START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,363,031 people care about Politics

How One U.S. City is Becoming a Surveillance State

How One U.S. City is Becoming a Surveillance State

“There is no there there,” poet Gertrude Stein once said about the city of her childhood, Oakland. A recent decision made by the Oakland City Council throws a different light on her words: at a routine meeting on July 30, the Oakland City Council unanimously agreed to accept a $2 million federal grant to create a 24-hour “Domain Awareness Center” (DAC) that will in effect create a surveillance system throughout the city by aggregating data from CCTV cameras and other devices.

That is, wherever a resident of Oakland, or anyone who happens to be within the city’s limits, is, his or her movements will be recorded. Wherever you are in the West coast city, “there” will be a surveillance device and every “there” that you are in the city will be tracked.

The ACLU of northern California has informed the City Council that it opposes the plan on the grounds that the system is “intended to collect and store vast amounts of information about Oakland residents who have engaged in no wrongdoing,” according to a letter to the city council dated July 24, 2013 (pdf) by ACLU attorney Linda Lye.

Big Brother is Alive and Well in Oakland

A May 2013 DAC slide (PDF) from a presentation by the Port of Oakland (you can see it via Ars Technica) reveals how extensive this system will be.

Surveillance cameras and thermal imaging devices that are already installed at the Port of Oakland (the fifth-busiest in the U.S. and the third busiest on the West Coast) will be part of the DAC, but these are just the start. Also included will be the Oakland Police Department’s eighteen license plate readers, ShotSpotter gunshot detection devices, CCTV cameras and surveillance cameras at Oakland city schools as well as many more cameras from regional law enforcement agencies such as the California Highway Patrol.

The DAC is, say officials, simply performing an “upgrade” on an existing system. Oakland’s director of emergency services and homeland security, Renee Domingo, said that the system would only be activated “in times of emergency” but that, if preparations including a facility for the DAC are completed in time for June of 2014, “we would be looking to staff the facility on a 24/7 basis.” She also noted that, while the grant from the federal government will cover funding for the first two years, the city of Oakland and the Port of Oakland will be responsible for it afterwards.

All told, the DAC will aggregate more than 1,000 camera feeds. It will be staffed by a sergeant and an analyst from the Oakland Police Department as well as someone from the Port of Oakland.

Privacy Provisions Do Not Yet Exist

As the ACLU points out, the Oakland City Council has voted the surveillance system in place without establishing laws concerning the privacy rights of individual citizens. In contrast, “the City’s contract for the DAC takes pains to describe in minute detail the precise manner in which, for example, metal framing systems are to be installed (studs are to be placed no more than 2 inches from abutting walls),” says Lye’s letter.

At least two dozen people were present at the City Council’s meeting to pass our flyers proclaiming “State Surveillance NO” and to express their concerns about, among much else, Domingo not knowing exactly how many cameras that transportation agencies including BART, AC Transit and Caltrans have within Oakland’s boundaries or on bordering freeways. The Port of Oakland has “130 to 134 cameras, and there are four City of Oakland traffic cameras,” Domingo said.

Oakland is not unique in constructing a “Marine Domain Awareness Center;” other port cities including Long Beach, Los Angeles and Seattle have used federal funds for such. The Oakland DAC was mentioned in the Obama Administration’s 2010 “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

Nonetheless, by deciding to create the DAC, Oakland has “thrust itself into the forefront of the national debate about surveillance and its limits,” comments Ars Technica. Oakland residents and civil liberties advocates have more than rightly questioned the creation of such an extensive surveillance system, and in a city that has been frequently in the news due to incidents involving citizens and its police force (following the 2009 shooting death of Oscar Grant by a BART officer, during the 2011 Occupy Oakland protests and, most recently, following the George Zimmerman verdict). Come 2014, anyone one in Oakland won’t have to step far to find their whereabouts under watch.

Take action and tell the Oakland City Council to create laws protecting citizens’ privacy rights!

