And now I'm so excited to introduce you to the two
speakers this evening.
Florangela Davila is the executive editor and
executive director at South Seattle Emerald.
She's earned regional and national awards for her work as
the former race and immigration reporter for
the Seattle Times and she's also led teams at Cascade PBS
and at KNKX. And a person who needs very little introduction.
Katie B.
Wilson has served as mayor of Seattle since
January of 2026, and she's the co-founder of the Transit
Riders Union, leading the organization for over a decade.
She approaches her role of mayor from the perspective
of a coalition builder and has assembled a diverse
and experienced team ready to deliver responsible
and effective governance.
Please join me in welcoming Mayor Wilson and
Florengela to the stage.
Good evening.
Hello. I think you are all the coolest people
in person and the ones on live stream because it's six o'clock
on a Friday and you're here and that says a lot about our
I said yes to having this conversation in this
format because I'm still trying to figure out
who this mayor is right.
She's new to us.
It hasn't even been 100 days.
I think you're two weeks short of 100 days.
And you have the power to influence how my life is going
to be and my family's life here
I'm also on behalf of the South Seattle Emerald,
We love different perspectives and voices
and bringing them together.
So in this space, I'm excited to listen.
But first, I'm going to talk.
Two things.
These aren't normal times.
And I will say that I carry my federal ID and not too
long ago had to present it to
some immigration folks and had that fear and actually wrote
some things down in case for For whatever reason,
I would not come home.
I also still carry with me the sound of hearing a mother's
wail hours after finding out her child was killed.
I live, it's like a four minute, two minutes maybe if I drive
fast from the site at Henderson and Rainier where the
shootings of two Rainier Beach kids happened in January.
And for those of you who have experienced gun violence, that
is as intimate as has happened to me in terms of hearing
somebody's wail, the wail of a mother, it will stay with you.
So I'm, I really appreciate having this chance to talk to
you about an issue that is very controversial.
People have very passionate opinions about
and so I promise we will give you all time to talk and listen
because that's what I was told that you really want to hear
>> Thank you.
Thank you all for being here.
As Florangela said, I thought it was important to have an
in-person town hall style discussion about this because
I think sometimes the decisions of elected officials
can feel kind of remote.
I really do just want a chance to be able to be here in
person and explain and also listen.
Yeah, I mean, I think during the campaign last year, this
became an issue when the city council was considering an
expansion of the surveillance pilot, the CCTV surveillance
pilot. And, I mean, I would say before
that, I was kind of aware of issues around surveillance
had never really done a deep dive or and didn't
really have like a super well formulated kind
of personal set of values or opinion other than kind of
general skepticism of like I don't really want to live in a
society that's got cameras on every street quarter and you
know hadn't really dug deep on like okay what how do these
cameras work what are they used for?
What are the arguments for them?
And so but during the campaign this issue came up where
you know we have this pilot which went into effect April of
last year where we have these cameras in three neighborhoods
in Seattle and then the City Council was considering
this expansion into three more neighborhoods
And there was a public outcry led by immigrants rights
groups and civil liberties groups because of the perceived
dangers that the data could fall into the hands of federal
authorities and be used for immigration enforcement.
So at that point during the campaign, I repeatedly
expressed concerns about that potential misuse
of that data and lack of security.
And then of course I was successful in my election and
I'm now in a position where I can actually make decisions
that influence right whether whether this expansion happens
And what the future is of the kind of use of
surveillance in Seattle.
And so then being in that position I realized that I
really needed to do a deeper dive right because now not
just being in a position where I'm arguing with another
candidate on the debate stage but actually able to take
an action that is going to impact people's daily lives.
I really felt the need to understand
What is the impact of that descision going to be?
>> Confront your own skepticism that you had earlier?
>> Yeah, exactly. And
also, I mean, I think also just coming from, again from
the campaign to a position where now, you know I am representing
the City of Seattle. Just a higher level
of need to really understand the variety of perspectives
that people are bringing to this issue and to really
engage with the different constituencies that have -- you
know, this is a controversial issue -- have very, very, very
different opinions about the utility of the cameras, about
the risks involved and about whether this is a direction that
the city should be going in our approach to public safety.
>> So what was your approach in learning and in gathering those
perspectives? I would imagine you did a lot
of reading and you looked at all the decisions and all the
legislation and all the comments and things from the past.
But then what were the face to face and what were the
experiences and tell us a little bit about the differences
because it's such a polarized conversation about whether this
technology is necessary, what is critical, what is the
harm that could be caused.
Yeah and I think like part of what makes this such a
hard conversation is because there are these different
goals and values that can feel kind of incommensurate kind
of like apples and oranges.
So on the one hand you have you know public safety and
accountability for crime.
And the argument is that cameras and surveillance
can be effective in preventing crime as part
of the argument and in solving crime once it occurs.
And it's complex because actually assessing
whether that is the case in practice is actually
really difficult.
There's a lot of research but this is like a real world
experiment and there's so many factors that influence crime
rates over any period of time or within a given city that
the evidence is like kind of murky on whether cameras
actually deter or prevent crime.
And you know there's some studies which suggest
they do others that suggest oh maybe not.
You know what I've seen from both the research
and the way that the cameras are used in Seattle
is that they can be are useful in solving crime.
So that's kind of like one one side of this.
But then on the other side you have the risk right and you
know the risk the risk and also the just the concerns generally
about privacy right like what level of surveillance is kind
of acceptable do we want to subject ourselves to.
There are some constitutional questions around that right
around the Fourth Amendment and the right to not have
no warrantless search.
Beyond that just you know the risk that when you
centralize the power to get this information
that that could be misused whether that's by our
own law enforcement or by federal authorities
and assessing that level of risk is really really hard.
And so you have kind of these different and you know privacy
is of different levels of importance to different
people so people just end up having I think a really
different assessments Based on like what they kind
of care most about about this issue and add to that
mistrust right because these technologies are often being
pushed by private companies that have a profit motive and so
they kind of have an incentive to oversell what they can do.
And then there's all of the ways that many of us have mistrust
of our criminal justice system.
So there's just a lot of layers that mean that
different people coming from different perspectives
are going to have a very different calculus.
And even for an individual trying to decide kind
of like what you think, it can be a very different kind
of calculus to make to kind of weigh these different things.
So I feel like I didn't quite answer your question.
I got off on a tangent.
I mean, it's a you talked about the layers and it
will probably be circling back and I'm sure the
questions will also redirect us.
But you mentioned values and I know that
was brought up I think by Erica Barnett, I think you're
here at the end of your presser last week.
But I'm curious about
The skepticism or the questions you had before you became
mayor and what you were saying on the campaign and how those
values have or have not changed as you've been learning
more about surveillance and at what point when you get input
and you're hearing different perspectives are your have your
values changed and or what are the values of Seattle that
I'm a little hesitant to do a broad strokes.
You know, this is what the left does because I'm sure
that people will feel that I'm doing a strong man.
But I do think that on the left, like we need to be
able to say that it is it is a good thing to solve.
>> I think that's a good thing to do.
But do we know that this that the CCTV cameras actually
do solve crimes and when you make the distinction
between say property crimes and violent crimes.
