Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 9, 2018

Every move you make

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

On the heels of the ask for license plate readers, the Alameda Police Department has also launched a new initiative called We S.E.E.

Which stands for We S.E.E. (Share Electronic Evidence).

From the Press Release:

When a crime occurs, APD’s investigation includes checking with nearby residents and businesses to determine if there is camera footage available. Many Alameda businesses are equipped with security cameras, and as technology advances, residents are increasingly adding video doorbells and other surveillance to their homes. These cameras may be capturing vital information that can be used to solve crimes. For example, last year we were able to resolve investigations for package thefts, a peeping tom, and assault with a deadly weapon with evidence obtained from private cameras.

We S.E.E. (Share Electronic Evidence) is a voluntary program, where individuals and businesses can register the location of a camera with APD and help keep the community safe. When a crime occurs, officers will now have access to a list of nearby locations with possible electronic evidence.


As it states it is a voluntary program, but it feels a little, oh, I don’t know, Big Brother-y.  However given the proliferation of NextDoor users posting stills from their doorbell cameras, I suppose this is the logical next step in community policing.


  1. I think the Constitution will survive the creation of a voluntary list (of things the police already routinely inquires about after a crime and subpoenas, if relevant and necessary). Also, the wrongly accused might like to have a look to see if someone might have video proving it wasn’t them or that no crime had occurred.

    Comment by MP — February 9, 2018 @ 6:54 am

  2. In private developments HOA’s sometimes use part of their dues to install security cameras and hire a patrol unit to secure their communities.

    Some developers offer these type of security measures as an added “benefit” to buyers — so it’s actually not that uncommon these days.

    When you walk in a department store, or a grocery store — or just about anywhere these days — there are cameras.

    I personally don’t mind the camera’s, but I totally understand the concern about potential abuse.

    Comment by Karen — February 9, 2018 @ 7:28 am

    • As I understand this one, the police would not have direct access or a direct feed from the cameras, but would only have a list of camera locations (from those who chose to disclose that they have cameras). The police would still have to request access to any actual recordings from the camera owner (or issue a subpoena subject to challenge in court)

      Comment by MP — February 9, 2018 @ 8:01 am

  3. Whoa down here. APD seems to be skirting very close to a fourth amendment violation on a continual basis. Does the “checking” of someone’s personal video camera come with a search warrant? It’s not only doorbell cameras at play in this “era of everybody has a camera in the cell phone” it’s the tug of war between big brother is watching on one side and the right to privacy on the other.

    Comment by Jack — February 9, 2018 @ 8:30 am

    • I don’t think this gives them any greater access to the video than they already have, only a voluntary list of places to look. They would still as I understand it have go through existing procedures to actually get their hands on the video. By itself, maybe this decreases some very indirect privacy protection by cutting down somewhat on the amount of overtime that has to be spent on canvassing the surroundings of a crime scene for the existence of private cameras (though they would probably do that too, depending on the seriousness of the crime).

      Comment by MP — February 9, 2018 @ 8:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at