To the Editor,
The decision by the City of Seattle’s International Special District Review to approve cameras – electronic surveillance – in the Chinatown-International District is a mistake. In 2011, I opposed the imposition of 14 cameras organized by Nora Chan of Seniors in Action. That was a mistake then as it is now, again.
This is not Mayor Harrell’s first attempt to single out a community of color. Harrell wanted to impose his ‘data driven’ solutions to impose an electronic ShotSpotter program in the Rainier Valley and the Central District. That is discriminatory and shameful coming from a biracial man whose mother had a shop in the C-ID.
Electronic surveillance is unconstitutional
First, cameras – electronic surveillance – are an unreasonable and overly broad invasion of the general public’s right to privacy, free speech and assembly. We are supposed to enjoy the right to ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Camera surveillance violates that Constitutional assumption and can result in false positives.
The cameras act as an overly broad and intrusive dragnet photographing and recording 99% of the general public – without their knowledge or notification (even the City notifies motorists of traffic cameras).
Note the City previously refused to provide funding for these cameras due to the Privacy Act (by SIFA’s Nora Chan’s own admission).
The creep of digital authoritarianism that violates our Constitutional rights into our community is the effect of imposing electronic surveillance in the C-ID.
Lack of civil protections
Where are the guardrails? What are the limits or controls, or lack thereof, on electronic surveillance camera usage? The police department will be in a position to increase the quality of their technology and the number of cameras – and will inevitably be tempted or pressured to do so.
While the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution offers some protection against video searches conducted by the police, there are currently no general, legally enforceable rules to limit privacy invasions and protect against abuse of CCTV systems.
The City’s Office of Civil Rights has noted in a memo a ‘lack of clarity on what crimes surveillance will be used to investigate; a lack of clarity on what automated analytic tools will be used; and how unapproved tools will be avoided.” They also noted insufficient outreach to pilot communities and “did not substantiate claims that it would address human trafficking and gun violence.”
The CCTV cameras will store video – and audio. Yet there have long been well-established rules governing the audio recording of individuals without their consent (there is a reason surveillance cameras never have microphones). It makes no sense that we don’t have equivalent laws for video recording.
Federal overreach
Significantly, “All requests for data from Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities are referred to the Mayor’s Office Legal Counsel in accordance with the Mayoral Directive.” There is no guarantee that a federal order from the current administration to divulge data would not supercede the power of the Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel to deny, putting already marginalized individuals at risk of detention, prosecution, deportation and/imprisonment.
As long as there is no clear consensus about where we draw the line on surveillance to protect American values, public CCTV is in danger of evolving into an uncontrolled surveillance monster.
Where is the research?
I also note a rush to implementation by the City and the SPD without evidence of supporting data and research as well as public input, discussion and consent to justify such an unconstitutional burden on the C-ID.
Disproportionate effects on people of color
Finally, the imposition of electronic surveillance on the Chinatown-International District but not other Seattle communities, disproportionately singles out, stereotypes and stigmatizes our community – one of elders, immigrants, small businesses, low income folks and people of color.
We seem unable to escape the stereotype and stigma of being a crime-ridden community and installing cameras to surveil for crime reinforces the public’s impression of the C-ID.
The CID’s Public Safety Committee chair, Gary Lee, advocated for siting this surveillance test pilot here. Yet, the C-ID has always been the City’s and County’s go-to community such as the low-barrier, self-injection site at the Navigation Center in Little Saigon and the ill-conceived County project to expand an existing homeless shelter in Seattle’s Sodo neighborhood, close to the Chinatown International District. The plan was terminated when faced with fierce community opposition. The Navigation Center has yet to be closed despite community opposition and well-documented instances of violence, property destruction, drug use and trade and loss of livelihood not to mention distress to residents, business owners and visitors so vital to the economic viability of the community.
Finally, the CID and Little Saigon, by Mr. Lee’s estimation, is disproportionately saturated with low-income housing and services compared to the rest of the city. How much more can our community be expected to absorb not to mention the stigma/stereotypes and the poverty that make such burdens unsustainable?
Better solutions
There are better solutions. Individual businesses could use their own cameras and alarm monitoring systems to protect their businesses.
I urge the ISRD to consider the use of environmental design as a means of improving public safety as well as aesthetic options for the C-ID.
“See something, say something” and block watch organizing have proven to be effective proactive (as opposed to reactive) actions to prevent crime.
People-based solutions are always better than data-driven, digital, impersonal, intrusive and unproven methods. There are no acceptable short cuts to saving the C-ID, only approaches that seek to address the roots of the dysfunctions in the Chinatown-International District. We cannot police our way to public safety nor turn over the responsibility for the well-being of our community to technology-driven approaches.
Cameras are a reactive, regressive solution to ultimately restoring the health of our community. Cameras are ‘lazy policing’ when in fact, identifying and addressing the root causes (as Little Saigon is doing) of poverty and resultant crime and discrimination/racism are sorely needed.
Cameras won’t fix this community’s human problems and will only provide a false sense of security whilst criminalizing everyone who lives or visits the Chinatown-International District.
ACLU of Washington comment on the City of Seattle expediting a proposed program to deploy a CCTV network and a Real Time Crime Center system to surveil city neighborhoods. News Release: Wednesday, September 25, 2024.
Tee Sannon, ACLU of Washington technology policy director, had the following reaction:
“We are deeply concerned about the City’s efforts to deploy CCTV cameras and real-time crime center (RTCC) software despite evidence that these technologies do not reduce violent crime and disproportionately harm communities of color. SPD’s use of RTCC software would make it possible for ICE and out-of-state agencies to access data to arrest immigrants and prosecute people coming to Seattle for reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare while bypassing state protections. The safeguards offered by SPD will not be sufficient in preventing these harms. Despite these serious risks, the proposals are being rushed without full consideration of the Community Surveillance Working Group’s and the public’s concerns. Seattle deserves public safety solutions that work, not empty promises at the cost of civil liberties and the well-being of the city’s most marginalized communities.”
I am a lifelong resident of Seattle and a resident of the CD and C-ID. I like to write about social justice issues involving my community. For 15 years I hosted a community radio show of Mexican and Chicano music that I created myself after having lived in Tucson, Arizona.
