Might be an unpopular opinion, but if I owned a business that provided for my employees and my family in the area where these disturbances* were occurring and had cameras, you bet I’d be trying to get access to those feeds to the police that I pay to protect the law-abiding citizens of the area.<p>Same story if I had cameras covering the Jan 6th, 2021 events.<p>* - I’m trying to use as neutral language as possible.
"As Black and Latinx activists, we are outraged—but not surprised—by rich and powerful people supporting illegal police surveillance. "<p>I'm kind of surprised that these neighborhoods don't want cameras TO be monitored / available to police - they are the center of relative high levels of criminal activity.<p>During these peaceful protests I think something like 30 business were looted or destroyed in the union square area alone?<p>In other countries all this actually results in INCREASED CCTV etc use. Just interesting that such use is becoming illegal in SF.
I definitely agree with the notion that property/physical business owners would want good surveillance. I don't see any good coming from LEOs having unregulated access to a facial recognition network that is funded by taxpayers and run by a private nonprofit with special interests.<p>Maybe I'm tripping and quasi-government surveillance entities funded by crypto-millionaires is okay as long as we can stop the looting.