This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Open Letter to Oakland City Council & Privacy Advocates

I was stunned to read your stance reversal on DAC, City Council.  I thought there was general consensus on crime in Oakland. To address ACLU’s Ms. Lye’s question as to why “a project about port security contains surveillance from across the city,” the answer is very clear: Oakland is synonymous with crime.  Depending on which survey you refer to, Oakland remains on the list of the “Top Five Most Dangerous Cities in the Nation” for the last decade or so.  It doesn’t help that Oakland has a police department that is severely understaffed and under-resourced.  In fact, each detective handles an average of 20 cases/year, more than the effective rate of 5 cases/year.   This naturally begs the question: how can city officials help abate crime if they cannot immediately resolve issues of staffing and resources?  Here’s where DAC can be put to good use. 

To be sure, there is potential for abuse but this is where you come in, City Council.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but just as you can develop proposals that become policy, you can also refine these proposals to mitigate potential for abuse.  Surely a balance can be struck between privacy concerns and crime abatement. We have to have a solutions-oriented City Council if we ever hope to address endemic violence in Oakland. If the concern is invasion of privacy, I would like to believe that if one has nothing to hide, then one has nothing to fear.  After all, once you step out of your house, EVERY ONE CAN SEE YOU irrespective of presence of cameras.  It’s not like cameras will be installed inside your house, a’ la Big Brother. 

Of course, I’m saying this to make a point and not merely to be overly simplistic or facetious. But the simple truth is, we have to exercise common sense in the matter of surveillance.  Perhaps if Oakland isn’t consistently ranked the 2nd or 3rd most violent city in the US of A, perhaps if the ratio of police officer to resident is better than 1:638, perhaps if the city doesn’t have an abysmally low crime-solve rate, then, yes, I’d ask why does Oakland need to integrate surveillance from parts of the city to the DAC. Lest we forget Quinn Boyer, the paramedic who was shot and killed in 2013, a crime partially caught on camera.  That’s why the perpetrator is now on trial for his transgressions.  So, isn’t it time to back your words into action, City Council?  Isn’t it time to help an overburdened, overworked OPD?  Isn’t it time to actually do something about crime abatement?  Please do not squander this opportunity away.

Find out what's happening in Berkeleywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

To privacy advocates, is your privacy more important than public safety in a violent city such as Oakland? More important than giving OPD the help they desperately need and homicide victims the justice they deserve? Before you answer this question, please note that I once shared your privacy concerns.

Before you answer this question, please consider this: the person who made you laugh the most, the only person: who loved you unconditionally, made you smell his stinky feet, made your heart burst with such pride and joy because of his humanity,  explained the rules of basketball to you, sang “What a Wonderful World” to you and brought out the best in you.  Imagine this person who made you happy for nearly 23 years, the love of your life shot an hour before his birthday for trying to do the right thing.  Imagine never hearing his voice calling you “mom” and never seeing his smiling face again.  Imagine this before you say your right to privacy is more important than my son’s right to justice.

Find out what's happening in Berkeleywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Sincerely,

Aya Nakano’s Mother

 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?