Proposed video privacy ordinance a concern for some Ann Arbor council members
As video surveillance technology becomes more sophisticated and prevalent, Ann Arbor City Council Members Mike Anglin and Chuck Warpehoski argue there's a need to establish a regulatory framework that balances privacy protections and law enforcement needs.
The two 5th Ward council members put forward a new video privacy ordinance for consideration Monday night, but it ultimately was postponed by council until early July.
Ann Arbor City Council Member Chuck Warpehoski, D-5th Ward, tried to convince his colleagues to support a proposed video privacy ordinance Monday night, but others weren't comfortable moving it to second reading.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com file photo
Under the ordinance, public surveillance cameras that would be in place more than 15 days in residential areas could be installed only if two-thirds of nearby residents give written permission.
The cameras could be used for up to six months with an option for renewal. If there are no residents within 300 feet, the camera could be installed for up to a year with an option for renewal.
Public surveillance cameras that would be in place for 15 days or less could be installed at the discretion of the city administrator to address a specific criminal problem.
"The ordinance as presented is a rigorous effort to strike a balance between the needs and desires of city's law enforcement community and the privacy needs of our citizens," Warpehoski said, adding he's been hearing some people ask for a complete ban on municipal video surveillance and other people arguing the city shouldn't be tying the hands of the police department.
"When you pass ordinances to tie your own hands, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when there isn't a problem," said Council Member Stephen Kunselman, D-3rd Ward.
"We know all too well these surveillance cameras — when they're addressing real problems — do work," he added. "You only have to listen to the issues over in West Willow where the neighborhood is asking for this, and it is working when they want surveillance cameras to deter crime."
Council Members Sumi Kailasapathy, D-1st Ward, and Jane Lumm, an Independent from the 2nd Ward, also said they weren't entirely comfortable with what's being proposed.
Lumm said too many fundamental questions remain unanswered. She said she's not going to support the ordinance until she hears from Police Chief John Seto that he has no objections and that it does not compromise the police department's ability to do its job.
"While I understand that protecting public privacy is important, I also understand that surveillance is an essential and critical tool in police work, solving and preventing crimes, and we only have to look at the recent events in Boston to see confirmation of that," Lumm said.
"And most importantly, I trust the Ann Arbor Police Department and Chief Seto to judiciously and appropriately use surveillance cameras, balancing their need to optimize law enforcement while protecting privacy, and I'm not entirely convinced that this ordinance is necessary at all. No other municipalities in Michigan have an ordinance similar to this."
The ordinance would provide notice requirements for short-term and long-term installations of surveillance cameras, including onsite notice.
If a private residence is in a public surveillance camera's visual range, the ordinance states residents of the property must give written permission before a camera is installed.
Public surveillance cameras could not be used for live-monitoring, except in well-defined emergencies. Audio recording also would not be permitted.
Access to surveillance recordings would be limited to employees of the police department and attorneys involved in criminal proceedings. After 90 days, surveillance recordings would be deleted unless they were part of an ongoing investigation.
When a public surveillance camera is removed, a report on its effectiveness would be published on a public website.
The ordinance wouldn't regulate cameras that monitor city buildings and storage areas, cameras used for entertainment events or traffic studies, or private use of video surveillance cameras.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's email newsletters.
Comments
buildergirl
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 6:35 p.m.
Cameras in neighborhoods negate privacy if said camera can monitor your backyard with the privacy fence (isn't that why you put it up?) or inside your home. True, we know neighbors might be able to see a little if the shade isn't drawn or the yard is a bit open, but who thinks they are being watched all the time? How about recorded? Isn't that the issue here? If someone is watching you all the time and recording your actions it's called stalking (or paparazzi-seriously though, probably not in A2). There are laws protecting you from that invasion of privacy. Thanks, but no thanks. There must be someplace where we can expect a little freedom.
alan
Thu, Jun 20, 2013 : 4:25 p.m.
This has been ruled on multiple times by the supreme court. They can not monitor your backyard or the inside of your home without a warrant. They can monitor public places because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you voluntarily enter a public place.
G. Orwell
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 6:56 p.m.
