City in NY Makes Cameras and Police Access Mandatory

Author: Carlton Purvis, Published on Feb 14, 2014

Surveillance sales people dream about their products being required by law. Qatar's surveillance laws do that, and it would be a gold mine if the huge U.S. market followed suit. In this update, we review a recently passed ordinance that requires surveillance for businesses in a New York city.

The Ordinance

************ ***** ****** ***** ***** ***** ******** ***** ******** ** law.*****'* ************ ****** ****, *** ** ***** ** * **** **** ** the **** *.*. ****** ******** ****. ** **** ******, ** review * ******** ****** ********* **** ******** ************ *** ********** in * *** **** ****.

The *********

[***************]

********* ****** ****************** ******, *** ************ ******* ********** ** ******* *** ******** ***** ************ *******.

*** *********, ***** *** ******* ** *** ***** ****** ********** of ****** ******’* *** **********, ******* ** ********** “** ******** risk *** ******** ********.”

********* ** *** *** ***, **********, ****** *** ***** ******* (including ****), **** *****, ******* ******, ***** ******* ********** *** any ************* **** ******* ******** *** * *.*. **** **** that ********.

**** **** ****** ****** *** ********** ** *** ****, *** they **** *** **** ** ******, ********* ** *** **** clerk’s ******. *** ******* *** ***-********** ** $*** *** ***.

Specs The **************’* ******* * ******** ****** ** *******, *** ** **** mandate ******* ** *** ********* *** ***** *** ** **** to ******* *** ******** ****** ** **** ** *** **** "to *** ****** ***********" *** *******"* **** ***** ** *** **********'* ****."

*** ***** ************ *** *****. ******* ** ********* * ******* pixels *** ****, ** **** ******** ******* ** **** ** produce “****** *********** ******.” **** **** ** ****** ** ******** ** ******* ******* **** *** ** **** ** ****** *****.

***** ** ** *********** *** * ******** ****** ****, ***** count ** ****** ** ********* ****** **** ** **** ** digital. ******** ***** **** ** ****** ** * ****** “**********” in * ********** ****** ****.

Recording **** *** *********Surprisingly, the ordinance doesn’t require cameras to record at all times, but “during all hours of operation of the business and two hours after the business closes.” Video must be stored for a minimum of seven days.

Police ****** *********!

*** ********* ******** *** ******** **** **** ************ ******* ** the ***** ****** ********** ** ****** ****** ** ****** (*********** if **** ** ****** ******** *****, *** ** **** ** possible ** * ******** ** ******).

************, *** ********** *** **** ******* *** ****** ** *** time *** **** **** (** ******* ****) ********** **** ****** a ************* ****** ******* **** *** ** **********.

****** * **** *** ** ***** **** ****** ****** ******, effectively ****** ****** ********* **** ***** ******* ****** *** * warrant ** ** ***** *** * ******** ** ***** *** footage.

Logging ***********

********** **** ******** **** ** ******* *** ****** ** ********, recordings *** ******** *** **** *** ******* *** **** ***. These **** **** ** ********** ** ******.

**********

*** ***** ******** ***********, ***** ********** *,*** ***** ********** ** the ****** **** **’* * ****** **** *** ********** ***** to ***** ** **********. *** *** ** *** ***********, ** Samuels **** ** *** ********** ***** ***** ** ** **** cameras, **** **** ****** *** *** **. ******************** * ***** ** ** ********* ** ********** **** ******* surveillance *******,*** **** ***’* ******* ****, *** *******.

******* ********** *****, *** ********* *** *** ******, *** *** as *** ****** ******* **** ********** ** ** ***** ***.

“*****’* * ********** ******* *** ****** ****** *** **** *** forcing **, ***** * ***, ** ** ************ *** ****,” he ******* ******* ****.

***** ********** (* *****, * ********, * ***** ******* *****) I ****** ***** *** ********* **** **** ******* *** ******* installed **** *** *** ***** ************, *** ***** *** **** about ** *****’* ***** ** *** ******* *********** *** **** police ****** *** *********.

*** **** ** ***** ******* *** ******* ** *********** *** certification.

******

*** ****'* ************ ****** ** **** ** ****. ******* ** does *** ******* ******** ******** ***** **** *** ***** * VCR, ***** ************ ***** ** ********* ** ****** *** *** at * *** *** *****. ** **** ***** *** **** from ****** ** *** ** **** ******* *** ******** ** an **-****** ******* ** **** *** **** ** ********.

*******, ******* **** ******** ************ ***** ***** ******* *** **** cameras ***'* **** ** ****** ******* *** ***** **** **** question *** **** *** *******, ** *** ** ********, **** be *** *********** * ***********.

Comments (18)

This ordinance is ridiculous. No lawsuits brought yet?

How many constitutional amendments does this break, directly or indirectly?

Given that this is NY, they will probably inspect all the video they can in order to find people who might be violating any law, like wearing white after labor day.

I'd love to be a combo security integrator/lawyer there right now.

Let the lawsuits from businesses commence...

In one year, let more lawsuits from citizens commence...

