- Good afternoon.
Thank you.
Thank you all for, joining me here today.
Sometimes as the mayor,
you make decisions that no one's going to like.
This might be one of those. We'll see.
So I'm here today to announce my decision about the city's surveillance
pilot project.
This is a decision about more than cameras.
It's about how we approach public safety, how we build trust,
and how we show up for communities across the city.
And it's important that we get it right.
So I want to start by establishing where things stand today.
In April of 2025,
Seattle launched the Real-Time Crime Center, or RTCC,
with 62 police CCTV cameras
located in three areas downtown along Aurora
Avenue North and in the Chinatown International District.
This was presented as a pilot program.
The Technology Assisted Public Safety Pilot program.
The legislation authorizing the installation of these cameras
and the creation of the RTCC included a commitment
to evaluate this pilot once it was implemented,
before any evaluation was completed.
A decision was made late last year by the previous mayor and council
to expand the program to include three additional neighborhoods
the Stadium District, the area in the Central District around Garfield
High School, and the Capitol Hill nightlife district.
I expressed my concerns about this expansion during last year's campaign.
So as we stand here today,
none of the cameras that are intended for the pilots expansion
have yet been installed, turned on, or connected to the RTCC.
In fact, they have yet to even be received from axon.
The vendor used by the city's program.
So what we have in
front of us is not a fully implemented program,
but a pilot, which was expanded before many policies had been formalized
and before its outcomes have been evaluated.
I want to acknowledge that this is a controversial issue.
For some people, seeing CCTV cameras in the neighborhood
where they live or work or attend school makes them feel safer.
For others, those same cameras make them feel less safe.
Those feelings are important because our quality of life is partly
about our feelings of safety, or lack thereof,
and our sense that our city is a welcoming place
that is designed with consideration for our well-being and our humanity.
But precisely because different people
and different communities experience the cameras differently.
It's important to base a decision on more than feelings.
It's important to ground our actions in a thorough understanding
of how the cameras are being used.
Of the public benefits they are providing, and of any harm they are causing
or could cause.
I believe in
approaching governance deliberately, and I did not want to rush this decision.
Before my team had been able to visit the real time Crime Center
review data retention policies, explore any potential vulnerabilities.
Listen to people on every side of this issue
and engage with the Community Police Commission, the Seattle Police Department,
and other privacy and civil liberty experts.
Today I'm ready to announce my path forward,
and then I'm going to share a bit of context
about how the program operates and how I came to my decision.
And then we'll have time for some questions.
So here's what I've decided.
First, I'm pausing expansion of this pilot
until we have completed a privacy and data governance audit
and taken significant steps to strengthen our policies.
In the meantime,
the RTCC will continue to operate and existing
cameras will remain in place.
There are two specific circumstances where I am
making additional targeted decisions.
First, given the unique nature
of the upcoming World Cup and the current geopolitical situation,
I have chosen to move forward with the installation
of the cameras in the Stadium District slated for this spring.
However, they will not be turned on and will not be connected to the RTCC
unless we are aware of a credible threat that warrants such action
and they will be turned off once that threat subsides.
And second, I am turning off one currently installed camera,
which has a view of a facility that provides
reproductive health care and gender affirming care.
I have confirmed that SPD's current practice is to mask
or blur those locations, but until we've completed
a comprehensive security audit and have stronger safeguards in place,
I don't believe it's worth taking that risk
in the event
of a surge of immigration enforcement similar to what was seen in Minneapolis.
I will, of course, turn off all cameras in order to prevent them
from potentially being abused by federal authorities.
While it is already policy that SPD may not share information
with Ice absent a court order, I'm also directing
SPD to immediately inform the mayor and council
if we learn of any information sharing with Ice of any kind,
even if that information is unrelated to the CCTV program.
Finally, I am temporarily pausing
all use of automatic license plate readers, or Alpers,
which capture and record the license plates of all vehicles in a specific area.
The state legislature recently added welcome new restrictions
to limit the potential abuse of this technology.
We will
pause the use of this tool in Seattle until we can ensure that our practices
are consistent with the new state law and reflect the best
safety and security policies.