We live in "1984" and most people are oblivious to it. Councilman Warpehoski could be prosing the ordinance because he knows history and dangers of Big Brother. More and more of what we do are being tracked and recorded. We do not live in a free society as long as we have no privacy. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
The Picker
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 1:07 a.m.
The system can't possibly sustain itself. Collapse is inevitable!
The Picker
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 1:03 a.m.
What me Worry ! Soon the Productive will no longer Produce.
Major
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:11 p.m.
Every time I step into my home, I have all the privacy in need, and my freedom! Better to embrace reality, than to deny it.
Goofus
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:35 p.m.
A2 City Council = Protecting the rights of teenagers to do graffiti citywide.
Boo Radley
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
I took a trip recently to the UK. There are cameras everywhere! I never had the feeling that my privacy was being invaded. Instead I felt much safer because of the cameras. The Boston Marathon Bombers/Terrorists might not have been apprehended if not for a surveillance camera. I am all for a much more extensive use of cameras to prevent and solve crimes (and they do work extremely well for that).
The Picker
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : noon
Didn't they just cut a guys head off in London ! It doesn't prevent crime it just documents it.
Rizzle
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5 p.m.
If we have to have cameras, the number one place I would put them is parking garages. Alot of crime going on in the garages - vandalism and property theft. The "attendants" certainly don't pay attention to what's happening. Next place is anywhere around south U where the students get rowdy.
JRW
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.
Whenever you walk into a Target, Meijer's, Costco, Sam's, Macy's, or any other retail establishment, you are on CCTV at every moment. And in their parking lots. I'd feel a lot safer walking around late at night in downtown AA if there were CCTV cameras, and so would a lot of other people, especially those who have been assaulted. Maybe the aggressive panhandlers would be caught as well. How about starting with CCTV over in Liberty Plaza? Want to make it a safe place for families? Put up CCTV.
will
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:41 p.m.
People are free to pick and choose retail establishments with different privacy policies. The state should make retail establishments provide better information to consumers so that they can make an informed choice. If cameras are in dressing rooms (illegal in michigan, but not in every state,) then customers should know about it. Public areas belong to the public, and we are free to decide if we want the police to videotape us constantly. If the city uses surveillance cameras, they should be for the temporary monitoring of high crime areas, and not long term surveillance of neighborhoods against the wishes of nearby residents. The video privacy ordinance allows for targeted surveillance , but not mass surveillance.
jcj
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:28 p.m.
Should have said.. They will not prevent all CRIME, but they will prevent some crime.
jcj
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:27 p.m.
Anyone that thinks cameras are not a deterrent is just being foolish. NOBODY said they will prevent crime! But they will make them think when they know they are being filmed.
Ignatz
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:23 p.m.
If CCTVs do prevent crime, why is there so much footage of people committing them? Criminals act that way because they think they are not going to get caught.
Boo Radley
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:13 p.m.
CCTV does prevent crimes. The more knowledge people have that they are being watched, the more they reconsider any crime they may have been contemplating.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.
Why do you feel safer? CCTV does not prevent crime. It makes it easier to catch the perps *after* a crime has been committed. How does that make anyone safer?
r2scoot
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:24 p.m.
Camera are not going to deter crime, people become used to them or are don't care that they are being watched. People are on camera all the time and think nothing of it.
jcj
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:25 p.m.
Not true! Only the dumbest of criminals don't care if they are on camera!
Townspeak
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:35 p.m.
If in public there is no expectation of privacy. Waste of time to be discussing this issue. Put camera in the entire downtown area. DDA should be paying for it in parking structures and elsewhere in its realm.
JRW
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.
Absolutely.
HermanP
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Lets get an ordinance that requires two thirds of the residence to approve any new ordinance before it can be introduced by any member of City Council.
nickcarraweigh
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
Once everything gets done rolling downhill and everybody's under surveillance all the time, we are going to need a lot more jail space.
jcj
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:23 p.m.
Hope your right Craig. But most criminals can't add numbers let alone crunch them.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.
or less jail space as potential criminals crunch the odds of getting caught.
genetracy
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:56 p.m.