I can see it now: They'll grab video from a bar, then arrest a patron for public intoxication. Don't think that would happen? Well, a couple years ago in Fairfax county, police raided bars, and arrested people inside the bars for public intoxication. Yes, inside the bars. http://www.prisonplanet.com/a_crime_to_drink.html

http://showcase.netins.net/web/renegadesports/c2bc/Police%20State/20030106-Cops%20go%20to%20bars%20to%20arrest%20drunks.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/815921/posts

Then, they'll arrest anyone who is carrying anything that looks like a gun.

Then, they'll arrest .... anyone they want for anything they want.

Instead, they should do incentives, require a warrant (or at least a subpoena), and insurance companies can provide discounts for systems, just like homeowners can get a discount with a security system.

Where I work, if the police come to me looking for data, I demand a warrant to our registered agent, and I get our internal counsel involved. On TV, police get data/video from anyone with harassment. Doesn't work here.

Now, if I call the police, I'll have the data/video ready to hand over, (after talking with internal legal).

BTW, thanks for posting this.

I completely agree with the above posters.... ridiculous ordinance.

This is a grandstanding move by someone who wants to get headlines/re-elected. The lack of technical specifications proves (to me) that the backers of this new ordinance have no clue what they are doing.

Forget the local integrators.... they are partying hard at the local barrister watering holes.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, one huge problem with this ordinance is that it attempts to selectively (and in practice, subjectively) identify those that must comply with this 'law', while excluding those it/they deem 'not applicable'.

And warrantless access to private property by local LE is particularly troubling to me as well... :(

Wow. A customer forced to spend the cash on something will get the bare minimum needed meaning less profit margins and more headaches.

Stupid (and likely both unenforceable and unconstitutional) law.

White Plains, huh? Now I get it! Even 40-50 years ago when I lived fairly nearby, White Plains was known for being "Snooty".

Let me ask a stupid question :)

What is unconstitutional about this ordinance? What specifically does this violate?

I am not saying it's good, I am just wondering on what grounds it is unconstitutional.

14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)

4th Amendment (Unreasonable Searches & Seizures)

5th Amendment (Self-Incrimination Clause) - if they can seize your system with no warrant, it may contain self-incriminating material you would not normally be forced to disclose.

Let's see:

Possibly warrantless searches and seizures?

Ok, then the objection is not the requirement to have a surveillance system but the mandatory police access, correct?

My 14th Amendment objection is based on my previously mentioned selective/subjective enforcement.

The owners of the listed types of establishments are being singled out for enforcement based on arbitrary standards.

How about "taxation without representation"? The requirement is, in effect, a selective tax.

Just another example of legislators from local all the way up passing laws that violate the constitution/bill of rights. They do it all the time and the law will stay on the books until challenged, costing someone AND the public entity(taxpayers) that passed the law lots of bucks. Then it will usually get overturned by the court, then it is gone and the same BS will continue over and over. The irony is in most cases the law 'makers' are advised by their legal folks the law will not make it.

Happens here in Idaho all the time. Lawyers love this stuff.

Well, there's lots of equipment requirements to run businesses. Buddy of mine had a bakery. He wanted to serves sandwiches and eggs and soup. AHJ told him he could make all the coffee and cold sandwiches he wanted, but if he wanted to have a griddle for scrambled eggs, he would have to install a fire supression system and an overhead exhaust hood.

What about soup?

You can have a soup crock if you want, says the AHJ, but if there's oil in the soup, you cannot cook, warm, or serve it unless you have a full fire supression setup and exhaust hood.

Okay, says my buddy, who started offering sandwiches, including cream cheese, lox, egg salad, and tuna (all cooked offsite), but not eggs or soup.

ahhhh, and there is the rub, Ari..... who has granted the AHJ the J to enforce this type of selective ordinance?

What gives LE that authority - beyond this self-worded, now 'legal' document? There would seem to be at least some question as to how this new ordinance may be in direct conflict with existing statutes at higher levels.

As others have already pointed out, there are laws made all the time that eventually crumble under further legal scrutiny. I think this is one of those things.

While your food truck buddy has to abide by very specific guidelines for very specific things, this ordinance - imo - is not near specific enough to withstand a strong legal challenge.

It's interesting to see how the question of security is approached in different smaller municipalities and their downtown business districts.

This article about the town of New Castle, PA describes a situation where business owners seem to be working hand with local LE to improve their security and that of their patrons with positive results.

What's different here compared with White Plains, NY? Is it a question of the relationship business owners have with their elected officials and local LE? Did this town work on educating its business community rather than trying to shove some kind of hodgepodge regulation down their throat?

Quick/interesting update to this related to your comment. One of the council members I left a message for while researching this called me back and said a few businesses did work with the city and law enforcement on this. It was a business development group made up of a handful of the businesses downtown. She said there is some controversy/ill will because the law applies to all businesses that fall into the above mentioned categories, yet the majority of the businesses impacted didn't get a chance to provide input.

