East Bay Installing Hundreds Of Surveillance Cameras To Deter Crime
previous post
© Copyright 2023 Claycord News & Talk
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Subscribe to our newsletter!
© Copyright 2023 Claycord News & Talk
Cameras do not “deter” crime, they record it. Then, all the information is given to the police, and then the DA. We’ve given authorities license plate numbers, clear face shots, even social media accounts and the thief’s cell phone number. Reality is, nothing happens.
We stopped installing regular cameras years ago, and now only offer Analytic AI systems that set up specific actions should someone breach a property’s perimeter. Regular security systems only provide victims a nice 4k video of all their stuff leaving to be shared with friends.
Chime in if you feel anything I’ve said above is untrue.
Actually I can only 100% agree with you!
And they’ll be as effective as all those Ring doorbells which just allow homeowner to view their items being stolen off their porches. No one ever gets caught. 🤷🏻♀️
The technology in the flock product is extensive. It can recognize make, model, color, additional accessories like a roof rack. Gun shot recognition also. Make it so the criminals have no place to hide.
They don’t need to hide. There is ZERO consequence. Look at retail stores. Their only solution was to lock everything behind plexiglass. Until the system changes, this is the reality.
Maybe you haven’t seen all the recent arrests made for retail crimes?
I haven’t !!! Haven’t read about any !! What planet do you live on ? Because it is just recently that the governor passed the law that stealing for your lower amount of money. I think a thousand dollars can be a crime that you can go to jail for now .
But no, I have not seen anybody reported. Going to jail for smash and grabs yet at all.
Maybe leave your house then…
Big difference between arrested and incarcerated.
First you have to get the DA to prosecute, then a jury to convict, judge to sentence. And all the while, they are probably out with no bail requirement.
I was thinking the same. So you catch the criminsls but they’ll be let go anyway. I do worry a bit though that if criminals who are camera-shy in Oakland will now be coming out our way instead after Oakland puts up its 400 cameras.
Just remember all of those features can be used against those not in the favored group. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” Lavrentiy Beria
Read more at: https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/
Deter crime?? Why?? No one gets prosecuted anymore, much less serves any jail time. Maybe this is just the beginning of the Surveillance Society. This is a waste of money, a violation of our privacy, and will accomplish nothing. Laws only work on honest people. It seems that there are less and less of them around. It’s time to start locking people up again.
North Carolina Trooper Rodney Cook is a far more effective deterrent than cameras.
“Once someone (or some entity) starts using surveillance tech, the downward slope is extremely slippery: no matter how noble the motive for developing and deploying it, the tech can always be used for more malicious purposes. For Chin and Lin, China shows how the “good” and “bad” uses of surveillance tech are always intertwined.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/10/10/1060982/china-pandemic-cameras-surveillance-state-book/
1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual–G.Orwell
These cameras track and record info on everyone without probable cause. Your info – yes, reader, yours specifically not just “criminals’ ” – is saved and and shared with other law enforcement agencies and can be subpoenaed by ANYONE or ANY GOVERNMENT ENTITY. Flock’s rep initially lied to Concord City Council that the company does not produce info in response to subpoenas but admitted in writing to council and staff that they do after I showed them it is right in the contract with Flock that any info, including yours, is subject to being disclosed in response to a subpoena. Allowing law enforcement to openly violate everyone’s right to privacy is not worth the small number of crimes this might deter. Not long now until the police figure out a way to make something about your travel pattern illegal or evidence to accuse you of something or fine you to increase revenue. You don’t think Oswald was the first, only, or last patsy, do you?
I believe case law has settled that there is no right to privacy in public, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to install a surveillance system. There is almost a 100% chance this is used in the future for revenue generating purposes, or to find crimes against disfavored individuals and groups for purposes of retribution and lawfare.
You’ll get a speeding ticket at home, with a link to a video clip of you driving down the freeway, a fine for a cracked windshield, etc.
lol so upset over nothing. There is no expectation of privacy in public. End of story.
I am not a proponent of government surveillance cameras outside of sensitive government owned areas but generally speaking, no one, not the police or a private person needs “probable cause” to video tape images or take photographs in public. That is self-evident by the police using body worn and vehicle installed cameras and the popularity of Ring door bell cameras by the general public.