So these are big decisions, and I know that I'll receive
a lot of questions about them, and there will be some time for that soon.
But I want to take a moment first to talk about
how the RTCC works right now and then surveillance more broadly.
The RTCC is in office with an SPD headquarters that operates
police CCTV cameras, which are affixed to poles in public spaces.
The police CCTV cameras continuously capture
footage of specific zones within specific neighborhoods.
Parts of the downtown business district along Third Avenue.
Parts of the Chinatown International District up to
and including 12th and Jackson, and parts of the North Aurora corridor.
These areas were initially selected based on reported
concentrations of certain types of crime.
The RTC also integrates live feeds from many traffic cameras that traffic
camera footage is already public and viewable in numerous other locations.
Our RTCC
operators are civilian employees of the police department,
and they may not share data or information with federal, state, or other city
jurisdictions for enforcement efforts related to immigration enforcement,
reproductive rights, or gender affirming care.
Absent a court order or judicial warrant,
while the police CCTV cameras capture footage
continuously, they are not continuously monitored.
When a relevant 911 call is received.
Cameras in the RTC are activated and operators can zoom in, pivot
and thus provide additional visual information about the area.
In general.
Camera footage is stored onsite and retained locally
for five days, after which it is deleted.
However, if footage is connected to an incident,
it is uploaded to and retained on servers operated by our technology vendor axon.
On their evidence.com platform.
This footage may be used in investigations related to reported incidents.
I know that cameras can be, have been and will be useful tools
to solve crime in Seattle and in countless other cities across the world.
I believe in the good faith and good judgment
of the people currently operating the RTC,
but too many of the most important protections rely on standard
operating procedures rather than clear, enforceable policy.
I'm also aware of the reports that the state Department of Licensing
and other agencies have provided information to federal authorities,
and we need to make sure that a similar data leak cannot happen here
in Seattle, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
That means putting in place clear, enforceable protections
for how surveillance data is stored, accessed and shared.
I also remain concerned that we don't know enough about the security of our data
when it is transferred
to offsite evidence.com servers, which may be located in states
with different degrees of legal protection and could be vulnerable to subpoena.
And more broadly, I believe it is not good governance to expand
a pilot program without completing an evaluation of its impacts.
That's why I'm pausing the planned expansion
until we are able to complete an audit and strengthen protections.
We are working with NYU's policing project
to conduct the data governance and privacy audit.
This audit will specifically examine whether current policies and practices
address potential harms to civil rights and civil liberties adequately.
The UPenn evaluation, overseen by the office of the Inspector General,
is focused on evaluating crime occurrences, investigative
outcomes, police operations, and community perceptions of the RTC.
I know this issue has become an intense focus of public interest,
and I think it's also important to zoom out a little bit.
There's no doubt that these cameras make it easier
to solve some crimes, including serious ones like homicides,
but also cameras are not the one key to making our neighborhood safe.
And on the other
hand, there are legitimate concerns about privacy over
surveillance and potential misuse of surveillance technologies.
But also, these cameras are not the primary threat to immigrants, trans
people or people seeking reproductive health care in our country right now.
There is so much more to public safety and so much more
to protecting the communities being targeted by the federal government.
These are big, sticky, multidimensional problems with no simple answers.
And in that context, the cameras start
looking like an easy switch that can be turned on or off.
So I know that some people will be upset
that I am not turning off all the cameras immediately,
and others will be upset that I am not charging ahead with turning on more.
To those
people, I say let's work together on the bigger project
of making Sodo and the Central District and Capitol Hill
and neighborhoods throughout the city safer for everyone.
And let's work together on all the ways that we can keep immigrants
and other vulnerable communities safe from federal overreach and abuse,
all the ways that are not as easy as flipping a switch.
I'm committed to that work.
So even if you disagree with me
about this decision, let's move forward on that together.
Please consider my office a partner in that work.
I want to thank all the advocates
who have been active on this issue, on all sides.
I know that in many ways, we all want the same thing.
For all of us to be able to get where we need to go, spend time
in our neighborhoods, and live our lives knowing that we will come home safe.
