By Erica C. Barnett
Seattle Nice is back after a couple weeks away, and we’re talking about police surveillance in the age of Trump. As PubliCola readers are surely aware, the Seattle council just passed legislation sent down by Mayor Bruce Harrell to install live, 24/7 police surveillance cameras in several new neighborhoods—a rapid expansion of a “pilot” program so new that the city has no data on its efficacy.
Civil rights and privacy groups, immigrant rights organizations, and the city’s own civil rights office, surveillance working group, and Community Police Commission opposed the expansion, as did virtually all of the people who showed up last week to express their opposition before the council’s lopsided 7-2 vote.
In our discussion of Seattle’s expanding web of police surveillance, we debated whether police cameras are effective at preventing and solving violent crimes—the stated purpose of the legislation—and if the loss of privacy is worth it to have a safer city.
You probably know where I come down on all this stuff. I’m not a fan of police surveillance, particularly when it targets so-called “high crime” neighborhoods while allowing residents of “safe” neighborhoods to go about their lives without cameras on every corner .But the potential downsides go much further than standard cop-brain overreach (i.e.: if cameras don’t make you feel safer, maybe it’s because you’re doing something wrong) at a time when the Trump administration and red states are seeking to use footage like the kind SPD is now collecting to target immigrants and people seeking abortions and gender-affirming care.
Not surprisingly, Sandeep and David had a somewhat different view—Sandeep says bring on the surveillance state (“I use Clear” at the airport, he said gleefullyy, in perhaps the most shocking revelation on this week’s show), and argued that the council has “built safeguards” into the legislation, like a provision that says the city can turn off the cameras for up to 60 days if the Trump administration issues a subpoena for footage.
David said a lot of people probably feel safer knowing police are watching, and suggested that my headline, “City Expands Police Surveillance Despite Overwhelming Opposition, Concerns About Civil Liberties,” was unsubstantiated, because the people who show up at public comment only make up a small percentage of the population. In other words: There could be a silent, unseen majority who supports police surveillance because it makes them feel safe.
We also discussed the mayor’s recent proposal to use city funding—$20 million a year—to help Black Seattle residents buy houses. Harrell didn’t release any specific details about his proposal at an announcement last week, and it seems likely that the money will come out of existing Office of Housing funds. Sandeep said the proposal is a sign Harrell’s campaign is taking affordable housing seriously; I argued that it’s more important to look at a candidate’s record than their rhetoric—particularly with Harrell, who’s been in elected office for most of the last 20 years but perennially campaigns as the candidate of change and new ideas.