Is there a difference?
Yeah, and I mean this is part of why we're doing the
pause right because I think
you know from the information that SPD has shared about
the way the cameras are being used.
It's very clear like anecdotally
The cameras are being used to solve crimes right including
serious crimes like homicides
Now, there's a bigger question of, you know, how many of these
crimes could not have been solved without the
cameras, right?
And, and to what extent, I mean, there's also just like
even if a crime could have been solved without the cameras, are
we doing it much faster and with less, you know, manpower
so that now we have police capacity that can be devoted to
more preventative policing or other things that we want
police to be doing, right?
So you know, I think there's from what I've seen, I have
confidence that the cameras are How useful is solving crimes?
How useful?
What is the magnitude of that benefit?
That's a question mark.
There's an evaluation going on now of the camera system
being done by the Office of the Inspector General
in partnership with UPenn, which I think is
supposed to be getting at some of that.
So we will learn something more through that evaluation about
how the system is being used How useful it is.
When do we when will that study that audit be completed
and can you talk a little bit about the second audit that
you're looking at as well.
Yeah so the this evaluation I believe is supposed
to be completed kind of by the end of this
year and that was an evaluation that was planned of this pilot
you know which was begun last year so that was you
know not something that that was something
that was already planned by the time I got into office.
What we are doing that's new is specifically an
audit around data storage security and sharing
practices and also kind of privacy and civil liberties and
that is the one that is being conducted by NYU
policing project.
You spent some time at the real-time crime center and
in evaluating and looking, digging through this issue.
I'm wondering if there was anything that shocked you
or really bothered you about what you learned.
There's a lot of questions we
don't know which is why you're pursuing and you want,
but what about things that you did learn?
Was there anything that stopped
you and upset you?
You mean like concerns about how the system
works or is being used?
Who's using--
Right. How it's being employed as of now.
Well, and maybe I should just level set,
because I don't know how much familiarity everyone here has.
Just like to say something about how that system is being used.
And I should also say that in explaining how the
camera system is being used, I think that it is possible
for us to all get on the same page about all
of the facts and for people to feel very different
ways about whether this
City Council surveillance >> I'm always reluctant
to be like here's how it works as though I'm
saying if everyone understood how it worked
they would think it was fine or something.
I don't think that's the case.
I'm not trying to may explain the CCTV cameras.
>> I'm wondering as you give us information if you can also
lay out the wider context of surveillance in general.
How often so please like in Seattle like what do we
exactly because I'm sure that I would imagine that
might have surprised you and understanding and
realizing oh crap this is how many cameras there are
and this is what they're doing.
Okay so so in Seattle so that the CCTV camera
pilot started in I believe last April
We have 62 cameras located in three specific high crime
neighborhoods of the city.
There's the North Aurora corridor,
there's the downtown business
district concentrated around Third Ave.
And then there's the Chinatown International District.
Those cameras feed into the real time crime center.
They are not monitored continuously.
There's not people watching camera footage.
That's actually important because that's a difference.
There actually are other cities in the United States where they
do more like active monitoring where there's actually
people just watching the camera footage continuously.
We do not do that here.
And in general, like honestly, this is something that surprised
me that I've learned over the last couple of weeks, compared
to like most other major cities in the US, we have like
very, very little surveillance, we are on the like very
little surveillance end of the I'm compared to Boston New York
City San Francisco Washington DC etc.
But basically so that the footage is stored like on
site in the camera so it's not automatically uploaded anywhere
on site in the cameras for five days after which it's erased.
And I believe the care team can also request this want to access
that footage, then they can.
And this can be done in real time.
So if there's like a serious incident, the people in
the real time crime center can actually tune in and
watch the cameras live.
And they have used this to apprehend a suspect to just
shot someone or this happens.
I don't know how often that happens.
So that's a question that hopefully the
evaluation will get at.
But once footage is called up in response to an incident
it does get uploaded into evidence.com.
And so this is one of the points which is a concern
for me because those servers are in other states and
we don't necessarily know what the you know how secure
is that data once it's uploaded to those servers
that's no longer protected necessarily by Washington
states kind of privacy laws.
So this is one reason why we're doing this audit the
safety and security audit.
So then, yeah, so that's like basically how the RTCC works.
And there's no, another thing that we learned in visiting
the RTCC and you know, actually big thanks to the staff at the
RTCC who are very welcoming and like, in explaining how
everything works.
You know, they don't share data with other
law enforcement agencies.
But one thing we learned is that while that is their practice,
when we checked, that's actually codified as SPD policy.
The other thing we're doing over the next few months in addition
to this audit is trying to codify some of these good
practices into actual policy so that it's not just dependent on
the judgment of whoever is running the RTCC.
Another thing is there are cameras where there might be
an apartment building in view.
There's masking so that you can't actually see like people's
balconies or people's windows or whatever.
And there was one camera which is was near a reproductive
health care and gender affirming care facility.
That's the one that that I we are turning off.
But there was also masking in place on that.
And that's an area where both I have concerns
around and supposedly we are told that masking
We can't be undone like if federal authorities came in like
we can't you can't unwind that masking but that's something
that we want this security audit to look at is that actually
the case.
But the masking I believe is another thing which is a good
practice but which is not sufficiently codified in policy.
So part of what we're doing is trying to make sure that we
actually have policies on paper which provide these protections
as opposed to this just being like this is happens to
be the way that we do it.
So on that point this is just the way we happen to do it
we want to codify the policies in regards to how SPD is
using the monitoring the data.
And I should answer and these are civilians that you.
OK. But we're talking about SPD which has its own problems.
I mean why shouldn't there be a higher barrier,
a higher standard that we hold SPD accountable
beyond just codifying policies?
Like what happens if the civilians who report
to police officers decide they're not going
to do it this way?
Then what happens?
I mean I think this is just why oversight is important
that there be regular basically
>> I think we should be able to do that.
The times we're living in the discussion is very
different from when this technology was first proposed.
Which is where the question of harm comes in which I
think is is at the root of all the criticism that is being
levied at like why should we open the door to this
technology in the first place.
I mean I think it really is that balance between the benefits
that the system is providing versus what we believe
the risks to be.
And so the goal here is to really assess what
those risks are and then take steps to minimize
them and then we have to balance that against what we
believe the benefits to be.
And I mean there's no other that's how you that's
how we make policy right.
And now yeah, I mean we could decide the risks are too great
and then shut the cameras off, right, but that's that's the
assessment that we're trying to make through doing these.
Have you taken public safety walks or tours on the
ground when you've gone out?
Tell me a little bit about some of the things that you've been
hearing from the different people in throughout the city.
And what is what's sitting with you when you're thinking
with the decision that you made and announced last week?
Yeah, I mean, you know, I think my team and I have
talked with a lot of people in the Chinatown International
District in the, you know, Capitol Hill Nightlife
District, which is one of the neighborhoods where cameras were
slated to expand with folks in around Garfield High School
and the business district there and, you know, family
and, you know, people involved in the school community.
We had a thousand people signed a petition from the
Chinatown International District In favor.
So I mean there are strong feelings on both sides and I
really think like legitimate, again, because this is such,
you know, we are balancing these really very real things
on both sides.
