Voters in San Francisco have decided to approve controversial new rules known as Proposition E, that significantly expand law enforcement’s powers of surveillance.
Other than allowing the police free rein when it comes to the surveillance tech they choose to use for a period of one year, Preposition E also absolves them of any duty to properly assess how effective the technology might be or how it may affect people’s privacy and safety.
To top it off, some types of surveillance will not be subject to oversight for an indefinite amount of time.
The approval of measures, pushed by Mayor London Breed, a Democrat, as a way to “make San Francisco affordable and safe again” – to paraphrase his sloganeering – can be seen as pushback regarding the developments in the city once known for its liberalism and “peace and love.”
Preposition E is one of three different key policy measures from a mayor who is reportedly engaged in an uncertain reelection battle set to play out in the fall. Meanwhile, some reports tie the outcome of the vote to the difficulties San Francisco has faced post-pandemic.
But it’s almost a smokescreen for long-standing public safety concerns, poverty, and gentrification – brought on not only by the mishandling of the pandemic but San Francisco’s role as “ground zero” of the Big Tech phenomenon. And Big Tech apparently had a hand in making Preposition E happen.
Despite the legislation coming from the Democrat camp, the outcome of the vote is seen as a win in liberal media reports for “conservative ideas” – notwithstanding the fact that privacy-invasive policies are often opposed by the conservatively-minded people in the US.
One of the provisions of Proposition E is to allow the police to use drones in addition to cars in pursuit of suspects, and deployment of facial recognition and surveillance cameras even without getting permission from the police commission board.
Among those campaigning against Preposition E was the digital rights group EFF, which said the measure was a threat not only to privacy and safety, but also, “democratic ideals.”
And EFF had no problem calling it “deceptive” – and calling on voters to say “no” to it.
“Don’t be fooled by the misleading arguments of Prop E’s supporters. A group of tech billionaires have contributed a small fortune to convince San Francisco voters that they would be safer if surveilled,” said EFF.
