Part 1
THE CASE FOR SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY
Meet three people: Captain Roland Holmgren is a career OPD officer who’s in charge of the city’s surveillance efforts. City Council Member Loren Taylor represents District 6 and is running for Mayor. Brian Hofer is chair of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission (PAC) and a longtime privacy advocate.
At issue is whether or not OPD will be allowed to implement and use, in real time, surveillance technology. Currently, the department is forbidden from doing so by city policy designed to protect peoples’ civil liberties and privacy. The big question is, If OPD were permitted to deploy these technologies, would cameras in fact help to prevent and solve crime?
THE CASE FOR SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Every study I’ve looked at says the same: surveillance equipment, including not just street cameras but body cameras, drones and license plate readers, does help to prevent, solve and reduce the number of crimes. The studies suggest that results vary according to the type of camera, where it’s located, and the specific crimes under consideration. But overall, surveillance cameras work, whether they’re owned and run by police departments or by private businesses.
For example, remember the Ersie Joyner incident at a garage in West Oakland? The retired OPD Captain was assaulted while filling up his car. Thanks to the gas station’s security cameras, the perpetrators were nabbed. “Can you imagine if that wasn’t captured on video?” asks Holmgren. “We got three subjects that were arrested and charged for that case. Imagine if we didn’t have access to that.”
Our local mayors understand this need for more surveillance. London Breed, in San Francisco, and Oakland’s Libby Schaaf both called this week for more money and help for police surveillance. Said Breed, “We need to give officers more tools to do their jobs. When there are multiple robbery crews hitting multiple stores, they couldn’t even access those cameras. Which is ridiculous." Schaaf, in Oakland—under intense pressure to address the city’s crime wave—begged Governor Newsom to install license plate readers and surveillance cameras on freeways and State roads in Oakland. “The need for a system that can capture vehicle descriptions and alert law enforcement to vehicles associated with violent crime, in real time, has never been more apparent,” she said.
San Francisco’s policy on surveillance cameras is to permit police to operate and access then, but not in real time (which makes no sense at all). In Oakland, police are prevented from having anything to do with city-owned surveillance technology, whether in real time or later. Holmgren has little doubt that surveillance technology could take a big bite out of crime. “I think it could be a significant game changer,” he says, adding, “Not just furthering criminal investigations, but the actual prevention of crimes, as well.” He’s aware of, and sympathetic to, concerns about privacy. “I’m not talking about arbitrarily lacing the community with cams all over the place, or surreptitiously having them all over the place. I’m talking about overt examples of cameras in identified areas that have shown to be areas where significant violence occurs…and monitoring it in real time.”
But that is not likely to happen, as long as Oakland’s unelected Privacy Advisory Commission, under Hofer, remains opposed—with the backing of the City Council. Council Member Loren Taylor plans to introduce his own plan concerning surveillance technology at a special City Council meeting on Dec. 21. Stay tuned.
Tomorrow: THE CASE AGAINST SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Steve Heimoff