By Mahlon Meyer
Northwest Asian Weekly
Seniors in Action Foundation leader Nora Chan calls for support for the Seattle Chinatown Public Safety CCTV Project. (Photo by Mahlon Meyer)
“We need to raise another $150,000 to reach $300,000,” May Wan announced at a dinner at the House of Hong on June 22.
A former president of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Wan presides over the fundraising for the ambitious surveillance project by the nonprofit Seniors in Action Foundation (SIAF).
“With your contributions, we’re getting there,” Wan told the more than 200 dinner guests.
The project to equip Seattle’s Chinatown-International District (ID) kicked off almost a decade ago, when the SIAF, a nonprofit led by Nora Chan, raised money to put up four cameras.
But the current project involves adding dozens of new cameras and state-of-the-art technology that will eventually muster facial-recognition artificial intelligence and blanket the whole ID with electronic surveillance, making it the most monitored neighborhood in the city.
“As a police officer, I am very, very impressed,” said a Seattle police officer attending the dinner.
Some say that the equipment that will capture every protest, every car, and every individual on the streets of Chinatown is ushering in an era of authoritarianism that could ultimately destroy liberal democracy and freedom of movement, assembly, and identity.
Supporters of the project describe a neighborhood beset with crime in which homeless drug addicts casually and with impunity break down doors of honest, law-abiding merchants.
“The homeless people come over and break down the doors of businesses for a few dollars,” said a former SIAF board member, who asked not to be named for fear of jeopardizing his business with any contrarian publicity.
“Then the business owners have to spend thousands to make repairs,” he said.
Proponents of the project further contend it will also bring in money to a dying neighborhood.
Chan, the public face of the project and keynote speaker at the fundraising event, said it was necessary for everyone to play their part and donate in order to make the district safe enough to attract tourists.
“I’m a 73-year-old woman,” she said, “I can single handedly raise $150,000, but that’s only half. Everyone needs to work together.”
One of many state-of-the-art cameras that will provide monitoring of the streets and alleyways of Chinatown when deployed. (Photo by Mahlon Meyer)
At the dinner, donations and checks trickled in, some as high as $30,000. They came both from Cantonese organizations that had been in the city for generations and also from newer mainland Chinese organizations, such as one affiliated with the Jiangnan region.
There are activists opposed to the surveillance project. They embrace a vision of Chinatown as a place of affordable housing, supported by the city government where the homeless are “our neighbors,” according to one activist who asked not to be identified because she felt she was not authorized to speak on behalf of her group, the Chinatown International District (CID) Coalition.
But proponents of the plan argue that such activists will actually bring about the destruction of Chinatown.
“Public housing will kill Chinatown,” said the former board member who asked for anonymity. “People who live there can’t afford to go out to eat.”
Instead, he argued, ensuring the safety of Chinatown will ensure the prosperity of everyone, not just merchants.
“You see, the seniors living here… they like to go out early in the morning to do exercise in the park. You think they’ll do that if the place continues to be unsafe?”
The idea of the cameras is to blanket the neighborhood with electronic surveillance that can be designed to look for a single individual, a protest, or even a specific car. The system can also be set up so the appearance of a certain troublesome individual can trigger the computer in the cameras to send an email to those in charge, alerting them of his presence.
Similar facial recognition technology has already been used in Baltimore, when law enforcement officials used it to identify members of a protest against police brutality that already had outstanding warrants out for them. Authorities were able to arrest them immediately, according to a recent article in the New York Times.
“We can arrange it to send an email if there is a protest,” said Jordan Ramadan, a representative of the company, Avigilon, that makes the system.
One of the cameras used by Avigilon was on display on the stage at the House of Hong. Gleaming white with an ominous black strip that Ramadan described as providing nighttime “infrared” vision, the monstrous globe hung over the festivities like an alien invader. Inside were four cameras that can be adjusted to zoom in, provide close ups, and pivot according to the will of the operator.
Similar technology has been used in Xinjiang in China and in other places to conduct surveillance of an entire population.
“Every entrance into and out of Chinatown will be covered,” said Ramadan, pointing to the slide.