One cannot expect to have a reasonable expectation of a high degree of privacy for things put into a public space for anyone to see.
No one is invisible in pubic. That does not mean you can take a picture up someone’s dress or record a private conversation in public but no law prevents a person from taking pictures or recording someone walking down a public street nude while they are screaming at the top of their lungs either.
BLUE KNIGHT,
.
You can record private conversations that take place in public places.
California Code, Penal Code – PEN § 632
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
BLUE KNIGHT,
.
Did you read what you posted?
.
“(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”
.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public. We have a First Amendment right to record whatever we can see and hear, while in public.
.
I hope your user name “BLUE KNIGHT” doesn’t refer to you being a peace officer, if you don’t understand what the law says that you yourself posted, because you yourself posted what PUBLIC circumstances are EXCLUDED from this law.
a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
My bad
California Penal Code 632
BLUE KNIGHT,
.
Did you read what you posted?
.
“(c) For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”
.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in public. We have a First Amendment right to record whatever we can see and hear while in public.
.
I hope your user name “BLUE KNIGHT” doesn’t refer to you being a peace officer, if you don’t understand what the law says that you yourself posted, because you yourself posted what PUBLIC circumstances are EXCLUDED from this law.
The Devil is in the details, and yes Black Knight I did read what I posted. Did you?
The elements of Penal Code 632
1) 2 or more people communicate by electronic device other than a radio or IN PERSON.
2) The communication was INTENDED to be PRIVATE
3) A person LISTENED TO or RECORDED a CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION by means of an ELECTRONIC AMPLIFYING or RECORDING DEVICE without the CONSENT of all parties to the confidential communication.
NO where in the law does it require the confidential communication to be held in a SCIF or behind closed doors. The law states any communication without limitations on location so long as the involved parties intended for the communication to be CONFIDENTIAL and took reasonable precautions.
For example: 2 people are seated at a park bench by themselves having a conversation and a person used a boom mike and camera to recorded their private conversation.
Example: A person places a voice activated recording device under a park bench to record any and all conversations that occur on or around that park bench.
The reason why subsection “C” was added was because the State Legislation intended this section to be applied in public and they wanted to make it crystal clear that for it to be violation of the law the communication was intended to be private. Speaking at a public forum such at a City Council meeting cannot be construed as private communication when speaking to a room full of people that is also simulcast.
FYI – when the SCOTUS rules on the privacy in public they are interpreting the 4th Amendment and how it applies to the Executive Branch’s law enforcement duties. Under United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) the SCOTUS ruled the protections afforded under the 4th Amendment protects private persons in the United States against the Government and their agents. The 4th Amendment DOES NOT prohibit a private person, not a agent of the Government from searching and seizing items of YOURS.
Under the 10th Amendment the individual states have the authority to enact law to protect individuals and property within their borders. Hence the reason why a person who enters into an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit grand or petty theft is charge with Burglary and not Constitutional violation of the 4th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment also allows the state to enact legislation such as PC 632 which is intended to protect a private person from the actions of another private person not an agent of the Government.
I find it humorous that a person who railed against the dangers of the Government using surveillance cameras takes umbrage against the same Government that attempts to codify private communications or are you still embarrassed by your stop sign faux pas?
BLUE KNIGHT,
.
Is that your best attempt to try to insult me? I guess when the average IQ for a peace officer is only 104, we just can’t trust the Pleasant Hill Police Department to put out complete information, as they obviously didn’t when they released the information on new stop signs and speed humps. No embarrassment on my part, I worked with the information presented by the Pleasant Hill Police Department, as did every other Claycordian posting comments.
.
I did notice something in your post that I didn’t catch before, you changed the subject from “Private conversation” to “Confidential communication.” I see you didn’t understand when I said
“you can record private conversations that take place in public places.” That’s why you changed the subject and went to the extreme of including situations such as hidden recording devices under a benches and and unseen booms recording conversations. The fact remains that it’s up to the individuals having a private conversation in a public place to create their own privacy because you can record what you can see and hear in public.
.
The fact that I’m anti-government cameras, tolerant of corporate and small business cameras as long as they’re only used for security purposes and not used in conjunction with artificial intelligence and/or recognition technologies to identify law abiding customers, and I’m generally OK with citizens recording in public isn’t very funny, but go ahead and laugh away.
.