I also
want to thank Chief Sean Barnes and SPD for their collaboration,
as my office has been working toward these decisions.
And in particular, I want to thank Commander Doug Russo
and the staff at the Real Time Crime Center for their work in partnership.
I want to thank members of the City Council
for productive conversations and everyone in my office
who has been working very hard on this issue.
The decisions we make now will shape our city
and our sense of safety, privacy and trust in government for years to come.
So we need to take the time to get the right policies in place,
and hopefully we can find some more common ground along the way.
So my decision today is just the first step.
I will be holding a town hall next Friday at Town Hall, Seattle
for a more
in-depth conversation on this issue and so that people can have
a further chance to weigh in on this issue with me directly,
and I'll stand for questions.
I have also to help me out.
I have, Kevin Cahill, my general counsel, who's been doing a ton of work
on this issue.
And Lee hunt, executive director of crime and community harm reduction.
And happy to take some questions.
- Yeah.
Mayor, how long are you giving yourself to to do this review?
And then, you know, to the, to the point that, I've made that kind of a two faces
out of the two already start cameras ring cameras everywhere.
How do you kind of think of other monitoring devices that the city uses?
- Yeah.
So the I think we anticipate and Cadman might be able to weigh in here.
We anticipate that the security audit that,
we're going to be conducting will take a few months, probably.
So that's kind of our initial timeline, for getting some more information.
And yeah, I mean, I think there's a much larger conversation about all the kinds
of surveillance that we are subjected to all day, every day.
I mean, we have, you know, our phones and our computers
are surveilling us 24 seven in the interest of making profit.
We have,
you know, many other levels of government have different
surveillance technologies.
And, yeah, I mean, I think that the
I don't know if you want to clarify your question,
but I think the I mean, the cameras are one piece of a bigger puzzle.
There's something that we at the city have very direct control over in terms of,
being able to set our own policies and decide kind of how they're used.
- I guess just within the context that you just described.
But mass surveillance.
What why is this sort of of the perhaps the last straw, or
why does it make sense to draw a line at these, you know, not that .
- I mean, it's,
it's a, it's a thing that is a thing that we have control over of the city. So,
you know, I can't I can't
set policy for, for everything.
- Yeah. So,
it's a preference we've been reporting for the last few years,
Converge media distribution, consulting and speaking to
the actual victims of crime that are happening right now
and not received threats that might happen in the future.
But people, a lot of people on the ground level,
as you know, welcome these cameras, because they're the ones
who are actually being victimized today by usually repeat offenders.
My question is to you, you said that it was important that the city
works with people on both sides of this issue.
What exactly in your office, what are you committed to in your office
besides just listening sessions of, you know, people voicing their concerns?
What does that mechanism look like
to bring people who don't want cameras and people who do want cameras
to to some kind of compromise here within the city.
Is it just listening, or are you going to assign somebody in your office?
This is a lot more responsibility to get to a resolution.
- Yeah.
I mean, you know, people in my office have been having conversations
with various stakeholders and people in the community with variety of opinions.
So as I mentioned, we're having a town hall next week.
So that's one opportunity for people with all kinds of opinions
to come together and voice those in a public setting.
As well as to, you know, hear, I think it's gonna be a conversation
between probably need another person to get at some of the more kind of nuanced
nuances of this, of this debate in kind of a long form format.
But yeah, I mean, I think we're open.
So if you have thoughts about like, you know, if,
if it makes sense to bring together folks with different perspectives
and more of like a small conversation format or something,
I think we're open to different ways that this engagement could look.
- It’s ust playing. Off of what you would say.
- Yeah.
- Well, what you said is that that you want to bring
the different sides of this issue together.
And I guess what I'm saying is, besides of, of a listening session,
which is important, because there's lots of perspectives here.
Does the office of the mayor have any intentions in a more formal capacity?
To see how there is a budget gap there?
You know, as you said, often times the voice of victims,
people who are actually victimized right now,
they're not as loud as other other groups, for sure.
And a lot of times they're overlooked.
And so I'm just seeing if there's a formal kind of situation here beyond listening.
- Yeah. I mean, we don't we don't have that planned.
