WHY SURVEILLANCE PLAN WILL BE TOUGH SELL

The San Diego Police Department — one of many agencies across the nation facing a chronic shortage in officers — wants to boost its crime-fighting resources by having the city become the largest in the nation to use both surveillance cameras and license-plate readers as part of a single network. An aide to Mayor Todd Gloria said he is “completely comfortable” supporting the $4 million proposal because it will only become a reality if it passes muster under two “robust” surveillance tech ordinances adopted in August. Those laws require tech tools to be carefully reviewed by a new Privacy Advisory Board and to be scrutinized by the City Council as well.

Gloria’s position may seem straightforward and even understandable, but the new laws and privacy board exist to give all San Diegans greater comfort that such technology won’t be misused as it has been in the past. There is a lot of work ahead for city officials and the board, whose first meeting will be March 15, to supply the thorough vetting this deserves. Trusting the city to get this right will be difficult for many San Diegans. Local history shows why.

So-called Smart Streetlights were installed on top of lightpoles under a $30 million project that won initial council approval in 2016. They were benignly described by the administration of then-mayor Kevin Faulconer as a way to assess traffic and parking patterns, but became heavily criticized in 2019 when San Diegans learned the devices were actually surveillance tools that police had repeatedly used for a year to solve crimes without public notice. In 2020, Faulconer ordered an end to the cameras’ use until oversight ordinances were in place. Now the department hopes to put 500 of the 3,000-plus Smart Streetlights to new, expanded use.

It’s doing so as resentment remains high in Chula Vista for surveillance technology being used in a controversial way without public notice. In 2020, The San Diego Union-tribune revealed that for three years,

Chula Vista police had been sharing data collected from license-plate readers with other law enforcement agencies — including Immigration and Customs Enforcement — without the knowledge of not just the public but the mayor and City Council. That practice led Welcoming America — an organization that celebrates inclusivity — to inform the city it had incorrectly certified it as the first Welcoming City in the state, and Chula Vista officials are still grappling with the fallout of that revelation and the importance of that label.

These cases will hang over the push to allow San Diego police to use both surveillance cameras and license-plate readers in sync. To address these concerns, 10 public meetings will be held on the proposal citywide this week, and public comments will be welcomed on it until 5 p.m. Friday — though both the department and the Mayor’s Office stressed that public input can also be given when the plan is before the privacy board and the council.

One question will be where the cameras go, and whether that will be equitable. The department map showing where police would like to operate 500 cameras shows a great majority south of Interstate 8, including in communities with large Black and Latino populations. Police saying the map reflects local crime patterns is unlikely to assuage concerns that it foreshadows more overpolicing of communities of color. Studies have repeatedly shown San Diego police stop, search and arrest Black and Latino people at higher rates than White people.

The idea that these tech tools could be the “force multiplier” that police say they sorely need has a surface appeal. But if the tools are widely seen as a “force multiplier” that heavily focus on communities of color — as is implied by SDPD’S camera-placement proposal — the resulting uproar will dwarf what was seen with Smart Streetlights. Will Mayor Gloria and Police Chief David Nisleit have answers for these concerns? They’ll have to, starting Monday.