You sound so much like Concord City Councilmember Laura Hoffmeister when she was making the argument that government cameras are the same as residents having a Ring camera or cameras on their homes.
.
I’m currently in downtown Concord around Todos Santos Plaza right now, wearing my personal body-worn camera, recording what I can see and hear in public. Should I wait for the police to arrest me?
If there is no threat of incarceration,
there is no deterrence to criminal behavior
.
‘Gavin Newsom has closed 3 California prisons.
Now lawmakers are planning to shut down more’
https://tinyurl.com/3dxjuwy7
.
CA DEMs really care about your SAFTEY
https://tinyurl.com/yf8k9b9x
I can’t imagine newsome kick back is on this deal.
Unless criminals are prosecuted quickly and harshly, nothing will change.
Maybe they’ll record they guy with an open flame selling chicken illegally at the gas station on Market St and Willow Pass! Not to mention all the other pop-up Hispanic food stalls that are not regulated or taxed. The city needs to take control of this it’s getting out of hand!
Illegals and addicts are below the law. They are left alone. The elite are above the law, they can buy their own rules. The law is for you.
WAGE SLAVE,
.
So true!!! The law is only good for those that follow the law and those that fear the law.
So filthy,just like people trying to sell you burritos and tamales they made in their home kitchen on Facebook with the doors and windows open,,no bugscreens,and lots of flies.New arrivals dont use bug screens,old ones dont either.
Atleast they ain’t begging or stealing
So law abiding citizens are filmed even more than we are already so pictures of thugs can be taken and there will be no consequences to them and they know it. They have already been on camera and just wave at the cameras. Until we get a criminal system that actually does its job a waste of tax dollars. They have tied the hands of the police This is a joke
Isn’t this a violation of your privacy?
Let’s put cameras around Newsom’s Mansion and in Sacrament to watch him and his exceptional family spend all our money and make sure he is really working!
You think a camera on the freeway is in invasion of your privacy? It’s reading license plates not looking down your shirt. With all the road rage and 180 shot up cars, this helps them track these guys. It’s a great thing.
How much did Newsum pay you for your lip service? You do know that they release these criminals immediately right…
Company installed dozens of new higher res cameras in our store. Know how much it put a dent in theft? Zero.
Every thief knows employees can’t touch them, that anything less than $940 is a misdemeanor in theory, totally unprosecuted in reality, and that there is generally zero downside to just taking what you want.
Until there are actual consequences for freeway shootings, gang activity, drug dealing, organized theft, etc, no amount of surveillance will change anything. Just make us all less free.
If these cameras actually “deter crime,” then they’re only moving crime to other areas without cameras.
.
This isn’t about deterring crime, this is about the mass surveillance of the law abiding population so that government can find “crimes.” The government can get something on anyone and get anyone on something. How will this data collection be paired with artificial intelligence and data mining operations? One of the first things that will come of this is government knowing your traveling patterns, when government has no need for this information. This technology was first sold to us as license plate reading cameras, but now it’s expanded to identifying the make, model, and unique identifying features of an individuals personal and private property and conveyance, in other words, it’s an individual vehicle recognition system. In the City of Concord we were told that NO recognition systems would be used in this surveillance system. More lies from government!!!
This is obviously meant to surveil the law abiding. Mass surveillance is the goal.
Remember when Newsome had all his cronies for a huge meal at the French Laundry during lockdowns? The lockdowns where people couldn’t even visit their dying relatives in hospital?
The man should be removed from power immediately. It’s a mockery of justice.
To deter,or just film people in masks and hoodies?
Criminals hide their license plates by stealing other people’s license plates and installing them on their own vehicles or other stolen vehicles.
Criminals use masks, hoodies, gloves and similar clothing to conceal their identity.
Criminals when caught are given a slap on the wrist and are out of custody almost immediately.
This surveillance is completely tyrannical and will be used against Us, the good people and not the criminals!
This exists all over the UK. You can’t blow your nose in public without being seen somewhere on someone’s monitor.
“If you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you care?” doesn’t work for me.
With face recognition and cameras all over, and the fact that law is whatever the people in power want it to be, this is dangerous for everyone.
Look at TX, where a woman can be charged with murder for having an abortion – it just happened when she used a pill, then had to go to the hospital when there was no heartbeat anymore.
