The Police Commission is about to decide whether to install 25 new surveillance cameras in locations around San Francisco, including multiple cameras at 24th and Mission and 16th and Mission.
The Commission has supported the installation of cameras because it says "the community wants them."
San Francisco just announced it has finalized its contract with Earthlink/Google.
There are a couple of good notice provisions in the contract, but ultimately, SF failed to protect the privacy and free speech rights of its residents.
On Wednesday, November 15, the San Francisco Police Commission voted to expand the City's video surveillance program to an additional six locations. The Commission approved the expansion over objections raised by ACLU of Northern California regarding inadequate notice to the community, privacy concerns, and the failure of the City to provide any evidence that cameras are an effective deterrent, as required by San Francisco Administrative Code.
California has a long history of treating all people with fairness, and we are hopeful that the Court will agree that it violates that fundamental fairness to deny same-sex couples and their families the dignity and respect that comes through marriage.
While studies from around the world show that video surveillance is not effective in preventing or reducing violent crime, another Northern California city is moving to install cameras.
Senator Joe Simitian introduced four RFID bills into the California legislature:
SB 30 - Identity Information Protection Act of 2007- privacy and security protections on the use of RFID tags in all California government-issued identification documents.
SB 28 – Prohibition of RFID tags in California driver's licenses.
SB 29 – Prohibition of RFID tags for the purpose of taking attendance in public schools.
SB 31 – Prohibition of reading (and attempted reading) of government document
Do you live, work, or walk around 16th and Mission?
A federal judge announced today his intention to issue a preliminary injunction stopping the City of Fresno from unlawfully destroying the personal property of thousands of homeless residents. The lawsuit, Kincaid v. City of Fresno, was filed in October and claims that the City has been violating the constitutional rights of homeless people by seizing and immediately destroying their personal property. Last month, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting this practice. Today’s ruling will remain in effect until the case goes to trial or is settled.
Real change starts with you – and every one of us can help make a difference.