And yeah, and I mean, I think that there's,
you know, there's real time.
So the question is just a little bit about just some of
the the interactions you've had either in person or on these
public safety walks, it's really struck you that sitting
I'm with you like yes this is actually why I'm going to
announce that we're going to do these audits that I'm going
to put in the 26 cameras around the stadium district that
I want to pause right now.
Yeah so I mean I think there is a feeling in neighborhoods
where there is high incidence of crime and a feeling
of lack of safety.
Many people, not everyone, but many people, people who live
there, people who work there, and who see day by day things
happening and often feel that there's not really a response
to those things, right?
There are assaults happening, property crime happening, and
this is kind of another question I think when these cameras were
first discussed and this pilot was decided upon, it was really
-- the public discussion was really about violent crime.
And I think that there is a real conversation to be had
about what's the range of crimes that we actually want to
use these cameras for.
And my understanding from the way that they're currently being
used in real-time crime center is that
there's this kind of triage
So, when there's something, you know, the most serious
crime going on is what they're using it for.
But then if there's not any particularly serious crime going
on, then they might actually, you know, if someone calls in
and wants to see footage related to a lower level, you know,
property crime or something, they will use it, right?
And so that's something that is, you know, was not
necessarily part of the public discussion when the cameras
were initially decided upon, but it is how they're being used.
And it's also if you look at the research, some of the more
effective use of the cameras is for more like property crime.
And also they tend to like to the extent that
there's a deterrent effect.
It's often related to property crime rather than violent crime.
So that's like another big policy conversation that I think
we need to have is like if we are going to have these cameras,
do we really just want to use that for like the most serious
violent crime or are we comfortable using it for
lower level crime as well.
So anyway, I would say that a lot of people
in these neighborhoods where there are high
Good amount of public support for the cameras from that
perspective and then there is you know people opposed for
all of the all the reasons of you know worrying about
what what could happen if that data gets into the hands
of the federal government.
So the someone to keep an eye on things.
I lean on technology and not someone to keep an eye
on things be more police.
Yeah I mean I think so my personal opinion is that
I think there could be a role for kind of a narrow
use of these cameras but we cannot lean on these as
like the main public safety strategy because they're
just not right and so you know to the extent that
we're using them and I think that's again like a kind
Public conversation that we haven't sufficiently had
like in what circumstances is this an appropriate
part of the strategy.
That's only a small part of a larger public safety strategy
and in neighborhoods that have high levels of crime.
You know, a more consistent police presence is another part
of what a lot of people are asking for.
And I mean, one of the I've told the story before, but
one of the things that really hit me when I talked to youth
in Rainier Beach in the wake of the shootings down there was
that, you know, these students were saying like, we want
more police presence, we feel
>> I think that's a whole other project of trying to provide
the right kind of police presence in neighborhoods
that need it and make sure that that is where we're
building that trust between the police and the communities
that they're serving in.
The right kind of police presence in neighborhoods
that need it and make sure that that is
Yeah, where we're building that trust between between
the police and the communities that they're serving in
Do you know how much all of this is gonna cost the audits?
the 26 cameras around the stadium district if you agree
to expand the pilot program How much is all of this?
So the I mean the audit I believe we're keeping
it around $50,000
and that will be that is coming out of SPD's budget
out of the I think the kind of camera budget basically
I don't have in my head the figure for how much the
expansion is costing but
That is money that was already appropriated by the
city in last year's budget.
Let's talk about the -- I guess I'll say just to tie
together the cameras and the kind of other parts of
the public safety strategy, which of course is not just
increased police presence.
There's a ton of upstream things that we need to do to reduce
crime and to you know, there's like environmental interventions
and just ways that we can make neighborhoods safer and our
alternative response right there's a lot of pieces to that.
One thing that, you know, if the cameras are effective
at helping the police to solve crimes in a way that
means that we are using less police capacity to solve
those crimes, then that does free up police capacity
to do these other things.
So I think that is and again like what is the
magnitude of that benefit?
I don't know.
So that's part of what we need to find out.
But I do think that that's a legitimate argument for how even
if the presence of the cameras does not directly prevent crime,
if you're freeing up police capacity to do other things
which do prevent crime, then that is helpful.
The data point.
What is the data point that's going to tell you that
these things are effective?
Like you talked about crime, but how much crime is reduction?
How are you going to know that these are
worth keeping in place?
I mean I think that there's certainly a like in some of the
research that I've seen around These cameras systems
is a calculation made around basically what we
were just talking about.
To what extent are these cameras like freeing up
police capacity and that's just like a monetary thing.
Like are the cameras worth their cost in terms of what they are
doing to allow us to prevent and or solve crime in
a way that saves money?
So that is a calculation that people make.
Now how accurate is it?
I don't know, but I think that is one thing
that would be relevant.
And I want to get this right, but I was talking to somebody
who was on your transition team, a member of the youth and
student group, and they were telling me that
this was an overwhelming concern among the younger
population and it made them feel vulnerable and targeted and
they didn't, weren't comfortable with this idea.
So how do you juxtapose that feeling with say the reduction
in crime if you get that Yeah, I mean, I think again
this is what makes this issue so hard because people feel
really strongly about it and people feel strongly about
it on both sides, right?
And so there are people for whom having those cameras in the
neighborhood where they live or work makes them feel less safe
and there are people for whom that makes them feel more safe.
And those feelings are important because those feelings are like
part of our experience of the city and our quality of life.
So you know I think that there's not a way
to make this decision.
It's not really a matter of like weighing those
feelings against the data.
It's kind of like we're needing to make a reasoned decision
based on the impact on people's quality of life and
the feelings are part of that.
But there's feelings on both sides.
I mean, you know, I don't know, like, what is a better
way to come to a decision?
Like, we can do we could do a public vote, right?
And San Francisco recently did had public votes
on surveillance and people voted to like
dramatically expand surveillance and
now they have way more surveillance than than we do.
So we could go that direction.
But, you know, short of that, you know, it's
really this kind of like
conversation where we're weighing a lot of different
things which can feel Incommenurable.
Incommenurate. Before you became mayor, did
you feel safe in the city?
Were there places in the city that you
wouldn't go to at a certain time of the night, day?
I personally tend to feel pretty safe anywhere.
But I understand that other people don't,
and I don't think that my feeling of being safe
is any more valid than other people's
I will say that I have had I have definitely been in
situations where I felt unsafe and you know riding the bus
or at a you know I remember one time at the like Soto light
rail station which tends to be an area where there's just
like not a lot of people and I remember getting off the train
with my daughter when she was a baby and and there was someone
who was you know definitely having a some kind of mental
health crisis and was behaving aggressively and you know so
there's things like that that That have made me feel unsafe.
- And if there had been cameras there,
would you have felt safer?
- No.
(audience laughing)
(audience applauding)
- Just taking note of the time.
It's six, why am I like, it's 6.30.
I had one more question and then I wanna open it up
The Seattle is going to host FIFA World Cup.
You are placing 26 cameras around the stadium district
that you will not turn on.
But they will be ready in case there's a credible threat
And last week it was still unclear
what was the definition of a credible threat.
