Councilmember Bob Kettle wanted to dispel “misconceptions” about Seattle’s surveillance program. Ahead of Tuesday’s Public Safety Committee meeting, which he chairs, Kettle issued a press release arguing that tools like CCTV cameras, automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and the Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) are an effective crime deterrent that doesn’t jeopardize vulnerable populations as severely as has been reported. 

In his release, he argued that the “implementation of ALPR, CCTV and RTCC technology in Seattle is not a choice between public safety and personal privacy—it is a smart and responsive commitment to both.” His argument was a bizarre combination of misdirects (claiming we’re safe because we don’t use Flock-brand cameras for our license plate readers), irrelevant details (assuring Seattleites that cops aren’t watching all of the cameras at all times) and anecdotal evidence (arguing that CCTV cameras reduce crime, based on vibes).

This stunt comes amid public outcry against surveillance technology. Community members and advocacy groups worry that surveillance data can leave marginalized communities vulnerable to federal tracking. And their concerns aren’t theoretical—in Washington state and across the country, federal authorities have accessed local surveillance data, raising questions about how much protections local guardrails actually provide. 

So let’s set the record straight on his four claims. 

  1. Deterring Violent Crime

When we talk about CCTV cameras, researchers most commonly cite a 40-year systematic review by CUNY that found no evidence that CCTV cameras reduce violent crime. But in his press release, Kettle wanted his constituents to focus on another line in the study, which said the results support the use of cameras to deter (non-violent) crime. “It can help address property crime and has always been intended to help with a variety of crimes beyond violent crime,” he wrote.”

However, at the Tuesday press conference, Kettle doubled down on the idea that the program could still deter violent crime. He gave an example of a recent shooting at Second Avenue and James Street. Using surveillance footage, police were able to quickly identify and apprehend a suspect, said Kettle. 

You may notice that that’s an example of footage used in solving a crime, not deterring it. 

But according to Kettle’s logic, being able to rapidly identify and arrest suspects prevents future crimes by removing repeat offenders from the streets. “If somebody is so blatant to shoot someone in the back of the head, they may have done some other crimes,” he said.

When asked again what evidence Kettle has that Seattle’s CCTV deters violent crime before it happens, Kettle acknowledged the city hasn’t yet completed its formal evaluation, which is currently in progress by the University of Pennsylvania. But he still doubled down on his argument that the cameras are a deterrent, because if bad actors know they’re being watched, their operations will be disrupted and delayed, allowing local authorities more time to investigate and apprehend. What evidence does Kettle have of that? “I believe it to be true based on anecdotal,” he said.

  1. But It’s Not Flock!

He’s right. Seattle doesn’t contract with Flock, the notoriously fed-friendly tech vendor. But we do have our own automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), provided by a surveillance company called Axon. And according to Tee Sannon, ACLU of Washington’s technology policy program director, there are no laws in Washington state that govern ALPRs.

The State Senate is currently considering Senate Bill 6002, which would regulate how jurisdictions in Washington handle ALPR data. It would create a 21 day retention period, meaning after 21 days, the data would be deleted, unless it had been pulled within that time frame for an investigation. The 21-day-retention schedule isn’t much of a reform, as jurisdictions in Washington generally stick to a 30 day time limit. Seattle’s is much longer—the Seattle Police Department keeps ALPR data for 90 days. “Thirty days is a very long time to keep basically a database of almost entirely [data of] people that are not associated with wrongdoing,” Sannon says.

ACLU-WA (and Kettle) both support the bill.

  1. Surveillance Data Isn’t Safe From the Feds

In his press release, Kettle specifically focused on the argument that surveillance data might be insecure because it’s stored out-of-state, and therefore outside of Washington’s protective laws. “DHS has no access to SPD data regarding civil matters (such as immigration) unless the federal government subpoenas footage from the vendor. SPD owns this data, regardless of where it is stored,” he wrote. 

Requiring a subpoena doesn’t eliminate the potential for federal access—it formalizes it. He also pointed to the guardrail added by Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, which triggers a 60-day shutdown of the CCTV program if the feds subpoena any data—which still allows data to get into their grubby hands before it’s paused. 

“Is it perfect? Probably not,” Kettle said at his press conference. “I’m not making that claim that we’re 100 percent intact.”

Translation: Our surveillance data isn’t safe.

  1. Seattle Police Officers aren’t constantly monitoring cameras at the RTCC.

His final note in his press release ensured Seattleites that there isn’t a desk monkey watching your every move through the city’s CCTV program. No one thinks they are. Thanks, Bob.