Sunday night, John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight was about police surveillance.
There’s a section of the show talking about Rialto, California police monitoring the cameras of businesses all over the city with direct feeds – including the swimming pool of what appears to be this Days Inn.
Credit: Days Inn Rialto
There are cameras everywhere, and the accumulation of them creates some scary situations that we’ve backed ourselves into without really realizing it. Between private cameras, license plate readers, cellphone trackers and predictive policing tools, it’s possible to monitor just about everyone for things far beyond crime. And it’s only after embarrassing revelations that discussions happen broadly over who can access cameras, what kind of suspicion and permissions are required, and whether potential monitoring subjects are told about it.
In Rialto, all new business construction and tenant improvements come with a requirement that exterior security camera feeds “shall be accessible” to police through their Fusus system.
Oliver argues that guests at a Days Inn are promised “a room that is fine, a bed that will do, and a front desk that occasionally has an employee behind it.” Secret police pool viewing is not part of “the Days Inn promise.”
And if you work at the Chick-fil-A there, just know that on one Tuesday afternoon, Rialto had five of your interior cameras open for two hours straight: the front counter, the drive-through register, the multipurpose room, the manager station and the office.
That feels a little weird to me—as does the fact that they accessed cameras at the Rialto Days Inn for hundreds of hours, including the one facing the pool.
And come on: getting secretly watched in your swimsuit is not supposed to be one of the perks of staying at a Days Inn… And I should say, Rialto PD insists some of those hits are because they were watching a whole area and scooping up all the cameras, or because they’d left a set of cameras on in the background at their office. But that is just not as reassuring as I think they want it to sound.
The way these cameras get used is creepy. Access logs show Flock employees opening feeds from the Marcus Jewish Community Center in Georgia, including a children’s gymnastics room and pool, as part of a sales demonstration. That’s not even ‘critical public safety’.
If there’s a specific incident being investigated, viewing a relevant camera for a short period of time – with documented reason – seems appropriate, although requiring making cameras available on an on-demand basis for law enforcement without any specific investigative purpose, without any external accountability, and without limitation on their ability to share it with other agencies does not.
And it seems like disclosure of police camera monitoring of the pool should be a bare minimum. Even if a standard hotel security camera is visible at the pool, live police access is dystopian (and materially different).
The pool is communal and there’s little expectation of privacy in legal parlance but that doesn’t mean voyeurism is appropriate, or ongoing monitoring by law enforcement.
I’m curious to hear from readers with specific knowledge of California’s Consumer Privacy Act, because it seems like that might requires notice prior to collection of personal information, which can include visual information (like whether you look good in a bikini).
This isn’t just a Days Inn Rialto or a California issue. Washington D.C. invites hotels to provide live camera feeds to its real-time crime center. Atlanta, Orlando, Cobb County, Delray Beach, Shreveport and numerous other jurisdictions integrate private business cameras using the same Fusus system as Rialto.
Cameras can work investigating crimes. The question is whether that justifies scooping up all data, and requiring all private data be made available to the government, including feeds from hotel pools and hot tubs. And now that some Marriott hotel rooms have microphones we may soon be having this discussion around more private data, too.
(HT: @istrakhov)
It may be that these cameras face the “public” but there is something inherently disturbing in the “requirement” of obtaining a building permit that makes you provide exterior CCTV cameras accessible to the police at any time vs. after the fact to find a potential criminal. Methinks some legal action may be afoot. Welcome to 1984… The minute smart phones were invented, we went full Orwell and there is not a damn thing you can do about it if you own a cell phone, you are a willing participant of “Big Brother”. Of course, you can get the drugstore burner phones, but you need to pay cash and cover your face at the cash register for full anonymity if you are into sketchy stuff.
I tell you, California is a very conservative state. Those conservatives just want to control every aspect of your life. Yes I am being sarcastic. This is creepy and very concerning when it comes to civil rights.
@Michael Mainello
Yes, I was born in North Hollywood and grew up in the San Fernando Valley (just over the hill from LA) living here is beyond challenging. Selling out soon and leaving like most the other smart folks have. Beautiful place, run by insanity.