But I'm very open to I'm very open to working on something like that.
I think that could be really productive.
- How do we know how many license plate readers are in the city of Seattle?
And you say, turn them off.
Like, how many are we talking about?
- I don't know, but we do know that.
- Our license plate
readers are assigned to each of our patrol vehicles,
as well as to six of our parking enforcement officers.
So all of those will be turned off.
- Do you know how many?
- It's about 400 right now, depending on if they if the,
patrol vehicles in service are out of service.
- Does that include, like, the highway 99 tunnel.
License plate reader?
- We don't have those at all.
That's not under the S.P.D. purview.
- I have a question about, your your statement that this being based
on data and not feelings, if a, you know, there are values at play here too,
and if a security report comes back and says it's totally secure,
can you talk about how your values are going to inform
or not inform a decision about these cameras?
- I mean, I think that if
if the audit comes back and says everything's totally secure,
we're not at all worried about this data getting into the hands
of the federal government.
I think likely my decision at that point
would be to move forward with the expansion, of the pilot.
But I do think that there's a larger conversation to be had about,
just given that there are, like, basic like, do you want to live in a society
where there's, like, cameras in every corner? Right.
I think that's a very legitimate question.
And I think there's a kind of a weighing of the public benefit that the cameras
are providing in terms of our ability to solve crimes and sometimes intervene
when crimes are in progress. Right.
I think that's a real like that's a real benefit. Right.
But then that has to be weighed against,
just general privacy concerns and then just risks of misuse.
That's not even just overreach by the federal government, but,
other ways that this data could be misused or contribute to overpolicing or,
you know, there's there's other considerations.
So I think that, in general, moving forward, I would like to
do a lot more thinking and have more of a public conversation around
what that balances.
Is there some, like, level of crime in a neighborhood where it's
warranted to, to have the CCTV cameras?
Because otherwise, why don't we just put them everywhere, right?
That would make things even easier, right?
So I think there are real questions there.
And, so yeah, if that answers your question, I think
I'd be inclined to move forward with, the proposed pilot expansion.
But before doing anything else, like have more of that big conversation
around, values and kind of those balances.
- Does that include the UPEN study?
Because, I mean, you're you're sort of
stating that they're effective, but I don't think we know yet.
- I mean, I think anecdotally, like there are, you know, SPD, I can tell you
in many instances when, the cameras have been helpful in solving crimes.
So, yeah, I think that that is partly what I'm hoping that the UPenn study
is going to help us with is really a more,
evidence based assessment of like, what is the utility of the cameras?
Because there's one thing I know is one thing to say, like,
these cameras have been used in this many incidents, but like,
how many crimes probably wouldn't have been able to solve themselves
without them, or how many would take more kind of in-person police capacity
or taken longer to solve. Right.
And so we need a lot more of that texture, I think.
And also we need to understand just the range of the kinds of crimes
that they're being used for now,
because there's just a lot of nuance there as well.
- But following up on that,
what about the public safety outcomes that you've heard from us
PD or seen otherwise was not sufficient to take the risk
with the potential vulnerability of data.
- Say that again.
- What about the public safety outcomes, whether it's
what CPD has told you, what you're understanding,
you have an evaluation that you're undertaking.
But about what SPD has told you that the cameras have been used for so far.
What about that was not sufficient to take the risk with data.
What potentially access to these?
- Well, I just I mean, we're in a moment where, I think there's just heightened
anxiety in immigrant communities and other communities
that are being targeted by the federal government.
And so I think there's just kind of a it's a good moment to be extra cautious
and to demand a higher bar in terms of,
trust in our data security and storage and sharing practices.
And so, you know, I think that what I've seen from what I've heard from S.P.D.
and what I've, you know, seen at the real time Crime Center, right.
I think there's no doubt that there's
that the cameras are useful again in solving crimes.
And, but I just think that this is a moment where it makes sense to pause.
- Those experiences, change your mind on these game.
- I mean, I think,
I mean, not not entirely.
I mean, I think, like, I, you know, I, I have the same concerns
that I was expressing all last year about the potential for misuse of the data.