Has -- Gotten any more clarity as to what that --
>> No.
So and just to get the numbers right because I said
this incorrectly at the press conference.
So 26 cameras are the first -- are the batch of
cameras that are arriving.
I believe it's 20 of those that
are going to be installed in the Soto district.
And the plan was for three of the others to
be installed in Capitol Hill.
Three in the city of Seattle.
Central District in Garfield and then a later batch of
cameras was going to have add more to Capitol Hill and
Garfield so just just to get the numbers correct so
it's actually 20 in the in the kind of stadium district.
Yeah so we are going to install those and we are
not going to turn them on and we are working with SPD
to figure out kind of what that definition of
a credible threat is.
Wouldn't it have been better if the concern was the cameras
are there to guard it on this international event, the most
watched event, the most attended event, to just say we're
bringing in the cameras, returning them on
until World Cup is over?
And then what happens to those cameras after World Cup?
So, you know, we anticipate this.
I mean, so yes, that would have been another direction to go
to just say we're installing the cameras and we're turning
them on because there's this big global event.
I decided to not turn them on unless there's
a credible threat.
That's a decision I made.
I think you can make an argument that you just turn them on.
That's easier, right?
So I, you know, that's just, I don't know, it's
just a hard decision.
And that's the direction I decided to go.
So you're not waiting for the audit to tell you or to give
you a better indication if those cameras should be used?
So the audit is not going to be likely completed
before the World Cup.
So that's that's the reason why we're moving forward with
those cameras kind of before because we just can't complete
the audit before the World Cup.
So that's the reason for that decision.
And so the idea is that the audit will be complete
sometime in the summer.
And then I will be able to make an assessment and this will
be we will share the results so like there'll be a
conversation around that but we'll be able
to make an assessment
of whether to move forward with installing the cameras in
the other two neighborhoods.
And what happens to the cameras the World Cup
cameras after World Cup.
I mean they will be installed pending the decision of
whether we're actually moving forward with the expansion.
Let's open it up to questions from the audience and I think
there's a microphone and a QR
iPad. Very little font so I
will have to put on.
Hi there.
My name is Gus.
I'll be quick because I got to go to the
Mariners game after this.
My question for you, Katie, is the police cited a 300%
arrest increase after more cameras were installed around
Seattle in the past few years.
And they use this as a justification for why we need
more cameras in the area.
I'm curious how much weight Do you give these
police statistics?
From the SPD how much weight do they carry in your
decision-making process?
You're talking about the 300% increase in justice
Yeah, that's one example but just kind of
Statistics from them in general.
I mean this is exactly why I think we're waiting for the
evaluation that's taking place now right with which the
Office of the Inspector General and you pen are conducting.
Because the information that we're getting from SPD is
useful but I think it really doesn't tell us enough
right and so like when high level we're being told.
Here's the number of incidents that these
cameras have been used in.
Here's the number of investigations these
cameras have been used in.
We have this many homicides, this many blah blah blah.
That's kind of helpful, but it actually doesn't tell us
how useful the cameras are.
How many of those incidents could not have been solved
without the camera, right?
That kind of thing.
So yeah, I mean, I think it's like the jury's out.
That's why we're that's why I'm interested in the results of
the evaluation also recognizing that the results of the
evaluation are probably not going to tell us
everything we want to I mean the research
on this is murky.
Thank you so much.
Hello.
So your team and also yourself have admitted that you don't
know really how secure this data from the cameras is
and it seemed like it was so much of a
concerne that you shut off a camera near a
gender-affirming care facility So my question is why are
the cameras still on if we don't know if this
information is secure and could potentially be harmful
Especially when Axion especially when Axion just ended their
partnership with Flock in 2024.
So yeah I mean I think what I would say to this is that.
You know shut that camera off out of an abundance of
caution and you know if you look at the way that ICE is
using surveillance they have their own ALPR automatic
license plate reader cameras.
They are using those to pick people up.
It's not actually they don't they
kind of don't need us.
Okay and I'm not aware of any instances of ICE actually using
CCTV camera footage anywhere.
So this is beyond this is beyond ice just the data
not being secure itself.
I think it's reason I mean it's I mean I think it's
I don't think we have like concerns about like
overall data security.
It's more about like could the federal government get.
Like I mean no no more.
Hold on hold on.
Hold on.
I just mean I don't like this day is not like less
secure than any other day.
I guess what kind of data security concerns you're
talking about because I think what we're looking at is
>> like security breaches hacker like hackers things like that.
>> Yeah I mean there's data everywhere.
We're being surveilled all the time by our phones.
I'm just saying like like like you know that's.
Hi Howard Gale from the 36 district Democrats.
So as you just said we don't the top concern should not
be CCTV in terms of threats to immigrant populations and
literally hundreds of thousands of people living in Seattle from
Fourth Amendment violations.
Given that my question is why are we not as mayor you
have executive authority over policing over the
police over the police chief.
Why are you not doing two things that you could
literally do tomorrow.
And these are things that 36 district Democrats
have asked of you.
One is to actually task police to protect people's
Fourth Amendment rights.
This has been done by Mayor Michelle Wu in Boston.
It's something that you could do tomorrow.
That's number one.
Number two, as evidence that we really can't trust the
police is what's been happening with our care team.
That they're underutilized by over 76 percent, 72
percent is the figure.
Tomorrow you could write an executive order that says SBD
has to stop interfering with These are two very...
I think that was 60 seconds.
Two extremely important public safety issues.
So the question is, will you actually direct
the SPD to stop it from happening to the care team?
And two, will you direct SPD to actually start
protecting people's Fourth Amendment rights?
So the issues with the care team and the scope of its ability
to respond I don't think can be solved with an executive order.
Happy to have you send me some draft language that my
team can review and also happy to have you send me
what Boston is doing around Fourth Amendment because we
want to do everything we can.
So if there's something we can do that we
can't then let's do it.
No I'm not scared of the SPD and SPOG.
Thank you Howard.
Hello. As someone who works in social work
and has for about six years I will say the care team doesn't
have enough resources and I work in housing for people
who are true blood clients and we don't have nearly enough
housing. My understanding is that it will cost about three
point one million dollars and two hundred and fifty thousand
dollars a year for the camera.
>> I think we have a lot of options.
We have a lot of options for cameras.
That's my understanding.
So I think right now we have two options.
Do we want to use camera systems that will allow for
mass surveillance during a time where immigrants are being
rounded up and kidnapped off the streets?
And they're probably -- if ICE or any of them get
this camera footage, they will use AI photo recognition.
So using AI facial recognition systems, studies show, according
to MIT, that they cannot always tell the difference between
two people with similar dark skin tones, which sounds like
it is really good at locking up, locking people up, even
if it's not the right people, especially when we're talking
about Garfield or Rainier Beach.
that kind of area.
OK. So there are there are.
Mike 60 seconds like program after school programs.
Folks, one of the reasons we're trying to cut mics is
if you look behind you the queue's quite long, so we're
just trying to get as many perspectives as possible.
Totally. I'm going to hand back the mayor to the
mayor and she's going to.
Okay that felt like more of a comment than a question.
So yeah.
