what-if.

 

[2_tired]

Follow the money. In 2 years these cameras and systems will be in need of an upgrade. Then DHS can give one of their corporate sponsors another contract to install a bigger, better, though not cheaper system. Everyone (as defined by DHS) is happy: cops get new toys, local politicians are shown to be for public safety, and the malcontents are identified.

 

[sorrykb1]

Summary: Government officials offered money and power, and don't turn it down.

In other news, dog bites man.

 

[Electrostatus]

Is it just me, or is there always a white-haired bearded guy at any city council meeting?

 

[Rommel102]

Spazmodica[/url]":lkwrv95g]Nice to see where our priorities are. I would argue that a far more serious threat, especially in cities like Oakland, is the proliferation of young punk gangsters with readily available handguns.

How many murders every day? Compared to how many death-by-terrorist incidents?

It seems like you and many others haven't read the article and links fully (shocker!)

While this funding is coming from Homeland, it will be in place for almost all of Oakland. The plan seems to call for ~1000 cameras covering the Port and higher crime areas, schools and highways, and also includes Spotshotter installations, mobile license plate readers, and other systems (all of this can be gleaned just from looking at the first image in the body of the story).

I would think that would substantially help with the "young punk gangster" problem.

As someone mentioned, so would more cops...but more cops are WAY more expensive than this type of electronic surveillance.

 

[PeterWimsey]

Rommel102[/url]":a0zr7f5r]

Spazmodica[/url]":a0zr7f5r]Nice to see where our priorities are. I would argue that a far more serious threat, especially in cities like Oakland, is the proliferation of young punk gangsters with readily available handguns.

How many murders every day? Compared to how many death-by-terrorist incidents?

It seems like you and many others haven't read the article and links fully (shocker!)

While this funding is coming from Homeland, it will be in place for almost all of Oakland. The plan seems to call for ~1000 cameras covering the Port and higher crime areas, schools and highways, and also includes Spotshotter installations, mobile license plate readers, and other systems (all of this can be gleaned just from looking at the first image in the body of the story).

I would think that would substantially help with the "young punk gangster" problem.

As someone mentioned, so would more cops...but more cops are WAY more expensive than this type of electronic surveillance.

These are good points; it's also significant that the gunshot detectors are tied into the system.

It's easy to oppose something like this if you pretend it will have no benefits. However, it will clearly have some benefits and at least some positive affect on crime rates. If I lived in a bad area where street crimes such as muggings and shootings were common, and the city offered to put up cameras and gunshot detectors and to tie them into a 24/7 monitoring station, I would be all in favor of it, even though there might be unresolved privacy issues. People's physical safety is much more important, and this system will provide far more security than the handful of cops you could get for the same amount of money.

None of which is to say that the privacy issues aren't also important, or that they can't be fixed quickly so as to permit implementation of the CCTV system without much delay. But, again, if I lived or worked in an area that put me at risk of being shot, I wouldn't want to wait two years while privacy advocates living in safe areas debated whether the system met *their* concerns.

 

[arcite]

Persistent surveillance of an entire city center for a paltry $2 million?

Doesn't get much cheaper. This is why every city in every country in the world will deploy these systems. Once they're installed, their efficiency and ability to reduce crime is magnitudes cheaper than human counterparts.