@D Fray – I remember visiting LA and central valley area in the late 70s and thought it was beautiful. Now I wouldn’t want to live there – period.
This fear of being watched just amazes me. What exactly are you doing you don’t want seen? Americans and their “rights”. You should support cameras since walking down the street in most states in the USA puts your life in jeopardy with the gun carrying “patriots” and the homeless.
@D Fray – The cost of living is outrageous. The Democrats using their teachers union, have dumbed down their voters so much. They are preaching affordability, yet their states are the most expensive to live. But it is T mans fault.
Building permits are not being issued and those that are cost the builder an arm and a leg, which will have to be passed on to the homeowner or renter.
Warrantless police access to private hotel feeds isn’t a partisan issue; it’s a Fourth Amendment violation. Gary is right. Forcing businesses to grant backdoor surveillance access for permits bypasses due process and sets a bad precedent, regardless of what city, state, or country. Ironically, John Oliver covered some of this in yesterday’s Last Week Tonight (not that any of you actually watched it; eh, maybe Gary did!)
On cue, @Michael Mainello turns state overreach into a red-vs-blue distraction; surveillance expands regardless of who’s in office. @D Fray pushes a defeatist false dilemma; owning a smartphone isn’t a waiver of constitutional rights, nor does wanting privacy make guests or workers “sketchy.” And, @Ray’s “nothing to hide” trope ignores that civil liberties exist to check state power, not protect criminals. C’mon fellas, do better.
I’ve stayed at a lot of Days Inn hotels over the years, and it’s probably better for everyone if they keep an eye on the guests.
@Matt — For a premium airline that keeps a close eye on its passengers… please consider Delta. (@L737, it’s him, right?)
@1990 — Surely….(I’m hoping)
@1990
Credit due you, your comments today are right on the money!
It all depends. If they are monitoring for illegal immigrants, terrorists and low class people who may be armed then its ok. If the people being viewed are white american citizens born to real american parents, or rich people conducting business then its a violation of civil rights!
Rialto voted for trump though only by 2% margin so im going to guess their invasion of privacy is patriotic.
@1990 – Come on man, work on your reading comprehension.
The affordability issue the dems are running on is partisan. Your (blue) states are expensive yet you blame the repubs and 47.
Now the warrentless wiretapping is happening in a blue state, but I don’t condone it anywhere.
Watch the just-released movie ‘Shelter’ for immersion surveillance taken to its logical conclusion. Truly scary. Thank God for Edward Snowden.
I’m not surprised that at least one here is OK with this (or pretending to be). Wrong, flat out wrong. MacKenzie Scott here’s a good cause to contribute to. Challenge the constitutionality of it. If you lose, fund a CA constitutional amendment to ban this. I love to see the “Yes surveillance” folks.
Rialto is a war zone. Plus a days inn. They need it
Thanks, @Jay Gee. This really should be at least an ’80-20,’ a ’90-10,’ or even a ’99-1′ issue. Every person (left, right, or center) pretty much agrees that the government, whether local, state, or federal, shouldn’t be secretly watching you at a hotel without a warrant. It only gets turned into a 50-50 ‘culture war’ when hyper-partisans use tribalism to distract from the real issue… unchecked government overreach, regardless of which party or state is behind it. Sadly, governments and corporations everywhere keep attempting this creep. Clearly, someone’s making money and/or keeping power because of stuff like this.
@L3 — Good recommendation! Saw the previews for Shelter, but actually haven’t watched yet. Anything with Statham in it is usually pretty good. (And, yes, whistleblowers, like Snowden, risk it all, just to expose what’s really going on. Interesting how progressive civil libertarians and anti-establishment/libertarian conservatives often view him favorably as a defender of individual rights against state power. Of course, the national security hawks view him as a traitor.)