But. Other social programs that
actually have proven to prevent crime rather than.
Yeah and like I said like many many things we need to do on
public safety including lots of upstream and preventative work.
Okay my name is Inez I'm with the International Migrants
Alliance so I have two things.
First of all I think it's really upsetting that you keep
bringing up Rainier Beach because now another youth is
actually in detention or in the system which is not that
doesn't feel like a solved crime to me so that's just one step.
Axon the contractor for the CCTV cameras you say that they
don't they've never used ISIS never used it to actually make
arrests or detainment we are in unprecedented times we're
We're deporting people to third countries.
So 2025 was the deadliest year for migrants in detention.
What will you do if someone based off of the
surveillance from the CCTV cameras is detained
and dies?
How will you respond?
Because people are dying in detention.
ICE is killing people.
So as I said, so SPD does not share data from the cameras
with any other agencies.
Axon works with CBP and they've made 147 million since 2008.
So again, Axon does all kinds of things.
All these companies do all kinds of things.
I'm not trying to defend Axon as a good company.
But what I'm saying is that the data from Seattle CCTV
cameras is not to our knowledge Being shared with
any other agency.
No they can't just take it.
They can't just take it.
I understand.
Yes I know.
I understand the mistrust.
Good evening Mayor Wilson.
It's nice to see you.
I had the honor of serving as a co-lead for your transition
team representing youth and students and also my
organization the Washington bus endorsed you for mayor.
And I come up here today because I know that my
team of young people put together a recommendation
in the perspective of youth civil rights that these cameras
do not make young people feel safe.
I wanted to ask you, especially knowing that you are planning
on having expansions in places where young Seattleites
congregate young people feel like these cameras, they
criminalize our presence and make us feel like we're
punished for being and having public lives in Seattle.
So I want to ask you what if you will not remove these
cameras if you will not turn them off if you will
not stop these expansions.
What will you do to preserve the civil rights and public
life and safety of young people and what education or
initiatives or work will your office do to make this happen.
One minute.
Yeah I mean I in my office are very committed to continuing to
engage with you and the other members of the transition team
and young people across the city to address those very questions
and just want to acknowledge that like yes understand that
the work that you all did came forward with a strong
recommendation from the young people that you talk to to
So I'm just going to jump in really quickly.
Okay. Feel welcome in it and
safe in it and we'll keep working on that together.
I'm getting questions from the live stream or the QR so I'm
just going to jump in really quickly.
Appreciate that you're acknowledging the need to
weigh rights violations and privacy against
actual data and the budget juggle of officer staffing.
The part of the cost of these cameras is human, right?
There is a real human impact of surveillance that is difficult
to measure in budget dollars.
So how is Seattle attempting to measure the human
impact of surveillance.
I want to ask the question or question back but I can't.
Perhaps they're talking about just kind of the the sense
of being surveilled in public
I don't want to just live in a society where we
have cameras everywhere.
And yeah I don't know I mean that's just like a
part of the conversation.
Again one of these things that makes it really hard to weigh
is that there are these kind of just yeah I would love to.
I mean I think the solution is we need to have a holistic
public safety strategy that makes our city and our
neighborhood safer and then not have cameras.
I mean again like I think from what I've seen my personal
view at this point is that it makes sense in certain
like high crime situations to have cameras I
don't want to just like
>> Hi, my name is M.
Smith. I'm a member of labor militant.
Mayor Wilson, first of all, I just saw a peaceful protester
get removed from the venue.
And so I want to ask, do you support peaceful protesters
being asked to leave?
I think we should allow them back in.
But you've said that you've broken
this -- you said that you've broken this campaign promise on
shutting down the surveillance City Hall City Council
surveillance cameras because you're concerned about crime
and if you are concerned about crime, why are you not
fighting to tax the rich for community services that
could actually prevent crime?
Like free childcare a major expansion of affordable
affordable public housing and why did you recently tell
business executives that you would be making cuts to public
services and to everyone in this room it's clear that
Mayor Wilson and the Democrats are not going to do anything
unless we force them to.
I urge everyone to come out to City Hall this Tuesday at 2
p.m. to make our voices heard.
This long line of people is not going to get heard.
We have to make our voices heard this Tuesday
at 2 p.m.
Thank you.
Okay, so I want to respond to that.
So, first of all, I don't feel that I'm breaking
a campaign promise.
I would like everyone to listen.
Listen. Excuse me.
Wait. Okay.
What I said repeatedly last year during the campaign was
that I did not support the city council's decision to
expand surveillance given the concerns that I was hearing
from immigrants rights groups and civil liberties groups
about the danger that that data could fall into the
hands of federal authorities.
But you're expanding it.
And that is why we are doing an audit.
So I'm doing the due diligence to try to understand
whether these data security concerns are warranted
and take some steps to make sure that the data is as
secure as we can have it.
So I'm doing a pause, which I think is in line with what
I said during the campaign.
I never said I'm going to turn all the cameras off.
I never said all the cameras should be turned off.
So I encourage people to look carefully at what I actually
said last year during the campaign because my actual
feelings about the situation and values have not fundamentally
I have learned more and that has informed what I'm doing.
But I feel pretty much like I did last year about this.
In terms of what I said at the business event, I think we
are going to have to make some cuts this year.
We have a very large budget deficit.
We are working on ways to close that deficit and I don't
think we're going to be able to close it entirely.
And I do think...
And cut SPD.
Huh? Well, that is on the table.
So we have asked all, so in general, in the past when
mayors have asked departments to do exercises of modeling cuts,
they have often not included the public safety departments
in that.
We have included the public safety departments in that.
So we are asking all the departments to model
what a 5% cut and a 10% cut would look like.
And my team is very hard at work looking for progressive revenue
options, taxing the rich, taxing big business
in a way that we think will both be politcally viable
and practible.
>> Hi, Mayor Wilson.
I've been reading AXION's brochures
on the evidence.com platform
and it includes AI evidence tagging, aka object
recognition capabilities, which Necessitate that they must
possess an unencrypted copy of the footage.
Courts have held the private entities can sell data
to the feds without it being legally considered a
search and obviously that is concerning if Axon could
theoretically do that.
Would you commit to issuing a request for information on
vendors that could replace the evidence dot com
platform for all of SPD's data on all crimes with
one exclusively hosted on Seattle's servers for
data sovereignty reasons.
I think that's something that my team has been looking into.
It might be very very expensive to host that
data on our own servers.
So I think that's kind of a consideration but that is
something that I think we were I will also say that Seattle
does not use any facial recognition or AI stuff with our
surveillance and I believe that to move in that direction would
require like an affirmative vote of the city council.
We do our surveillance ordinance which you know
probably be stronger.
It does require new technologies to actually go
through a public process.
So there is that.
So just to clarify in Renton which operates 24-floor cameras
the police chief John Schultz has said that ICE agents
have access that data is being granted official
access through side door measures.
Let's not pretend that like official access counts as far
as what ICE is willing or not
Mayor Wilson said repeatedly that you are against ICE.
The current congressman for Washington District 9 which
includes South and Central Seattle Adam Smith has created
ICE. He's willing to fund it repeatedly.