 

 

Read more: , , , , , , ,

Photo from Thinkstock

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

133 comments

+ add your own
9:47AM PDT on Aug 13, 2013

If it actually worked, then England (The most filmed country in Western Europe, along with London is the most filmed city in the world) and The USA would be safer places to live, would be next to no crime. Instead they are light years from The Western European And Democratic Socialist Countries' rates of crime.

We all deep down know what works, but far, far and far too many of us are so SINCE THE EX-USA PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN & EX-UK PRIME MINISTER MARGARET THATCHER BRAINWASHED (NO, YOU WILL NEVER BE RICH IN THESE TWO-CAPITALISM FIRST AND FOREMOST COUNTRIES), GREEDY & ME & I FOCUSED!!!

9:39AM PDT on Aug 13, 2013

Diana S.,

You been brainwashed to believe that it only VIOLATES THE USA CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIC RIGHTS of people that are criminals, like everyone else are invisible, and that it works!

9:37AM PDT on Aug 13, 2013

Thank You; AWESOME ARTICLE; as www.ThomHartmann.com says in his Gomer Piel (sp?) accent, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise". What happening in one of The USA Cities that has more poor of all resources, than rich of all resources and non-Whites, than White, shocked I tell you, shocked.

8:28AM PDT on Aug 12, 2013

Signed, thanks

8:01AM PDT on Aug 11, 2013

What if the drone "thinks" you are performing a
criminal activity and blows you to kingdom come?
Is that all right too?

8:25AM PDT on Aug 9, 2013

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Oakland is one of the highest-crime cities between here and Sacramento (with Richmond running neck-and-neck with Oakland for the title of WORST high-crime city).

The problem with high-crime centers is that their criminal population doesn't STAY in their own cities, they invade other cities, and suddenly crime becomes a major issue for everyone!

I not only fully support the idea of a centralized, fully functioning and fully equipped Domain Awareness Centers, I'd like to see the idea expanded with fully ARMED drones, so that when the cameras record crimes being committed, the drones can fly in and summarily EXECUTE the perpetrators (yeah, I know, that's hardly gonna happen with the ACLU pissing and moaning about CRIMINALS' "civil rights").

Quite frankly, I do not give a flying f**k about the rights of criminals and gangstas, I DO care about my, my family's, My neighbors', and my friends' safety, well-being, and continued longevity. If that means 24-7 surveillance of the criminal element and their environs, SO MUCH THE BETTER!!! I can think of a lot worse things to waste my tax dollars on than the safety of innocent civilians!!!

12:46AM PDT on Aug 8, 2013

Marc P- "The ONLY thing cameras do is generate a great revenue stream for towns and the companies that monitor them"

That's the part they don't get.

7:13PM PDT on Aug 7, 2013

another town I do not want to visit and another reason not to.

5:14PM PDT on Aug 7, 2013

The point of my post ( I guess to another "douchebag" if you were born in Canada) is that you have bigger things to worry about than cameras.....You feel free to come to Canada and follow anyone you choose around.....And in reference to another post you made on another thread.."I wonder if you are smarter than your pig or your dog"....either way, you're not too palatable.

4:53PM PDT on Aug 7, 2013

Mary B.; No. Our country is not doing to well. That is the responsibility of the citizens. And I was born in Canada. I don't plan on going back due to the numerous snivelling, holier-than-thou douchebags that live there. Having said that I completely agree with Theresa's comment and the fact that America has MANY serious problems. What exactly does that have to do with the topic of cameras everywhere? Are cameras in my town going to fix the economy? You think cameras STOP crime? They DO NOT - They record the crime WHILE IT IS OCCURRING! The ONLY thing cameras do is generate a great revenue stream for towns and the companies that monitor them. I don't care who you are. You could be a saint. If I follow you around every single day, watching every single thing you do, sooner or later I will find something to be able to arrest you for. that is NOT what this country is supposed to be all about!

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

meet our writers

Kristina Chew Kristina Chew teaches and writes about ancient Greek and Latin and is Online Advocacy and Marketing... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.