@RIPLiberatarians & @Tomm — Bad ideas, fellas. Accepting mass surveillance in so-called “high crime” areas or depending on “who” is being watched misinterprets civil liberties. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect *everyone* from arbitrary state spying. Treating constitutional rights as a selective privilege isn’t patriotism; it’s an equal protection violation. High crime stats should not give local government a blanket exemption to run warrantless dragnet surveillance. (But, I get it, you think the leopards won’t eat your faces…)
@Michael Mainello — *deep breath* A lot of people are genuinely not doing ‘well’ in this economy (if you really want to have a ‘good faith’ conversation about the why and what we can do about it, let’s do that, but…) Your attempt to shift into a “blue” state affordability debate is a massive red-herring (get it, ‘red’…bah!). Let’s be real, the cost of living has little to do with municipalities bypassing the Constitution as a permit condition. Fourth Amendment protections don’t carry a party affiliation, and changing the subject doesn’t change the legal hazards here.
@1990 – Not changing the subject, you interjected into a conversation between @D Fray and myself
“@Michael Mainello
Yes, I was born in North Hollywood and grew up in the San Fernando Valley (just over the hill from LA) living here is beyond challenging. Selling out soon and leaving like most the other smart folks have. Beautiful place, run by insanity.”
So if you want to blame California lifestyle on 47, go for it. But, blue states have put up roadblocks to their citizens which makes life challenging (expensive). It is why their population is dropping and why these states want illegal invaders to be counted in the census. 2 examples – Housing and Environment. Real estate and property taxes are outrageous. Permits, labor costs, taxes etc, this is why housing is expensive and people have less money to spend. Environmental rules drive up fuel prices to $6 to $7 a gallon while we pay $3.50. These costs ripple into nationwide prices.
@Michael Mainello — Ok, so, doubling-down on your red-herring. (Got it. 10-4. Green means go.) Pivoting from warrantless hotel surveillance into right-wing talking points about gas prices, property taxes, immigration, and census counts isn’t really “staying on topic.” But that’s fine; I do realize that VFTW is at times the Outback Steakhouse of travel blogs: “no rules, just right(-wing).”
From what I’ve noticed, this hyper-partisan “blue state refugee” script (complaining about high taxes and housing permits to deflect from actual civil liberties abuses) has become standard copypasta for online sock-puppet and astroturf accounts. (I’m certainly not accusing you or our dear friend @D Fray of that… no, never.) Of course, I could just as easily share my own story of leaving a now-deep-red Florida due to a nonexistent social safety net and outrageous home insurance rates as carriers pull out of the state. So, whether you’re parroting a script, or have had real-life experiences on moving states, using it here just distracts from the actual issue in Gary’s post which had little do to with geography or jurisdiction, since it’s happening near-everywhere.
So let’s say it again: Fourth Amendment protections don’t carry a party affiliation. Bypassing the Constitution by conditioning municipal business permits on secret police camera feeds is an alarming expansion of government power. (Some would say it like ‘secret-police’). And that’s happening in red, blue, purple, no affiliation; all the above. If you actually care about state overreach, you should be opposing it on constitutional merits everywhere it happens, rather than using it as a springboard to run through canned political talking points for one side vs. another.
Anyway, let’s get to the main course: Tell me how you really feel about the Midterms. 91 days. (Oh, and today’s the big day for Mitch, too. Just had another lovely ’20-minute call’ this morning…)
@1990 – I think once you improve your reading comprehension you will see I have previously addressded the 4th Amendment issue you are hyperventalating about.
Mid-Terms – Don’t know for sure, but the blue states (the ones that only require an ID for everything (to include presidential library’s, discounted grocery stores, etc) but voting will do well because they cheat. Red states, not sure, R’s don’t turn out consistently.
@1990
And staying on topic, if you think for one minute several/many clandestine governmental agencies can and do access personal cell phones to gain intelligence, you are sadly mistaken. I am only pointing out the fact that the technology to watch, listen, record, and monitor you is fully active and available right now. I agree, it is against the law and should require a court ordered authorization to mitigate threats to society, but is is highly doable. As to the cameras, I find it very disturbing that there are literally dozens of upstarts across the country Flock Cameras) that are deploying public surveillance cameras everywhere. No, I don’t like it and yes, when in public you should not expect any privacy, but the police watching a pool camera at a hotel… Just creepy and wrong.