To illustrate his point, the company traced in red a giant square around Chinatown, like a new laser-created boundary.
And yet the cameras will ultimately depend on human collaboration. They will record and monitor street activity around the clock. But if a crime is committed, it will take a human to report the crime so that technicians can pore through stored video on the servers and then supply it to law enforcement.
It was not immediately clear that many of the current residents of Chinatown would be eager to report crime to law enforcement.
At the fundraiser, members of the audience were asked to stand up and share stories about being subjected to criminal activity. Not a single person stood up, despite being offered a prize.
Finally, a former employee of the Seattle Police Department originally from China stood up and talked about graffiti on buildings and feeling unsafe walking at night.
In a subsequent brief interview, she professed admiration for Singapore.
“You can’t do anything bad because the government will catch you,” said Guanying Li, originally from Wuhan.
Mahlon can be reached at info@nwasianweekly.com.
Re: Guanying Li’s comments about the cameras:
“…these proposed cameras are owned by the community, and the government does not have access. The footage has to be pulled manually by the community to share with anyone else. Second, people have the right to freedom of speech and protest here, so the police don’t have legal ground to arrest protesters. ”
Even if the government does not have access and the cameras will not have facial recognition access, the proposal to subject C-ID to private camera surveillance is an intrusion into the public’s privacy.
Under the Constitution, the public has the right to free speech, assembly and privacy. The possibility that a protest can be captured on camera is detestable.
You don’t violate civil rights first, then attempt to defend them.
As Ms. Looan Nguyen points out, business owners have the option of installing cameras in their places of business. This would intrude on the public’s right to privacy.
In fact given the state of some small businesses in C-ID, I wonder if they are doing all they can to secure their businesses themselves as well as keep them clean and tidy.
The organizers of this unconstitutional project should not be lulled into believing that they will proceed without a fight.
Cameras are a passive solution that will give a false sense of security. It is patently dishonest to all those who visit this area not to let them know they will be on camera. The very thought infuriates me!
Surely the C-ID community can do better to protect the most vulnerable and the law abiding without infringing on the rights of all citizens.
No to turning the C-ID into a police state. No to electronic surveillance!
Guanying here.
This article is full of misrepresentations and out-of context quotes.
I would like to see a correction of the quote from me or the quote taken out. It is misleading and twisting what I said.
First of all, I did not profess admiration of the surveillance in Singapore. (More explanation below).
I also found it a personal attack to describe me only as “a formal SPD employee” and “from China”, which are obviously two bad things in the author’s opinion, and conveniently to skip the fact that I lived in Chinatown-ID for two years till earlier this year.
Here is the context of my comments.
Mahlon stopped me when I got off the stage and began to talk with me, without any self-introduction that he is a reporter. The conversation was, which I paraphrased:
Mahlon: China are using surveillance technology in Xinjiang and killing people. Do you know that?
Me: I have lived in the US for quite a few years and am not familiar with that area. And I haven’t seen any reports about that.
Mahlon: Does China have complete surveillance everywhere and watch you all the time?
Me: I don’t believe so. There are more surveillance cameras in major cities in Eastern China. I think Singapore has a much higher coverage. When I went there a few years ago, people were saying “there are many cameras. Don’t do anything bad. The government will catch you.”
Mahlon: Do you know about the students who went on the streets, protested and got executed by the military during the May Fourth Movement (in 1919, not under the CCP).
Me: Yes. (Note: I learned about the event in the textbook during middle school in China)
Mahlon: Do you think that will happen here? Will the government use the proposed cameras to prosecute protesters?
Me: I don’t think so. First, these proposed cameras are owned by the community, and the government does not have access. The footage has to be pulled manually by the community to share with anyone else. Second, people have the right to freedom of speech and protest here, so the police don’t have legal ground to arrest protesters.
Mahlon: Do you feel the Chinese Exclusion Act is about to happen again here?
Me: No. There may be a small group of people in the US who have strong opinions about China and Chinese people, but most people are open and friendly. I hope we can help to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
End of the conversation.