Public video cameras will violate the civil rights of the homeless.
David Cahill
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
The City presently does not allow surveillance cameras. This fact was not made clear in the article. So the proposed ordinance would allow the camel's nose in the tent. We are in the midst of a huge national scandal over the abuse of surveillance by federal cops. Why should we trust our local cops not to abuse this ordinance?
will
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:30 p.m.
The city presently does allow surveillance cameras. There are cameras in city buildings and parking structures, and there are cameras looking onto residential areas near the waste treatment plant. There are no rules forbidding the police or another agency from creating a camera system that covers the city and looks onto back yards and windows, which is why the video privacy ordinance is necessary. If you proposed a complete ban on surveillance cameras, like the one you say already exists, neither city council or the majority of residents would approve of it. The video privacy ordinance is a good compromise between people who want to use surveillance cameras and those who want privacy protections.
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:53 p.m.
"Did you not hear about the Boston marathon bombings? If it were not for CCTV, the bombers would not have been caught. " All the powers of a modern police state: monitoring email, monitoring phone calls, CCTV -- did not prevent the bombing. So, what is the point of giving all this power to our NSA Overlords, if it does not prevent terrorism?
EyeHeartA2
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:13 p.m.
"Did you not hear about the Boston marathon bombings? If it were not for CCTV, the bombers would not have been caught. " Not worth it tell you!! A couple of people legs and a few 8 lives are worth less to me than my "right" to privacy. - and somehow AA residents get labeled a s self centered and arrogant. How could that be?
SonnyDog09
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:57 p.m.
I love watching the footage from cop operated surveillance cameras when they continually zoom in on hot chicks. I love knowing that my tax dollars are hard at work. It makes me feel safe.
JRW
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:48 p.m.
Did you not hear about the Boston marathon bombings? If it were not for CCTV, the bombers would not have been caught. If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from CCTV. If you are a criminal, then good luck. CCTV will help catch the perps. It's harder to abuse law abiding citizens when there is video evidence. I've read plenty of reports about police abuse of people being arrested, with the police were subsequently fired after a review of the surveillance showing the abuse. I'll take my chances with CCTV.
nowayjose
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:27 p.m.
You're right. No one can be trusted, everyone's corrupt. Run for your lives. Marshal law! Marshal law!
JRW
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:54 p.m.
This ordinance is just nonsense. Do other cities go through this kind of bureaucratic gymnastics? Do NY, Boston, Portland, etc, go through all these convoluted "ordinances" when they install surveillance cameras? I doubt it. Just put cameras permanently in places that are likely to be high crime areas, in commercial zones, near schools, shopping malls and around bridges to catch the graffiti vandals. Other cities do this all the time. AA wants to be a "big city" (and compares itself to NY, Boston, Portland, etc) when it comes to building high rises and increasing urban density, mass transit rail projects and the like, but not when it comes to surveillance that goes with being a big city. AA, you can't have it both ways. Either act like the "big city" you purport yourself to be when it comes to "development" or stop the development, take down the cameras and think of yourself as "Mayberry."
buildergirl
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 6:41 p.m.
Cameras in high traffic public places is different say right outside your home. It just happens to be facing the general direction of your home. Maybe you are ok and feel safer as all those thieves that have been burgling your home are now deterred. It's much better to have your kids in the yard constantly recorded too right? Maybe even inside you home too? So much "safer".
will
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:17 p.m.
Big cities do have ordinances regulating surveillance cameras. The 2006 San Francisco Community Safety Camera Ordinance requires police commission approval before cameras are installed. Some of the language in the Ann Arbor ordinance is taken directly from the one in San Fransisco. Seattle recently passed In Ordinance 124142, which regulates how the police department can purchase surveillance equipment.
fjord
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.
I, for one, welcome our new CCTV overlords.
HermanP
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.
"could be installed only if two-thirds of nearby residents give written permission." What if there is a large apartment building or hospital within Anglin and Warpehoski's zone of another stupid and attention getting ordinance? By the time a two thirds majority is polled and signatures obtained it would be too late. On the other hand the people who don't give permission might need to be looked at a little more closely (unintended backlash of an ordinance based on emotion and not logic). I don't think the victims of the Boston marathon would like this idea very much.