@D Fray — Yes. It is indeed a problem when government agencies can buy or demand access to commercial dragnet data without showing individualized probable cause.
@Michael Mainello — I’d call it ‘constitutional vigilance.’ That said, if it gets our heart-rates up, eh, maybe for at least 30+ minutes, ya know, a few time a week… probably not bad for our health.
So, the midterm platform is “if we lose, they cheated”? That is a bold strategy.
@1990 – Why do you need IDs to visit a presidential library, buy liquor or shop at a government grocery store, but not to vote? I’d say you guys can’t prove you aren’t cheating and we could keep the elections honest if you would produce an ID. But he I think you should be able to drink, drive, buy a weapon etc with just being on the rolls and telling you who I am. Why show an ID for these items, just take my word for it?
@Michael Mainello — Is that a rhetorical question, or do you want me to actually debunk your false equivalences? Fine. I’ll play along.
Buying alcohol or visiting a gift shop are commercial privileges; voting is a fundamental constitutional right. Under the Constitution, the government cannot impose financial or administrative barriers on exercising a constitutional right without running afoul of equal protection principles and poll tax prohibitions. (Remember the Reconstruction Amendments, the history of Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the ongoing litigation around state voting laws?) That’s all why voting standards are scrutinized under a far higher legal standard than age checks at a bar.
No one is advocating for “taking anyone’s word for it.” Voter registration already requires verifying eligibility with identifiers like a Social Security or driver’s license number under penalty of perjury. If you want mandatory photo ID, then state-issued IDs (and all the underlying documentation required to get one) must be 100% free and universally accessible to every citizen. Otherwise, it functions as a modern poll tax.
(By the way, I’m all for visiting presidential libraries. They just usually feature archives and exhibits, not luxury hotels in a supertall Miami tower.)
@1990 – Yet the d’s block what you say – free universal IDs. All this has been proposed.
I see you failed to debunk why Mayor Mamdami requires IDs to shop at his government grocery stores.
“(By the way, I’m all for visiting presidential libraries. They just usually feature archives and exhibits, not luxury hotels in a supertall Miami tower.)” So that justifies requiring a government ID to visit?
You d’s are very flexible when it comes to ethics, morals and logic.
The more 1990 defends the indefensible (sorry, dude, but the blue state zombie apocalypse is 100% real), the more you know we are hitting the bullseye. Truth is truth. California is toast. The lunatic asylum patients are running the state. Question: why isn’t 1990 moving to California, the state he defends to the death like a wild cornered wolverine? Answer: it’s simple. He spouts communist Mamdani nonsense but won’t live in the filth and chaos that he professes to cherish.
@Michael Mainello — Voting is different from nearly every other activity you discussed; it is a constitutionally protected right; a poll tax would violate it; that’s consistent, regardless of party, ideology, or geography. Shopping at a particular store is not a right; you’re comparing apples and oranges (you know, like the more affordable ones you’d find at a city-run supermarket…)
@1990 – Justify it all you want, but if a person can’t prove who they are then the system can be abused. If a person has to have an ID to register, they can have one to vote. This isn’t a poll tax or an undue burden. People are on government assistance, they have to have an ID. Your reasoning is BS and it just proves that D’s will do anything to win and abuse power. So if your party continues to take over America and you are fairly young, then enjoy the hellhole you will be living in. Just ask people from China, Russia, North Korea and Venezuala just to name a few.
@Michael Mainello — Woah! Thanks for elevating government financial assistance to a constitutional right!
Unless your actual aim is voter suppression, our goal should be equitable access to the voting process rather than creating new barriers to participation.
@1990 – And thank you for admitting that you condone cheating to win an election.
Also for believing your voters are incapable of obtaining an ID.
Woah, an older brother; didn’t even see that before (@Michael Mainello, I guess your sock-puppet got auto-modded. How kind of Gary to eventually manually approve him for us. Thanks, ‘bro.’)