Right. So that hasn't changed.
But I know a lot more now about how these cameras work,
and what they're used for.
And so, yeah, I mean, that's kind of changes
your perspective when you, when you learn more.
But I don't think that I'm in like a wildly different place
than I once was last year, but I just know a lot more in detail.
And obviously, I'm not in a position
where I actually have to make decisions about it.
- When you said you wanted a couple more months to review
this, is that independent of the timeline for the audit,
or are you talking about the audit?
- the audit is what were the the timeline right now is being determined
by the audit in terms of our next juncture for potentially making a decision.
- And any exposure for the city to like change or breach contract with Exxon.
- Not that I'm aware of.
I don't know if, you know, if you want to
know.
Yeah.
- About the cameras
in the Stadium district, how many new cameras we can install,
and once they first will be in place
to make sure that they're not on, when they're not supposed to be on,
and then at the end of the World Cup, do they just kind of stay there off forever?
- So I believe is it 20 cameras
to 26 for the Stadium district?
Okay.
So sounds like we will be installing 26 cameras in the Stadium district.
I believe we have a pretty foolproof methods of making sure they're off
so they will be off unless we decide unless again,
there's a credible threat and we decide to turn them on.
And, and then, you know, I think they will be subject to the
same kind of review that we're doing once we got the results of the audit.
And so there'll be a further decision at that point,
whether we're just moving forward with the planned expansion,
in which case we would be turning them on and connecting them to the RTCC or not.
- And then for the AlPR, has Axon
indicated a willingness to do the work to kind of bridge
some of the technological gaps that is causing the problem, I think.
- Yeah. You want to take this one?
- The answer is yes.
We're talking with axon, as is every other agency
that's an end user here in the state of Washington with the restriction on
having to geofence, when an alpr system is active,
we want to ensure that the maps are correct, that we have
all of the businesses and schools and appropriate areas that need to be,
not having the cameras operating in.
Correct.
We need that data correct before we can test and ensure
that as vehicles are driving with our patrol officers in them,
those cameras, the Alpr cameras, are being turned off appropriately.
So we've got some technical hurdles to do.
We're working with axon on that.
Yeah.
- Do you have an idea on the timeline?
- Absolutley not. This is all for all brand new for us.
And we're going to do it right.
That's the important thing. to follow. Up on the Stadium district.
- To follow up on the Stadium district.
What will be the procedure for flipping the switch and like,
what would the threshold be?
Who would have final say on that?
Will you be reviewing?
You know, I've read.
- I'm the mayor, so I have final say.
Yeah.
I mean, I think, I don't I'm not sure that we've, we've defined
precisely what credible threat is, but we just know that it's like,
you know, the eyes of the world
are going to be on Seattle, and there's going to be a lot of,
there could be potential threats.
So we're just, yeah, we'll be we'll be kind of figuring that out.
But yeah, that's really.
- It is.
Does SPD think that it's workable to, geofence
churches and schools and, you know, and how are you going to define a church?
I mean, is that does that all seem workable?
And then also, is there a revenue implication to not being able.
- So for the
alpr systems in our patrol vehicles, we're going to be
about we're going to be evaluating how workable that is.
So if you're a church or a school or a medical center,
you have a, a
a business license.
And that is with the city.
And we can identify those parcels where those places are located
and use those to build the map and identify the buffers.
So that process is beginning, beginning now
in terms of the parking enforcement officers, we're going to be turning off
those six cameras that will have an impact on revenue.
I do not know how much at this point.
- Mayor, do you think that this is a waste of taxpayer money
to set up all these cameras, turn them on and off or off indefinitely,
especially when you talked and seen about how crime has escalated in the city.
You said you were invested in investing more in the city.
What does that look like?
Especially when kind of three fold question here,
when we've seen such a huge vacancy rate across the downtown for,
I mean, how do you prevent businesses
from leaving, as we're saying, these cameras are helping solve crime.
What do you say to business owners
who are concerned every day that they may not make it to the work?
- And to to be clear,
the cameras in the downtown core will remain on and active and in use.
And.
Yeah. So, I mean, I just think this is really important
that we get this decision, right?
