Seattle City Council put reins on police surveillance cameras
Mar 18, 2013, 4:30 PM | Updated: Mar 19, 2013, 3:43 am
The Seattle City Council has passed new legislation requiring Seattle Police and other departments to get approval from lawmakers before using surveillance cameras. (City of Seattle image)
(City of Seattle image)
If the Seattle Police Department wants to start using its network of surveillance cameras installed around the city, it’ll have to get approval from the City Council first. That’s the gist of a new measure unanimously approved Monday by the Council.
Under the legislation, The Council would have to sign off on any City department proposals to acquire certain surveillance equipment. It also requires Council review and approval of department protocols for operating the surveillance equipment and managing the data collected by it.
The new restrictions were prompted by public outcry over the Seattle Police Department’s recently installed network of 34 cameras across the city that were put in without public notice. The cameras were paid for by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security.
“With this inclusive legislation, the Council is proactively setting up a framework to ensure the public is involved regarding the use of surveillance equipment,” said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, chair of the Public Safety, Civil Rights, and Technology committee.
“The bottom line is we are going to have an open and transparent conversation whenever surveillance equipment is used in this city. It will not be the sort of situation where residents, businesses and citizens wake up and find that Big Brother is indeed snooping upon their privacy rights,” Harrell said
The legislation requires Seattle Police to file a plan and seek approval within 30 days of Mayor McGinn signing the measure into law detailing the purpose and plans for using the surveillance equipment, how the data will be collected and stored and who has access to it.
The new law allows exemptions for specific criminal investigations on a temporary basis if SPD or other agencies obtain a search warrant.
“For me, the question is should a free society allow personal activities that occur in public to come under 24/7 surveillance? I think that this legislation strikes a balance that provides for safety without compromising the principles of our democracy,” said Councilmember Nick Licata.
The measure was passed despite vocal opposition in public testimony before the vote. The ACLU argued the measure lacks “teeth”, and unsuccessfully called on the Council to delay the vote and add language requiring a formal process overseen by the City Auditor be added to the legislation.