Did you fellas see that the AP (yes, it’s still ‘Gulf of Mexico’ for the rest of the world) reported yesterday (August 4) that IDs will not be required for the city-owned grocery stores in NYC? “The false claim spreading online is being used to criticize opponents of voter ID laws…” Yeah, clearly.
So, no ID, proof of residency, or income check is required to shop at these new municipal markets. That means, you, too, Michael (and even this alleged ‘older brother’) may soon come to NYC for reasonably-priced groceries, even if you’re based in, say, El Paso, Texas, it seems. Huh. Wild.
@Michael Mainello — As for the SAVE Act, you (and the President) really should know by now that it has no path through the Senate unless the filibuster is nuked. And, even if passed, any law mandating documentary proof of citizenship without fully funding 100% free access to underlying records (like state birth certificates or name-change documentation) will face immediate 24th Amendment and Equal Protection challenges in federal court.
That said, the courts would have to decide whether forcing voters to incur third-party document costs crosses the line from routine registration into an illegal poll tax. Given the current 6-3 Supreme Court, a party-line ruling to uphold it wouldn’t be shocking. With barely 90 days until the midterms, jamming through sweeping election overhauls on a tight deadline is a wild display of ignoring established rules, precedents, and implementation timelines just to force a political outcome.
And yet, you still absurdly claim Democrats are just ‘cheaters,’ while deflecting from any substantive policy discussions relevant to actual voters. That is why my conclusion remains…you just want voter suppression (to stay in-power, indefinitely), not any policies that actually improve people’s lives. (And, so far, I’ve gone really easy on you, above, allowing this rabbit-hole, not bringing up the dire economic outlook, worsening forever war, blatant corruption, etc.)
Anyway, where shall you (and the brother) gish-gallop us to next?
@1990 – Your ability to comprehend basic facts is lacking.
If people can use an ID to receive government programs and to register to vote (they must prove citizenship to get on the rolls), then showing the same proof at the time of voting is not suppression.
You are playing a fear mongering game so that you can cheat.
sKamala did not win one state that required voter ID or she only won states that did not require ID, whichever is easier for you to understand.
D’s have become the party of faux-women & anti-female, pro-pedo, anti-science, pro-communism, anti-jew to name a few. All of this to obtain power. Go watch the The Bee video on the DSA, it is true and hillarious – if you have a sense of humor.
@Michael Mainello — I’m just pleased that you like to actually ‘tango’ on here. Ya know, most folks just give up after a while. Personally, I think that’s no-fun.
Oh, ok, back to the rabbit-hole. Pretty sure in 2024, she won multiple states that require personal or photo identification to vote (Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington); she lost key non-photo ID states like Pennsylvania and Nevada, sadly.
There’s still a specific distinction between *registration* and *casting* a ballot. Voter registration is a one-time process where identity, address, and citizenship are all verified by election authorities under penalty of felony perjury (that’s existing laws, everywhere, each jurisdiction).
So, demanding out-of-pocket, state-funded documentation at the point of voting creates a recurring financial barrier for eligible citizens; which, again, is why the 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes.
Anyway, I do enjoy your use of all the culture-war ‘buzzwords’ and tropes. Wait, were you recommending The Babylon Bee (‘fake news you can trust’)? That Bee?
Just Rhode Island and New Hampshire require photo ID to vote, the others you mentioned do not.
https://www.usvotefoundation.org/2026-in-person-voter-id-polls-by-state
“So, demanding out-of-pocket, state-funded documentation at the point of voting creates a recurring financial barrier for eligible citizens” Bogus fear mongering “poll taxes” How sad you think so little of your voters that they are unable to get an ID.
The issue is also mail in ballots. Many states sent out a mass ballot mailing to all registered voters (unsolicited) allowing them to vote via mail. This shouldn’t be allowed. Mail in voting should be strictly controlled.
Yes I recommend the Bee for the laughs – You should watch the one where DSA and Hitler have a discussion. It does contain quite a bit of truth.
Duplicate:
Just Rhode Island and New Hampshire require photo ID to vote, the others you mentioned do not. usvotefoundation org/2026-in-person-voter-id-polls-by-state
“So, demanding out-of-pocket, state-funded documentation at the point of voting creates a recurring financial barrier for eligible citizens” Bogus fear mongering “poll taxes” How sad you think so little of your voters that they are unable to get an ID or keep one.
The issue is also mail in ballots. Many states sent out a mass ballot mailing to all registered voters (unsolicited) allowing them to vote via mail. This shouldn’t be allowed. Mail in voting should be strictly controlled.
Yes I recommend the Bee for the laughs – You should watch the one where DSA and Hitler have a discussion. It does contain quite a bit of truth.
@Michael Mainello — Why are we “duplicating”? (I’m assuming there’s a technical reason, like auto-mod catching a link. Happens to the best of us…)
Notice how quickly you redefined terms mid-debate. First, you moved the goalposts from voter ID to photo ID, and then pivoted entirely to mail-in voting. As noted above, states like Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware require identification to vote, just not exclusively government-issued photo IDs. Then there’s Utah (an objectively ‘red’ state) has conducted elections primarily by mail for years with high participation and secure, trackable ballots. (And, of course, you-know-who votes by mail…) Mail-in voting isn’t a partisan conspiracy; it’s sensible civic infrastructure.
Finally, regarding your dismissal of the 24th Amendment as “bogus”…would you say that about the parts of the Constitutional you actually favor? Is the 2nd Amendment now “bogus”? (Uh oh, no more bearing-arms.) The 10th Amendment? (What happened to “states’ rights”?) You can’t cherry-pick which parts of the Constitution are valid based on political convenience.
If you keep jumping to a new topic every time a talking point gets debunked, we’re going to run out of policy issues before you run out of excuses. (Oh, and in that time-travel video, she was portrayed as a mere “liberal,” not ‘DSA’…) Got any other recommendations?
@1990 – The mail in ballot point was for “unsolicited mass mailing of ballots”. Utah: “… high participation and secure, trackable ballots.” That is a great idea, unlike those in blue states, say California which has 3 weeks or until they overturn the election in their favor. So we agree, no mass mailing of non-trackable ballots only those legally requested by a verified voter that can’t make it to the poll.
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, – Non Photo ID – What is that exactly a credit card? A badge from your work?
Washington State – No ID required at polls.
Requiring an ID to vote is not some poll tax. BTY look at all the restrictions on the second ammendment, should those be relaxed or removed?
The Bee was a parody, but since you said she was a liberal that is even worse. D’s are gettng more and more autocratic everyday.
@Michael Mainello — Your attempts to move from “no ID required” to “what kind of ID” is actually a surrender of your flawed premise that she only won states without voter identification laws. Clearly, that wasn’t the actual issue then (there are many reasons), and it likely won’t be the issue this fall, or in two more years. So, that’s why it would be nice if you could stop deflecting and actually share your thoughts on the relevant platform.
But, I don’t expect you do to that, so let’s clean up this mess, shall we.
California uses BallotTrax to track every single vote-by-mail ballot from printing and mailing to receipt and signature verification. Every signature on every returned envelope is cross-referenced against the official voter registration record before the ballot is opened. Yeah, that can take time. We want them to do it right, be as accurate as possible, etc. The system works.
On your questions about what documents are eligible, I found that the federal law under HAVA (Help America Vote Act) permits non-photo forms of ID (like utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, or government mail) to verify identity and residency without forcing citizens to pay state agencies for plastic cards.
In Washington state, it appears the law requires voters to present valid identification or sign a sworn ballot declaration matching their official registration record to cast a ballot.
On the 2nd Amendment, that right is heavily litigated, and courts frequently strike down restrictions that impose undue financial burdens or procedural barriers…the same legal standard applied to 24th Amendment voting rights challenges. Again, we’re talking fundamental rights, here not mere commercial privileges. So, if you’re gonna promote the 2nd but ignore the 24th, can’t have it both ways.
(And as for the Bee video, felt more like satire than parody; and, their title said “liberal.”)
Squeaky clean, now. So, how ’bout that platform, pal?
@Michael Mainello — *crickets* (I guess there is no real platform, eh?)