I have to admit at the time I was impressed by Mahlon’s fluent Chinese and considered him a friendly person. But revisiting our conversation after reading out of context quotes, I feel disappointed in his lack of professionalism. Mahlon made a point of sharing my hometown, which tried to paint me as someone without ties to the community.
While I was living in Chinatown-ID, I helped business report crimes, gave residents including non-English speaking seniors safety tips, and contacted social service providers for people with mental illness. Someone attempted to mug me in Chinatown-ID, while I was living there. This is why I wanted to speak up when asked to share experiences about crime affecting the community, however I wanted to speak about crime affecting the larger community.
Another correction to the article:
There are no facial recognition capacities on the cameras.
Why doesn’t the downtown Clean “Team operate in the C-ID? Why aren’t there bike cop patrols in the C-ID? Are there small business grants and asssistance available to the C-ID business owners? What City assistance is available to C-ID seniors for affordable housing? Is there City assistance for combating graffiti? What City assistance and support is there for this unique and amazing Historic District?”
I used to live and work in the district. It was home to me for many years and I still consider this home for family dining and shopping often. It is relatively safe but could use improvements given the increase in homeless encampment and vagrancy that impacts current residents and businesses in the area. However, I would much prefer to not be under surveillance when I visit the area to dine and to shop. I think each building owner has the option the exercise the use of surveillance equipment in and around their own establishments or buildings; but to blanket an entire neighborhood to include public sidewalks and streets, appears to be an infringement of personal cIvil liberties.
We are all interested in achieving the same goal, a safe and thriving Chinatown and International District. There are other alternatives as presented in questions above that Major Durkan can deploy instead to achieve this goal.
Mayor Durkan and staff, if you are reading this, we would like a response.
Regards, loan Nguyen
I am writing in response to Mahlon Mayer’s article in the NW Asian Weekly:
“Halfway to $300k goal — Surveillance system underway for Chinatown-International District”
Electronic surveillance is an unwise and unconstitutional solution to a human problem in the Seattle Chinatown-ID. Electronic surveillance is an invasion of privacy. We must resist.
Yes, the C-ID has problems with street crime, loitering, poverty, relentless gentrification, graffiti, safety, and the biggest challenge to the C-ID: the overall lack of respect and care manifested by historic disinterest and indifference from the City despite the historic significance of this area – Seattle’s only historic and contemporary immigrant community – and the potential for the community’s contributions to this city.
We saw this indifference and lack of support for the community under Ed Murray’s’ administration. I hope Mayor Durkan’s administration is not willing to endorse surveillance as much as she relied on this very community for her election.
Why doesn’t the downtown Clean Team operate in the C-ID? Why aren’t there bike cop patrols in the C-ID? Are there small business grants and asssistance available to the C-ID business owners? What City assistance is available to C-ID seniors for affordable housing? Is there City assistance for combating graffiti? What City assistance and support is there for this unique and amazing Historic District?
The Chinatown-International District and I include Little Saigon which is having its own challenges with high rises swallowing up this area needs advocacy and support from those in this community and beyond – who obviously have deep pockets and a questionable interest – as well as the City to solve these human problems and become a thriving, prosperous and outstanding community.
The Chinatown International District and Little Saigon don’t need electronic surveillance that will record every person innocent or guilty. This is an intrusion into privacy and a threat to our civil rights. I challenge the constitutionality of this proposal. If anything electronic surveilland/monitoring could frighten tourists and shoppers and new residents from entering the area.
It is a horrible mistake to look to mainland China and Singapore, two of the most repressive countries in East Asia, for inspiration and techniques. As we see from what is happening in Hong Kong, the people are fighting for freedom for their own jurisprudence, fighting against the ‘etradition law’ that would yield to mainland China’s authority.
An electronic surveillance system in Chinatown-ID is a poor solution to the human challenges in this wonderful community. It is a ‘sleeping policeman’, a lazy solution, an authoritarian solution, an unconstitutional solution, that will do more harm than good.
Don’t force a police state on Chinatown-ID. Resist authoritarianism. Stand up for this community with humane solutions not against it with authoritarian, unconstitutional and repressive solutions.
No to electronic surveillance in the Chinatown-International District.
Patty Fong
Seattle, WA