And, and I think I'll also just go back to, you know, these cameras, while
useful to solve crime, they're not the the answer to our public safety problems.
Right?
I haven't seen any evidence that they deter or prevent crime.
Right. They're helpful in, in solving it.
But in terms of actually making our neighborhoods safer,
we have a lot of other kinds of work to do, right?
We have work on our police staffing and making sure that we're building
trusting relationships between police and the communities that they're serving in.
We have work to do on gun violence prevention.
That's another big body of work that my office's taken very seriously
right now.
We have work to do just on, addressing,
the way the, you know, drug use and the ways that our unsheltered
homelessness crisis intersects with public safety.
So there's there's a lot of different things
that we need to be doing in neighborhoods around the city to improve, to make sure
that people, you know, feel safe and are safe in their neighborhoods.
And so I think the cameras are actually a relatively small piece of that,
but it's important that we get it right.
And so we're doing our due diligence.
- And our one question after that question.
- what was the SPD response to your decisions?
- We've been talking with SPD throughout, this process.
And again, the folks at the Real Time Crime Center had been incredibly
helpful and welcoming and, and open with us and, yeah.
So, I mean,
I think we're we're all on the same page about how we're moving forward.
And we're going to just continue.
I think there's there's work to be done right on our on the policy side of things.
Right.
Part of the reason why we're doing this is because there's,
you know, this this pilot is relatively new.
And so there's a lot of practices that are that the real time Crime Center
folks are doing, which are good, but they're not actually encoded in policies.
So we're going to be continuing to work with them on that.
- The chief supports your decisions. - Yeah.
- Absolutely. - Yeah.
- Cesar Chavez Park,
any thoughts about, Cloverdale,
what's going to happen with that park?
- Breaking news.
So, not not not really.
I mean, I think that's a conversation that if if the community
wants to have a conversation about that, we can have a conversation about that.
And it's not entirely up to Seattle.
I believe that's, King County's involved in that park as well.
- Mayor, you were at the governor's press conference
was disrupted by far left activists who are against these cameras.
What do you say to the people who do.
Not want to compromise at all and refuse to take again?
No. For an answer?
They want these camps totally out of the city.
- I mean, I think my remarks were partly speaking to those people and to everyone.
- I think that's that.
That's I think over there right now. Let's do it.
You're welcome to by.
- I already nodded at this fellow. So we're going to take one more.
- Mayor just looking at, Axon’s federal contracts.
30% of their money comes from the Department of Homeland Security.
It's about $20 million.
15 million of that comes from Ice and Customs and Border Protection.
Why is the city partnering with axon in particular, as opposed to
maybe some other company?
- I mean, what other I mean, military industrial complex, right.
We got like, not that many companies that provide services like that.
So I don't know that there's like, if you want to point us to a, squeaky
clean company to, to do business with, happy to happy to have that. Yes.
- I don't know if
you can speak more to that credible threat question
and sort of what the how often
what is the likelihood that Seattle would get a credible
threat in advance of an incident at something like the World Cup versus
like a random event that we might wish we would have had the cameras on for?
- I'm going to defer to a police officer here.
- I'm not I'm not a police officer.
But, so a credible threat.
We have an intelligence unit.
And as we stand up, our collaborative resources for FIFA, regionally,
we have a whole team that's focused
on making sure that the safety of the venue
and the visitors here in the city for those games are our top.
That's our most important thing that we're doing.
So for us, we're going to have in place,
systems that will allow us to alert to any potential
noticed threat that's been published about some activity.
We will be those cameras are off, but if you will, they're on standby,
in a sense, and they can be brought up to speed pretty quickly.
The definition of credible threat or significant incident?
We're going to spend some time with our lawyers
talking about the actual functionality of what that looks like, under
what conditions and what categories.
So we're going to work through all of that.
Does that answer your question.
- Yeah.
- Okay.
Great.
- Okay.
- Big meetings in the NBA next week.
What is your office some sort of return to the basketball.
- Yes I think we're going to we're going to keep the questions on surveillance today.
As exciting a topic as that is I'm sure I'm sure we'll hear more soon.