Conditions relating to CCTV on a liquor licence has been legally enforceable in Australia in some states since the 1990s. Hotel operators have been fined and lost their liquor licences for non compliance. The specifications have evolved over the years but often debated as being poorly written from a technical perspective (often not achievable due to various issues) and not possible to measure compliance objectively. I appeared as an expert CCTV witness for a hotel in Sydney whereby the governing body ruled that the specification developed by the police department was technically ambiguous and couldn't be objectively measured which resulted in the police having to withdraw this particular CCTV specification in the state of NSW and the requirement for the particular hotel to comply with it.

A New Jersey assemblywoman must have read about the White Plains ordinance....

New Jersey is floating a mandatory surveillance Bill at the state level - specifically targeted at casinos - after a 'savage' attack on a patron in an Atlantic City casino stairwell (no details on the incident are given, nor which casino this incident occured in).

What is clearly different in the NJ story is that casinos have way more clout (and high-priced lawyers) than any group of White Plains shopkeepers could ever muster.

The Casino Association of NJ, as you can imagine, is fighting back hard - and one of the things they are attacking is the fact that casinos are being singled out over other commercial establishments.

Towards the end of the story, the 'Bill-makers' were already capitulating some, surmising that the Bill isn't broad enough! i.e. they recognize the legal issue this raises and instead of admitting the whole Bill is stupid, shortsighted and illogical (casinos have a far superior security apparatus already in place than most other commercial entities), they seek to include other types of businesses to overcome the pesky business of writing constitutionally challengeable laws.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports on Police

UK Camera Commissioner Calls for Regulating Facial Recognition on Apr 15, 2019
IPVM interviewed Tony Porter, the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner after he recently called for regulations on facial recognition in the...
Bezos-Funded Deep Sentinel Tested on Mar 28, 2019
Backed by Jeff Bezos, the Silicon Valley startup, Deep Sentinel, has declared: No One Does Home Security Like We Do Our Surveillance Team has...
IBM / Genetec Surveillance System Investigated Over Philippines Human Rights Abuses on Mar 22, 2019
A lengthy investigation into an IBM video surveillance project in the Philippines, raising concerns IBM helped local police conduct a bloody...
City Physical Security Manager Interview on Mar 14, 2019
This physical security pro is the Physical Security Manager for the City of Calgary. He is a criminologist by training with an ASIS CPP credential....
US City Sued For Hiding Surveillance Camera Map on Mar 08, 2019
Should maps of public surveillance camera locations be kept a secret? That is what one US city is trying to do. Though the city admits the...
Verified Response Discontinued in Silicon Valley San Jose on Feb 28, 2019
Almost all security alarms are false. This has driven some municipalities to require verified response before dispatching police. However, now San...
Police Department Surveillance Manager Interview on Feb 28, 2019
Former Memphis PD Surveillance Manager, Lt. Joseph Patty retired months ago, but kept busy during his decades on the force, working to build up...
Massive Leak Of Chinese VMS Provider Exposes Xinjiang Surveillance on Feb 20, 2019
A subsidiary of China’s claimed largest VMS provider is tracking the precise location and ethnicity of millions in China’s Xinjiang region,...
Austria’s First GDPR Fine Is For Video Surveillance on Jan 29, 2019
Should EU businesses be concerned if police see a business' surveillance cameras filming public areas? This is what happened with Austria’s first...
Mobile Surveillance Trailers Guide on Jan 17, 2019
Putting cameras in a place for temporary surveillance where power and communications are not readily available can be complicated and expensive....

Most Recent Industry Reports

19 Facial Recognition Providers Profiled on Apr 23, 2019
IPVM interviewed 19 facial recognition providers at ISC West to understand their claimed accuracy, success and positioning. 9 from China, where...
Locking Down Network Connections Guide on Apr 23, 2019
Accidents and inside attacks are risks when network connections are not locked down. Security and video surveillance systems should be protected...
Hikvision Admits USA Sales Falling on Apr 22, 2019
Hikvision, in a new Chinese financial filing, has admitted that its USA sales are now falling. Less than a year after the US government passed a...
Speco Ultra Intensifier Tested on Apr 22, 2019
While ISC West 2019 named Speco's Ultra Intensifier the best new "Video Surveillance Cameras IP", IPVM testing shows the camera suffers from...
Arecont Favorability Results 2019 on Apr 22, 2019
Arecont's net negativity remained the same in IPVM's 2019 integrator study, though integrator's feeling became relatively more neutral compared to...
H.265 Usage Statistics on Apr 19, 2019
H.265 has been available in IP cameras for more than 5 years and, in the past few years, the number of manufacturers supporting this codec has...
ACRE Acquires RS2, Explains Acquisition Strategy on Apr 19, 2019
ACRE continues to buy, now acquiring RS2, just 5 months after buying Open Options. One is a small access control manufacturer from Texas, the...
Access Control Course Spring 2019 - Last Chance on Apr 19, 2019
 Register for the Spring 2019 Access Control Course----Closed IPVM offers the most comprehensive access control course in the industry. Unlike...
Riser vs Plenum Cabling Explained on Apr 18, 2019
You could be spending twice as much for cable as you need. The difference between 'plenum' rated cable and 'riser' rated cable is subtle, but the...
Verint Victimized By Ransomware on Apr 18, 2019
Verint, which is best known in the physical security industry for video surveillance but has built a sizeable cybersecurity business as well, was...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact