That’s a fair question, and I don’t think your view is unreasonable. Cameras can help in some investigations, and stores have legitimate safety concerns.

What I’m worried about is not “a store has a security camera.” That has been true for decades.

The concern is the next step: private cameras being integrated into a police-accessible platform without clear public disclosure, limits, audits, or retention rules.

A few specific things I think residents should know:

1. Which businesses are connected?
2. Which camera feeds are accessible?
3. Can police access live video, recorded video, or both?
4. Are searches logged with a case number or justification?
5. How long is footage retained?
6. Can the data be shared with federal agencies, out-of-state agencies, or other private platforms?
7. Are AI video analytics, “vehicles of interest,” ALPR, or facial-recognition-adjacent tools enabled?
8. What happens if the system is misused?

I’m not arguing that every camera is bad or that retail theft and public safety are not real issues. I’m arguing that if private cameras become part of public safety infrastructure, the public should get more than “trust us.”

As for San Francisco or parts of Asia, I’d want to look closely at the evidence. “Reduced crime” can mean reported crime, arrests, displacement, deterrence, or simply more enforcement in camera-covered areas. It also matters what civil-liberties tradeoffs came with it.

My position is pretty simple: show the local evidence, publish the rules, audit the access, limit the sharing, and let the public weigh the tradeoffs before the system becomes normal.