Tano
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.
The article is quite clear that the 2/3 requirement is only for cameras that would be in place for more that 15 days. The city would have the power to install cameras for shorter periods (like surveilling a marathon) at its own discretion without any input from residents.
garrisondyer
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
.....Meanwhile the British can't wait for the new highly-promoted reality TV show: The Real Real World - Ann Arbor.
kelly
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 12:24 a.m.
Nothing about Ann Arbor suggests "reality."
Major
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.
This is really simple, if you are in public, you have no right to privacy. Privacy defined: The condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.....The state of being concealed; secrecy.....A private place. The condition of being necessarily restricted to a single person. When in public, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance cameras, google street view, news copters, Goodyear Blimp, news camera's, commercial UAV's/UAS's, cell phone cam's etc., etc.
will
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:11 p.m.
All of us depend on privacy in public each day. Your person and bags cannot be searched without probable cause, and your public conversations cannot be recorded without your consent or a warrant. If someone takes a picture of you in public, under most circumstances they cannot publish that photograph without your consent. The supreme court ruled that there is a right to privacy in public in Katz vs. The United States. The question is how much privacy in public do we deserve, and the video privacy ordinance strikes a good balance.
Boo Radley
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:03 p.m.
I'm not surprised you are picking up a lot of down votes ... but you are exactly right.
arborani
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:29 p.m.
Written permission from two thirds of nearby residents? (Define "nearby"?) By the time this was accomplished, some will have moved - then just start over? I wouldn't support this measure, but I would support upgrading public surveillance to where the film/tape can present a clear picture.
Billy
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
Considering our neighborhood just got hit by a rash of car thefts last week (hey maybe you guys could do a followup report on that) I'd be more than happy for the city to put some cameras up that monitor the streets and intersections. Of course I'd like to see what kind of financial costs this would incur first, since our city council is about as responsible with money as a trust fund princess is...
Gill
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
I think the cameras are cheaper than a stake out.
jcj
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:48 p.m.
Strange that someone that post so much information on facebook would propose a privacy ordinance.
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:36 p.m.
"And most importantly, I trust the Ann Arbor Police Department" Sure, sure. During the serial rapes of the 90's, the Ann Arbor police conducted broad sweeps of the african american community and drew blood from 54 suspects who were "black" and "muscular" for DNA testing. It did not solve the case, nor contribute to the resolution of the case.
Tano
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 3:04 p.m.
I can understand the police being a bit desperate as they try to stop some unknown person from committing horrendous crimes, given that they have very little to go on, except that they also have a very good, and highly specific indentifier. You would really rather that they didn't use that tool even if it successfully solves the case and prevents more people from being victimized? If DNA were not an issue, then what would the police do? Wouldn't they go out and do targeted interviews with possible suspects who match the verbal description? If a witness described a perp as seven-foot tall, bald, with only one arm, would it be unfair of the police to round up, for questioning only, all people who matched that description? With appropriate safeguards in place (e.g. the mandatory destruction of the sample if it doesn't match the crime-scene sample), then what exactly is the problem for innocent people who are sampled? You say that they would never try that with whites because of the numbers involved - which is a practical objection, not a principled objection. If there were a sufficient number of descriptive factors (say,,white, blue eyes, <5'6", missing teeth etc.) at what point does it become acceptable to test someone? Is it really just a question of numbers?
Nicholas Urfe
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.
Yes. Because it was a desperate blanket search based on nothing more than extremely the vague "black", "muscular" and "male". If they were forcing blood draws on your demographic, rounding you up by the dozens - let's say white, muscular (or geeky), and male - wouldn't you object? They would have never tried that with whites because there are too many of them. It was widespread minority targetting, in my opinion.
Tano
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
Would you have found it objectionable if it had solved the case?
Jaime Magiera
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.
The proposed ordinance may not be the way answer to the question, but, like Northside, I think the question should be asked (on a regular basis). As more and more of our lives are exposed to government and private surveillance, we need to consider the impact.
walker101
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.