He's one of Palantir's top five politicians
in terms of donations who are massive ICE contractors.
You refuse to back his anti ICE approbance.
Why are you refusing to support an
independent socialist against this you know like guy who
created ice and do you actually support public calling to throw
out all price Democrats like out of Smith from office and
as you try to weasel out of this commitment it's clear that
we should all go to City Hall on Tuesday the pressure movement
is the only thing responsible for this so-called pause and
we need an ongoing to ask at the pressure of the movement.
So I'm not aware that Sean was actually asked
for my endorsement.
You said during the campaign that you were
free to endorse her.
You were asked why a panel.
Actually you're right.
You're right.
Yes I am.
So I think what you said brings up this is
actually a good point.
So just so that people understand my understanding
at least of the issue with the Flock cameras.
And I'm not trying to argue here that Flock is bad, Accent
is good, so just to be clear.
But just so that people know, my understanding of the issue
with the Flock cameras is that the data security issue is with
Flock's ALPRs, their automatic license plate readers, and
that there was a kind of a default or automatic
setting on those cameras that would automatically
And so that is what the specific thing that has been in the
news around the Flock cameras and I just to be clear acts on
there's not even that capability so there's not like a setting
which could automatically share data with other law
enforcement agencies including the federal government and that
many jurisdictions including in Washington State even without
knowing it had that setting on so that they were sharing
data you know even against the keep Washington working act
potentially right and so that is what the specific thing that
has been in the news around the Flock cameras and I just to
be clear acts on there's not even that capability so there's
not like a setting which could automatically share data with
other law enforcement agencies.
So other law enforcement agencies would have to actually
request data from SPD so there would be that awareness
and that ability to say no which is the policy.
So just sharing that information about FLOC.
What about Adam Smith?
What about him?
Do you think we should throw out for us Democrats?
Hi my name is Jake I'm here representing.
I have not endorsed Adam Smith.
My question is, so you mentioned there's an audit that might
be done by the end of the It's a little bit
nebulous to me.
Do you have any plans as the audit is conducted to release
like a schedule of when it will be done or any updates
as you learn them?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I mean I think my understanding at this point is that the
audit will take a few months and yeah happy to I don't see any
reason why we wouldn't share a more specific timeline as
soon as we have that.
I think we're in conversation with NYU policing project now
about the timeline and the scope and all that.
Release on Instagram please that's where I
get most of my news.
Thank you.
You're one of those.
Hello Mayor.
Given that Idaho just passed today a law that
would put trans people in prison for life for using the
bathroom that aligns with their identity on the fourth offense
that is up to life in prison for using the bathroom.
And we will have thousands if not
tens of thousands of transgender refugees coming to our state
from Idaho Kansas Louisiana
And given that Axon stores data on Microsoft servers which
Edward Snowden leaked in 2014 all feed directly to the
NSA since at least the Obama administration.
That's why he's in exile in Russia.
All Google and Microsoft customer data goes
straight to the NSA.
The NSA didn't ask.
They said we're doing this.
Microsoft could not say no.
You can't say no to the NSA.
So it doesn't matter what state that data is stored in.
It goes straight to the federal government.
What are you going to do to protect trans people to create
space for trans refugees and to
to not give data to the federal government which is having
the data at all because they will take it.
Happy to have you share all that with my team if we if we think
that the federal government is going to have access
to data in that manner.
That's a problem.
Thank you.
My name is Summer.
I'm a member of Labor Militant.
Mayor Wilson, you ran promising to hold SPD accountable.
The Seattle Police Union president announced
that they will not be following your executive
order. What's your plan to
make SPD follow the law?
And do you support firing cops who are cooperating with ICE?
Yeah, I mean, SPOG is not the boss of the police.
And we're working with SPD to make sure that they follow the
executive order that I issued.
How can you tell us how are you how are you enforcing that?
I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for.
We're working with the police department to make
sure that officers are Following the rules that we
have sent down and if they don't then that's a problem
Do you support firing cops who don't follow
that executive order?
You mean firing cops who do what who who don't follow the law?
Yeah
Hi, my name is Jason Thiel.
I just wanted to say that you
did break a campaign promise because you are going through
with the expansion, like even if the audits not going
to be done until afterwards you said that earlier.
And also, you know, you talked about the cutting the budget
earlier and including the police and public safety stuff in your
audit of deciding what to cut.
But that's not the same thing as committing to not
cutting public services.
And it's also not the same thing as committing
to cut the SPD budget.
Will you pledge not to cut public services, cut the SPD
budget and tax the rich to fund The things I was talking
about to fund free childcare affordable housing and city
run grocery stores the shit that you ran on in this city
the things that working people actually need right now.
Yeah I mean to be clear I don't want to cut public
services that are useful to people so we have a very
large budget deficit as I said we're working very
hard to identify revenues so that we don't have to
make significant cuts.
At the same time I do think
that you know I think it's important to be able to take
Look at all the ways that the city spending money
and I said this during the campaign to be willing
to assess whether programs are actually fulfilling.
What they were put in place to achieve in a cost
effective manner and I think we need to be willing to
end things that aren't doing what we want them to do.
So I'm not pledging to cut nothing.
But I but I think you know, it's often said budgets are a
moral document and I think that there's going to be a lot of
prioritization going on in my administration of making
you said we're trying to use our budget in the most
effective way to achieve results for Seattle residents
including all the things that I campaigned on from
>> you said in
that same business meeting that the
the jump start tax, the Amazon tax is like hard on
big business in this city.
>> No, I didn't say that.
I said that it's not ideal to have a business environment.
>> You've talked multiple times in this meeting
about progressive revenue and are indicating to
business leaders that that's like harmful to them.
So what is it?
>> No, no, no, no, no.
I said very specifically that it's not ideal
to have a business environment including the
tax environment in Seattle that is dramatically
different from our neighboring city of Bellevue.
I believe that's true.
I support a statewide, this is one of the reasons why I
really liked Representative Sean Scott's bill to do
a statewide big business tax with a credit for
Seattle businesses because that levels the playing field.
So I think the big companies can afford to pay more, but
it's not good to give them an incentive to go
over to Bellevue.
Then why are you not fighting statewide
mobilize working people.
So to the question whether the CCTV cameras make you safe.
Your answer was no.
Then you also said that currently the data
from the CCTV cameras Sitting on servers outside of
Washington state and hence we don't know to which laws
they like they're not following the Washington state laws
right camera with our footage.
Then you said that actually the SPD sharing data is not
defined or something like you can correct me here but you
said that there is not right now something that SPD has
not defined and you are doing order that is not going to be
done until the end of the year.
And all of this made you make a decision to move forward
with the cameras for FIFA.
Where are we going to have countries like Qatar, Egypt,
and Iran playing and that means that immigrant population,
Any of them who are American citizens and 10,000 people
are going to be attending the game and they're
going to be targeted.
But more than that, not only American citizens,
not only immigrant citizens are targeted by ICE.
ICE is not collecting biometric data on citizens
who are traveling.
When you enter about the United States, you have to
take a picture and I says that collecting biometric data on
every citizen is important.
So can you explain it just doesn't adopt unless
you're a lot of years old.
So, okay, I feel like you asked like 12 questions and I
want to respond to them all.
Okay, so I'm going to try to respond to a few things
that you said.
So I said that
in response to Florangela's question that cameras
in a particular instance would not have made me
feel safe.
However, my experience is not everyone's
experience and I also have the privilege of living in
actually a very relatively The safety of the city and
the safety of the city.
And so I understand that there are many people who live in
other neighborhoods in Seattle.
And a camera presence in their neighborhood does
make them feel safer.
And I don't want to discount their experience.
Now, again, I'm not like I don't think that anyone's
feelings about this are what should govern policy.
But I do think that that's an important consideration.
The, I'm trying to remember, so the, there was
like 10 more things.
The audit is gonna take a few months
and part of that audit is looking at the security
of that data that is held on servers in other states.
So we are trying to assess what the level of risk is
In that whole system.
Anyway, let's move on.
There's there's other things I wanted to say
but I can't remember.
Hi, I'm Helen.
I'm with radical women.
And we oppose this system at the start and we still oppose
it and think it's a danger to the community for the same
reasons danger to immigrants danger to people of color who
are stereotyped danger to women who are fleeing domestic abuse
to people fleeing from states where their reproductive
health and gender health care are illegal and
states could subpoena Information.
I mean we also laugh we know the federal government
you can trust them.
But if people have been activists here for a while they
know you can't trust the Seattle Police Department you can't
trust the county can't trust the judges to rule fairly.
You can't trust the state to not spy and release its stuff.
So this is proven history that's data that has been proven
on every level over decades.
If there is information it will be abused by these
law enforcement agencies.
What's not proved is whether it prevents any crime.
You know, it's sort of ridiculous.
[inaudible]
[applause]
Hi my name is Sochi.
I worked on Katie's campaign
and oversaw the 50,000 door effort that got her elected
and so I have a couple questions.
One, well one's a comment, it cost me a
dollar 25 to do a public records request and get 30
minutes of video.
I picked a random camera so I'm
not sure why you need a
I'm going to go back to the disclosable.
Publicola reported that you knew that Chief Barnes was on the
advisory committee for the NYU policing project.
So how can the public have trust in this audit with a very clear
conflict of interest?
And was there any competitive procurement for that contractor?
And I will also say I think you're splitting hairs by saying
you didn't this wasn't part of your platform because I think
me and the 1,355 people who signed a letter to you would
You have said that yes being against surveillance
was on your platform.
And also lastly on April 10th we're going to hold a
rally at City Hall at 12 p.m.
Hopefully we'll be celebrating you realigning with the platform
that got you elected and
Hi Mayor, I'm Graham.
I'm in fair context.
Oh, there was a question.
Apologies. So, okay, So you asked a question
about NYU policing.
And I will say that-- so first of all,
Chief Barnes has stepped down from the board of NYU policing.
And I-- and we were at-- I don't know if I--
we were not aware that he was going
to be on the board when we were initially having conversations
And again, he has stepped down.
We did talk with a number of-- in figuring out who
could do this audit, We talked with other potential
auditors and NYU policing was really the one that
like has the ability the experience to do this audit so.
No it was not an RFP because we wanted to do it fast and
so if we want to do something in a timely manner so but yeah.
We're pretty careful not to break city laws.
So yeah anyway happy to happy to have ideas for other
entities that could do the audit But that was the one that
we were able to find that was in a position to do it.
What that we knew he was on the board when.
We found out somewhere during this process that he was
going to be on the board.
Again, he has stepped down from the board anyway,
we can we can provide you more information about that
But again happy to have ideas we were we looked for other
other entities that would be able to do this audit
Okay Actually on that
note so chum news
In collaboration with the South Seattle Emerald has
been doing some reporting About NYE policing project.
The project has historically received funding from
policing technology providers like Axon and ShotSpotter.
Why should we trust the policing project's audit
do more credible and neutral arbiters not exist?
Yeah, I mean and again I think like we would be members of
my team are over there and we would be very happy to hear
like ideas of other entities that could perform this.
And we tried and we tried.
So we have a hard out at 730 and I'm just mindful at 716
and there's a lot more folks I just want to say if you've
heard your question or comment already expressed, please maybe
Give some space and time to the person behind you
All right, hi, I'm Graham I did data work for your
campaign full disclosure
I just want to say first thank you for being here and actually
having this conversation with people.
It's really nice to have a mayor who talks to the people.
So thank you so much for that.
Second piece, could you talk a bit about the metrics you'll
actually be using to determine in this audit if the
cameras are safe and secure?
Yeah, I mean I think I'm not sure.
I'm not sure what metric I mean I think they're going to they're
going to be coming back with like an analysis of the ways
that the data is being held and any vulnerabilities that exist.
Again the piece that I'm most concerned about is like the
out of state servers where the footage is being
uploaded to evidence.com.
And so I assume that we will be getting some information
about what vulnerabilities might exist there.
And also I think on the masking is another area where again
we have been told by SPD
So I think that's a good question.
Thank you Mayor Wilson.
My name is Curtis Atkisson.
So much of the discussion around
Data safety rests on keeping the data out of the wrong
hands, but that assumes that the hands the data are going
into are the right hands.
SPD is not seen as a neutral institution by many people in
the city, especially, especially the people who live in
the neighborhoods that expansion will go into.
Data shows that increasing trust and legitimacy in institutions
increases case clearance rates more clearly than cameras do.
And as the students in Rainier Valley and the youth convened
by Washington bus said, remote surveillance of those
communities will decrease trust and perceived legitimacy in
our institutions.
So why are we investing in CCTV and an RTCC instead of
doing the hard work of building trust between communities
and those institutions?
And if you were to go forward with this institution
or with this expansion, what would you commit
Yeah, so I mean I think as I've said a few times I do not
see the cameras as our public safety strategy and they're
certainly not a substitute for building real trust between
And so that is a whole nother body of work that
my office is working on.
And you know, there are, I mean, we're developing
a whole strategy around gun violence prevention
that, you know, involves both the police and community
based organizations.
We're developing better kind of neighborhood based safety plans
that, you know, will involve That kind of various ways
of trying to build more trust and that's the
kind of a neighborhood specific thing right the kind of
what's needed in Capitol Hill is different from what's needed
in Rainier Beach is different from what's needed in the
central district and so that is I mean honestly that
is a much more important and labor intensive body
of work than deciding what to do about the cameras.
So absolutely there and I will just say that like I wouldn't
make and you made a pretty blanket statement about the
neighborhoods that these cameras are going to be and how people
feel in those neighborhoods.
I would say it is complicated.
You want to go and talk to those thousand people who signed
a petition in the Chinatown International District in
support of surveillance cameras.
You know those people are out there too.
Hi my name is Sage Mitchell and I'm a member of Radical
Women and I have also worked as a cybersecurity researcher.
Given the number and variety of entities that
affect surveillance operations not to mention
The levers of control granted to the federal government by
the Patriot Act and so forth.
How confident are you in your ability to continually
and accurately audit and influence who or
what can access the data and whether our rights are upheld.
Thank you.
You know, I mean, I think that our job as my job as an
elected official and the job of the city government is to put
in place as robust guardrails and oversight and, you
know, protective policies as we can.
And it's always a work in progress, right?
So we'll do the best we can and then we'll
look for vulnerabilities and we'll do, you
know, an audit of how we're doing and we'll
try to do better.
And if there's like a breach or something then that tells
us we need to do better right.
Like I know there's not you know I I'm pretty confident in the
path that we're on and having seen kind of what I know now of
how the system works and what we're doing now to try to get
more oversight and put better policies in place.
So but I can't say that I'm 100 percent sure.
I don't think any of us can say we're 100% sure
of very much these days.
>> Hello, first of all, there's no safe surveillance
in a fascist nation.
>>
[APPLAUSE]
>> My name's Coco.
>> Can you say that again?
>> I just said there's no safe surveillance
in a fascist nation.
And I'm Coco.
I am a teacher who works with students with
learning disabilities.
I first started tutoring people in the King County jail
who did not have their GED.
Those were children we already failed.
Later I had a contract working with students who
were considered failing students in failing
schools in Seattle and all the schools that I could see.
For students I could see were in the South End.
You said you changed your mind about surveillance
with community violence and then today you
We know cameras actually just help maybe protect property so
I just see a discrepancy and I wonder what would happen if
you come to millions that we're spending on cameras directly
into the families and the neighborhoods and the children
and youth programming because we know resourcing community is
what actually prevents violence.
[applause]
[audience applause]
When you say you change your mind talking to families
impacted by violence and having worked with so many
students who are the ones who get disenfranchised and then
end up in our system, which is happening again right now,
I'm just wondering, why are we still investing in the
cameras if you say it might protect property and we know
it has a track record of being racist technology as
well? Why are we still pumping money over there when we
could be just giving those millions to kids?
(applause)
So this I think is a good opportunity just to say a little
bit more about some of the ways that the cameras can
provide a public benefit.
So yes, some of the research says that they can deter
property crime, right?
But the other thing I'm trying to say is that they're useful
in solving crimes and in talking
- To victims, the families of victims,
that is something that is very important to people.
I think that's important.
And absolutely, and that is why cameras
are not our public safety strategy.
But in addition to solving crimes,
there's just a couple of things.
So one of the ways these cameras are useful
in the course of solving crimes is by ruling out suspects
who did, people who did not do it.
So if the police are able to look at footage from a camera
and see who did something, then that makes it less like
they then when someone points at someone and says I think
it was that guy and they can say no, we have the footage.
It wasn't that guy.
They're not arresting that guy.
Okay, so that is something which I think we should all
think about right and hold on.
So let me just say one more thing.
So that's one thing and I think there's also a dynamic
of sometimes when a violent crime happens, if it's the
kind of crime that could provoke retaliation, there
can be pressure on witnesses to come forward publicly in
order to solve that crime.
If there's camera evidence, then that often means that
witnesses do not need to come forward publicly, which
can help to protect them.
Now, I'm just I'm saying and this is part of like
I'm not I'm saying that these are things that I
think we need to consider.
Also, I don't know how often those things happen.
Right. So I'm not saying because of these things, we should
all be in favor of cameras.
I'm just saying these are things to consider in how these
cameras are actually used and ways that they can actually I
think benefit the communities that you're that you're talking
about.
Hi my name is Jim Baines I'm from the
American Party of Labor.
First I want to say policing is inherently classist.
The people who are being surveilled are the lower class,
are the working poor, the people who want cameras,
they're business owners.
They're small business owners who want to protect
their private property.
But you've also said that SPD doesn't use AI
within its police surveillance technology
for facial recognition.
But Axon Technologies uses AI within its automatic
license plate readers.
Automatic license plate readers are not guaranteed to get
the right information down.
What happens when a citizen is wrongfully arrested
because of an ALPR?
What happens when they're jailed for a long period of time,
lose their livelihood, their job, they lose their house?
What are you going to do about it because that is going
to increasingly happen the more we have these cameras?
[applause]
So we haven't really talked about ALPRs.
So Seattle's ALPRs we have put we have
turned off for the time being because there's a new state law
which we're trying to figure out make sure that we are
coming into compliance with.
So what happens when SPD goes and violates those
policies? This is a police department that just got off
its consent decree.
How can we trust the police to go
and not use AI in this way?
Hi my name is Julian Kinberg also from the
American Party of Labor.
You said you consider yourself a socialist.
At the very minimum that would be looking out for the interests
of the working class and not partnering with big business.
Mass surveillance overwhelmingly suppresses the working class.
You must be aware of this.
Others have pointed out that that the money
could be better spent.
Do you know how much the Axon contract is worth?
It's $165 million.
Are you aware also that Axon sells technology
to the Israeli government, the Israeli military?
Were you aware of that?
I think a lot of companies sell technology to the Israeli
So I I'm just going to jump in and I'm you're going to be
mad at me.
It's 728.
We have a heart out at 730.
But I did want to say that mayor@seattle.gov
is the best way to reach you
if you wanted to translate what you were
going to say here directly.
I did have a question and you kind of brought it up,
which was is your vision -- you want to finish?
Okay. Apologies then.
>> My name is Rick McKinnon.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need surveillance
cameras because everybody would be behaving
courteously but we don't have that situation.
I read in the Seattle Times recently that they identified
the suspect in the shooting deaths of the two students
in Rainier Beach and part of the detective's work involved
Looking at surveillance video from neighborhood
neighboring businesses.
I think there's a there's a good there's there's
value in there's value in surveillance video
and I know that in
If we were planting people we could have done a lot more.
So please don't cut me off in 30 seconds.
Hola. Mi nombre es Adriana.
(speaking in foreign language)
Hello everyone, my name is Adriana and I am from Venezuela,
but I have actually been here Venezuelan community for a long
time and I am a member of a really large Venezuelan
community that is going through so many different difficulties
and I feel like through this event it actually sounds
like the promotion and the continuation of the cameras
is much more important than actually solving the issues of
migrant communities that are going through many, many
different difficulties and Actually a couple weeks ago we
had a meeting with Alexis Rink and Dion Foster and we also
invited your office too and we in detail in great detail we
explained all of the different difficulties that our community
is going through and we have not heard a response from your
office and so our question to you is what is more important
to you the surveillance of the community or the
well-being of the community.
Yeah I'm very happy to engage with your group.
And yeah I mean the well-being of the community
is of very high importance to me.
So let's talk more.
Mayor at Seattle.gov is the best way to reach Mayor
Wilson on this issue or I take it any other issue.
I did want to ask you just when you know whether you're the
mayor for one term or two terms.
What you can decide is really creating a
Seattle of the future.
When you think of Seattle in 25 years, a Seattle that you're
creating for your child, are you thinking a Seattle where
there's cameras everywhere?
Are you thinking a Seattle that is so safe we
don't need technology?
That's a really easy question.
Yeah, I mean I would love to be part of working with community
to create a Seattle that is so safe that we don't
need surveillance cameras.
Thank you very much for spending a Friday night with us and
those watching on live stream.
Thank you very much Mayor Wilson.
Have a good night.
Thank you.
I really appreciate the dialogue.