Slashdot Mirror
New Proposal Would Ban Government Facial Recognition Use In San Francisco (sfexaminer.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The San Francisco Examiner: San Francisco could be the first city in the nation to ban city agencies from using facial recognition surveillance technology under proposed legislation announced Tuesday by Supervisor Aaron Peskin. The legislation, which will be introduced at Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, echoes ordinances adopted by cities including Oakland and Berkeley, as well as by the transit agency BART, that require legislative approval before city agencies or law enforcement adopt new surveillance technologies or policies for the use of existing technologies. However, the new proposal takes things a step further with an outright ban on facial recognition technology.
The San Francisco proposal would not only ban facial recognition but would also require the Board of Supervisors to approve new surveillance technology in general. The board would have to find that the benefits of the technology outweigh the costs, that civil rights will be protected and that the technology will not disparately impact a community or group. Peskin portrayed the proposal to be introduced Tuesday as an extension of his "Privacy First Policy," approved by voters in November, which sets new limits and transparency requirements on the collection and use of personal data by companies doing business with The City.
The San Francisco proposal would not only ban facial recognition but would also require the Board of Supervisors to approve new surveillance technology in general. The board would have to find that the benefits of the technology outweigh the costs, that civil rights will be protected and that the technology will not disparately impact a community or group. Peskin portrayed the proposal to be introduced Tuesday as an extension of his "Privacy First Policy," approved by voters in November, which sets new limits and transparency requirements on the collection and use of personal data by companies doing business with The City.
You misspelled fecal.
In other words, we couldn't possibly let it disrupt our view that we're all the same and just the same cast wearing different skins.
Who is more likely to rape a young child based on arrest rates? A middle age white male or a 19 year old black male? The former. Who is more likely to hold up a convenience store at gun point? The latter.
Maybe there are a lot of uncaught black child sex offenders. Maybe white males are getting away with robbery more.
If you want to Fucking Love Science and talk about how you are driven by data and evidence then accept the fact that different crimes tend to skew to different communities and that simplistic "that's racist" explanations don't cut it outside of an emotional response.
It's not an absolute ban, FR use would require city application, justification and approval.
Some how I suspect the politicians will help monetize the security feeds at Walmart/grocery and liquor stores, with the appropriate friends and contributions, while screwing the citizens over crimes and Invasion, home and international...
"Terrorism" have been an excuse for every petty invasion of privacy and civil rights since 9/11. Time for us to stop being fucking cowards.
Ban all facial recognition in public places, only legally allowed within private spaces and to be only used by the company at that private space and not across others, shared or sold and to be deleted once the identity process has been completed.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The tools that government agents use ARE in fact restricted by law. A nuclear bomb is a hell of a countermeasure against a riot, yet local police agencies aren't permitted to own nuclear weapons. Same goes for things like nerve gas.
The rule can be written to cover contractors, or simply forbid the use of evidence gathered using such technology in court. (Making the use of the tech uneconomical.)
Because people in authority tend to become abusive if allowed unlimited power. They need to be restricted to keep from getting uppity. What's your obsession anyway, posting the same anti-freedom tripe on many threads on here? Did your wife run off with an illegal immigrant or something?
That's a weird way to do things.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is why we say that terrorists have won, because the US citizens have had their rights removed or diminished (with only sporadic objection), all because we're scared of terrorists. Never mind that drunk drivers and cancer kill vastly more people. The flaming wreckage may as well have landed on the National Archives because the constitution was severely wounded.
Why should a criminal or illegal migrant get privacy in a state?
Because the constitution presumably grants these rights under the ninth amendment. Also the fourth amendment would seemingly require warrants.
This is the USA, we should not become a police state. It is better that some criminals remain uncaught than to restrict the rights of citizens or residents (all persons within the US borders have rights). That doesn't mean private businesses can't use CCTVs, but the police should not have a carte blanche on surveillance without significant oversight to prevent abuse. And history has shown that government abuse is likely.
They are restricting facial recognition, but they are not restricting the collection of photos and videos. So they will still have all the data, they will just refrain from running it through an algorithm.
Cities and states all over the USA will buy the real time CA data sets in bulk.
The cost is not in collection. CCTV and a network in place can do that and bulk data can end up in any part of the USA.
Sort it in a nice GUI with an index and sell it to anyone in anther state/to the federal gov.
The sorting for other states/federal "consumer" habits database software is the real math and legal trick.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It private industry can still do it, they'll collect whatever data the government needs and sell it to them, or perform things like access control using facial recognition. So this is just a revenue generating law for private industry, not unlike the laws requiring official dealers to sell cars and preventing the manufacturers from doing so.
Unless of course the law prevents the government to have access to absolutely anything that has facial recognition, then just add facial recognition to any system you want the government to never be able to search or seize. I somehow doubt the law till go that far.
If we didn't waste trillions on military homicide sprees and wars on moral panics, we would have quite a bit of money for services.
I thought they were protecting all the illegal aliens.
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
Facial recognition is a great way to bring an end to illegal immigration.
You know what the best way to reduce alcoholism is? Stress reduction and either a positive support network or mental health options.
See: https://ourworldindata.org/alc...
Compared to the 19thC we drink a lot less and have a lot less alchoholism. The figures for the 19th C because it averages out alcohol consumption over the entire population but there was a higher percentage of tea totalers. (The late 19th C, when we start having reliable statistics, had a strong prohibitionist movement.
And, if you look at the graphs you wont see binge drinking (a sign of alcoholism) or total annual consumption focused in countries with high stress jobs.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
So would Face ID become illegal?
Or will they just ban "bad" use of facial recognition?
How about voice recognition? Shall we ban that too? Yeah, get rid of Siri and Google Assistant!
They're for quick release!