The SD Reader isn’t a very trustworthy source. Here’s the U-T’s extensive piece on the topic:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...
There are a few telling things in the article you link to that make it clear that the government values expediency over protecting citizens' rights.
The first notable one is the process: a police officer has to submit a request to view video records... but to whom? It looks like just to their superiors? If they actually cared about protecting people's rights, the request should have to be made to a court, in the same way a warrant needs to be requested.
The city points out that the audio recorders aren't active because they don't have a use case for the audio. They claim that they would engage the public before activating them, but... is that really true? And regardless, I would not want that activated, ever. Any use case audio recordings of public spaces could possibly have... I do not want that. Having the hardware there and ready is just too tantalizing to public officials.
I've been thinking about moving to SD at some point, but this kind of thing really gives me pause.
That means they are planning to use audio recordings.
This is clearly not about recording audio of vehicle traffic, but about recording conversations between the same citizens they're visually monitoring.
Plus, they were very quick to pull the trigger and install these without asking. Clearly asking people who would do such a thing to "exercise self control" in regard to enabling yet another degree of surveillance seems like an exercise in futility.
Much like discussions about corporate policies, I find it helps to ask what happens when the handbook isn't followed...
How many years in prison does someone get for unauthorized access or (if an authorized user) abusing their access for improper use?
The subtext of my post was that virtuously rigorous guidelines with no enforcement mechanism are a paper tiger.
It's quite a harsh punishment for accessing records inappropriately.
That's what they all say. It's an empty platitude at best.
"the audio recording capability isn't live"
Yet. It is still present, though, and could become live should San Diego decide it to be useful.
America, land of the free and home of the obedient and fearful. Seeing this, I can't help but feel like we have gone too far to have any return to what privacy we did have.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh....
> Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the effective date of this chapter.
I'm not sure how large or small that loophole is according to the courts.
-----
Then as I was glancing through it, I noticed that this is the law that makes CA a two party consent state:
§632(a)
> without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication
§632(d)
> evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible
So that sucks.
§633.5
> do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of
But at least it's slightly better as of... 2018. It only took them until 2018 to add that. FFS.
-----
This one was a pleasant surprise though:
§637.7
> No person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person.
So is it a misdemeanor to track your child via their cellphone in CA? I'm also wondering about all that cell phone location data that was sold (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3b3dg/big-teleco...). Have I misunderstood something?
It's worth looking at the whole section:
CA Penal Code § 637.7 (2017)
(a) No person or entity in this state shall use an
electronic tracking device to determine the location or
movement of a person.
(b) This section shall not apply when the registered
owner, lessor, or lessee of a vehicle has consented to
the use of the electronic tracking device with respect
to that vehicle.
(c) This section shall not apply to the lawful use of an
electronic tracking device by a law enforcement agency.
(d) As used in this section, “electronic tracking
device” means any device attached to a vehicle or other
movable thing that reveals its location or movement by
the transmission of electronic signals.
(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f) A violation of this section by a person, business,
firm, company, association, partnership, or corporation
licensed under Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000)
of the Business and Professions Code shall constitute
grounds for revocation of the license issued to that
person, business, firm, company, association,
partnership, or corporation, pursuant to the provisions
that provide for the revocation of the license as set
forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 5000) of
the Business and Professions Code.
However, IIRC there are a lot of cases where a parent's consent is considered to be equivalent to the child consenting, and this might be one of them; as long as the parent consents to the child being tracked, it'd be legal in such a case.
Obligatory "I ain't a lawyer".
I too was initially confused by the "or other movable thing" part, but I'm pretty sure the the cell phone itself qualifies as a movable thing in this context.
Source: I've lived in San Diego for the last 50 years.
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/matthew-lickona/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/staff/don-bauder/
You can see them all here: https://cityiqmapsd.herokuapp.com/
What's your source?
Wrong. I've seen these from Pacific Beach to Imperial Beach. That is around 40 miles from North to South. They are _everywhere_. You can spot them by the black antennas sticking out the bottom of the light fixture.
Source: I've lived in San Diego for 50 years.
How did placing this kind of trust in our government work when we last tried it (patriot act & fisa)?
This is a good and instructive example of statements that contain no information.
If access to the video were liberal and careless, it would be described as "very limited and subject to strict protocols". If, on the contrary, access to the video was very limited and subject to strict protocols ...
You get the idea. Zero weight should be given to assurances that would be given out regardless of the actual state of affairs.
A good heuristic is to ignore these communications and concentrate only on actions, but in this case where there may not be concrete evidence of misbehavior, we need to rely on a different heuristic: potential risks and worst case outcomes.