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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.