What WAS legal can easily become ILLEGAL at the drop of a hat – and then the infrastructure is in place to catch people doing it.
You want to protest something you disagree with? Watch out!
No wonder protesters wear masks now. Facial recognition is so advanced, you can be identified by just your eyebrows. Fact.
You didn’t think they were letting crime run wild for nothing? They did it to justify the next phase in police state.
Yep BINGO this is all that it is
How exactly is this a deterrent? They don’t charge or release criminals immediately after an arrest, this will only encourage criminal filth to smile & say cheese for the camera.
It’s a terrible tragedy that happened, but unfortunately, installing cameras would not have prevented this. If cameras worked, places like London (75 cameras per 1,000 people) would be totally crime-free. Hell, the United States as a whole already has the most CCTV cameras per capita in the world—16 cameras per 100 people. That’s more cameras per 100 people in the US than are in China or the UK… places known for having a TON of cameras.
But the common feature is all these places still have cameras. Lots of them. And they still have crime. China has less crime because the punishments are much more draconian. UK has less gun crime because historical guns were only owned by the aristocratic elite and are still extremely hard to come by otherwise in that country. Heck, in the UK, they have special outfits for the police who carry guns because most cops don’t.
I’m not against cameras, I have several on my house. But guess what? My neighbors car across the street still got broken into. I have the footage of the break-in, the cameras are not subtle, clearly the thieves saw the camera. But guess what? “A couple of possibly males adults riding bikes, wearing masks and hoodies” is not exactly useful description. Maybe it would help convict someone if the cops already had suspects, but … it won’t make a difference.
Also, we know how the police and governments WILL misuse this information. It’s happened repeatedly with cameras and ALPR’s across the country. Until such time as we have a GDPR-like data privacy law that is enforced to the maximum… this camera data is just going to end up being misused. Our police already prey on minority groups to a level that is absolutely insane, look at how many black vs white arrests/convictions there are for illegal drugs. Do you mean to tell me that affluent white folk in the ‘burbs don’t have at least as many drugs (if not more) than poor people in the ghetto? Imagine what the cops will do when they can cross reference your vehicle with your demographics and start arresting every black person who could have possibly driven into the area of a crime.
Are some cameras probably useful? Yes. Would they help narrow down the suspect list and help with convictions? Yes. But we’ve got to be REALLY careful about how many and how they are used. On the flip side we know spending millions on mental health professionals, prison diversion programs and drug rehab WILL be a net benefit to these ailing communities. It’s just not sexy and politically expedient. It takes years for numbers to reflect the benefits.
And as for “arrests and convictions” coming from these cameras? It’s just KPI’s by another name. As Goodhart’s law says “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.
You have to prosecute crime, not record it to make a difference.
Yep this is a scam and waste of taxpayers dollars. I just did a post on it. Read it when you get a chance
What’s stopping Travon and Tyrone from shooting out the cameras?? Hmmm?
I’m seeing a lot of comments in here where people do not approve that the cameras. I’m in the same mindset. Maybe we need to get together and raise awareness and put a stop to this. They need to use those funds for other things like prosecution, fingerprinting ECT
JOSHUA CARDONE,
.
All 5 -members of the Concord City Council are pro-license plate reading cameras, pro-government surveillance cameras, and pro-Concord Police Departments use of recording drones. The answer is always the same, it’s for “public safety,” in other words “Shutup, it’s for your own good!”
I’m an ex-convict. I grew up in Concord my whole life. I spent 10 years in a system just for protecting myself against a bully. And I could assure you as an ex-convict and someone who understands how the streets work. These cameras won’t do nothing at the end of the day to deter crime. These guys do not care about the cameras because there is no prosecution. Furthermore, the cameras are more for the purpose of a surveillance society on its own citizens and not upon the crime. Also will not help with stolen cars. They put fake license plates on the cards. It’s a waste of taxpayers dollars for these cameras. Why can’t you guys add funds like fingerprint on cars. When are stolen and stuff like that. When my Camaro was recovered after being stolen and stripped nobody’s fingerprinted my car nor do they check the cameras where the car was dumped right in front of. I found the dude stole it and his house. That system didn’t do anything because there’s no funds to do it. Thank defund the police for it.This is a scam. This is crap. I didn’t know we approve them to use our funds to put up cameras