And most importantly, I trust the Ann Arbor Police Department and Chief Seto to judiciously and appropriately use surveillance cameras. This is just a start, next time they will tell us that they had to listen to our conversations and check random emails, I thought they just told us that A2's crime rate was on the down swing. Starting to sound too much like our current NSA administration.
walker101
Thu, Jun 20, 2013 : 9:55 p.m.
A2isnuts: funny that you should come up that analysis, I worked for the Internal Revenue Service in Detroit for almost 5 years, resigned back in June of 2012. Initially retired in 2005 after being employed for 35+ years in the private sector. Prior to resigning they said I could stay and pretty much work whenever I wanted, part-time seasonal etc..they said it was difficult to get good employees:).
A2isNuts
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 12:45 p.m.
Oh really, get over yourself. If you are that worried about being seen in public committing crimes then get a prepaid cell and only use third party anonymous email accounts. Barring that, you are probably part of the 99% of the US population that is too boring for any government agency to have any interest in whatsoever.
northside
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.
Thanks to Council Members Warpehoski and Anglin for raising this issue. At the very least, it warrants (pun not intended) discussion.
Boo Radley
Wed, Jun 19, 2013 : 4:20 p.m.
Thanks to Council Members Kunselman and Lumm for questioning the need for this.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 11:50 a.m.
Do any of us have a right to expect "privacy" outside in public view? I'm asking, but it seems problematic. How about an ordinance banning cell phone cameras? If I do something stupid on the corner of Main and Liberty I want it private. In fact I want an ordinance that forces people to avert their eyes from me as I walk down the street. I like my public privacy you know.
djm12652
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:37 p.m.
@ignatz...we as citizens, do have the power of arrest...citizens arrest is still a viable action by individuals when witnessing the commission of a crime...and due to the fact that I can go into just about any store, restaurant, building...I am fairly certain I'm already on camera surveillance and because I obey the law I have no problem with it...it's not like Big Brother isn't already listening in on cell phone traffic, monitoring the internet, etc already....
Ignatz
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:17 p.m.
Craig, Because the government has powers of arrest and punishment we as citizens do not have. It's not an unheard of occurrence to gather information on the populace for "safety" or "policing" reasons only to have the government be populated by those with a particular ax to grind, whether above board or not. I do strongly suspect that there are some of those types of people already in place and they would love to use the information to make people act the way they want them to act. Besides, in a free society, police work is not supposed to be easy.
Boo Radley
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:16 p.m.
Craig, I believe you are right on, and have the perfect grasp of the issue.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.
Go navy your operating on the flawed assumption that somebody is monitoring those cameras. Nobody is doing that. They are merely warehousing data to be used on an as needed basis. If your concerned about privacy your concern should be the private citizen taking the picture of you walking your dog on Huron. They are the ones likely to post it on the Internet, not the Government. The truth is, none of us are that interesting to the Government unless we commit crimes or are the victims of crimes. You, me we are boring GoNavy. Nobody cares.
GoNavy
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:51 p.m.
You know what Craig? My "default" expectation is one of privacy. While I do not expect every moment of my life to be private (for example, an individual with a cell phone camera can photograph me walking my dog down Huron), I do expect the totality of my life to remain my own business. Any attempt to erode this privacy - for example, if an individual/government were to follow my moves throughout the day - is met with intense questioning on my part regarding the need for such information, and if that need is more important than my expectation of privacy. In that context, one camera is not a big deal. Two cameras, while not a big deal, is worse for my privacy than no cameras. A camera on every corner is definitely a big deal. Between one camera and a camera on every corner is the difference between somebody who has taken a snapshot of my life (e.g. "Saw me walking my dog on Huron") and an entity which knows my comings-and-goings on a daily basis. By all means Craig, I encourage you to go on living your life as if it were a glass house. I, on the other hand, will continue to guard the details of the totality of my life from the prying eyes of "the public" as best as I can.
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:44 p.m.
why?
Ignatz
Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.
It's one thing for private citizens to take pictures in public. It's another for the government to do so.