Slashdot Mirror
Tenants Outraged Over New York Landlord's Plan To Install Facial Recognition Technology (gothamist.com)
A Brooklyn landlord plans to install facial recognition technology at the entrance of a 700-unit building, according to Gothamist, "raising alarm among tenants and housing rights attorneys about what they say is a far-reaching and egregious form of digital surveillance."
[Last] Sunday, several tenants told Gothamist that, unbeknownst to them, their landlord, Nelson Management, had sought state approval in July 2018 to install a facial recognition system known as StoneLock. Under state rules, landlords of rent-regulated apartments built before 1974 must seek permission from the state's Homes and Community Renewal (HCR) for any "modification in service." Tenants at the two buildings, located at 249 Thomas S. Boyland Street and 216 Rockaway Avenue, said they began receiving notices about the system in the fall. According to its website, Kansas-based company StoneLock offers a "frictionless" entry system that collects biometric data based on facial features. "We don't want to be tracked," said Icemae Downes, a longtime tenant. "We are not animals. This is like tagging us through our faces because they can't implant us with a chip."
It is not clear how many New York City apartments are using facial scanning software or how such technology is being regulated. But in a sign of the times, the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development last June began marketing 107 affordable units at a new apartment complex in the South Bronx. Among the amenities listed was "State of the Art Facial Recognition Building Access...." Across the real estate industry, New York City landlords have increasingly been moving to keyless entry systems, citing convenience as well as a desire to offer enhanced security. Over the years, in response to appeals filed by tenants, HCR has ruled in favor of key fob and card entry systems, saying that such substitutions did not violate rent-stabilization and rent-control laws. But the latest technology has triggered even more concerns about the ethics of data collection....
Last month, the management company reached out to a group of tenants to assuage their concerns about StoneLock. But tenants said the presentation, if anything, only deepened their fears that they were being asked to submit to a technology that had very little research behind it.
"This was not something we asked for at any given time," one tenant complaint, while one of the attorneys representing the tenants said that, among other things, their landlord had "made no assurances to protect the data from being accessed by NYPD, ICE, or any other city, state, or federal agency."
"Citing concerns over the potential for privacy and civil liberties violations, tenants at Brownsville's Atlantic Plaza Towers filed an objection to the plan in January..."
It is not clear how many New York City apartments are using facial scanning software or how such technology is being regulated. But in a sign of the times, the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development last June began marketing 107 affordable units at a new apartment complex in the South Bronx. Among the amenities listed was "State of the Art Facial Recognition Building Access...." Across the real estate industry, New York City landlords have increasingly been moving to keyless entry systems, citing convenience as well as a desire to offer enhanced security. Over the years, in response to appeals filed by tenants, HCR has ruled in favor of key fob and card entry systems, saying that such substitutions did not violate rent-stabilization and rent-control laws. But the latest technology has triggered even more concerns about the ethics of data collection....
Last month, the management company reached out to a group of tenants to assuage their concerns about StoneLock. But tenants said the presentation, if anything, only deepened their fears that they were being asked to submit to a technology that had very little research behind it.
"This was not something we asked for at any given time," one tenant complaint, while one of the attorneys representing the tenants said that, among other things, their landlord had "made no assurances to protect the data from being accessed by NYPD, ICE, or any other city, state, or federal agency."
"Citing concerns over the potential for privacy and civil liberties violations, tenants at Brownsville's Atlantic Plaza Towers filed an objection to the plan in January..."
"wouldn’t you want this if you are not a criminal" = "Why not just allow cops to check your asshole on demand, assuming you don't have drugs up your ass?" = Fuck your reductive argument, there are more ramifications to consider here.
Skipping over considering even a single one of them isn't actually advancing the debate, you're skipping weighing any cons entirely as if pretending there were none. That just says to me you haven't read a whole lot about dystopia.
Don't be a mindless toady. We have an entire Republican party for that.
As long as you're not violating occupancy laws, your landlord has absolutely no right to know who, what, or when people or things are going to or from your flat.
The United States desperately needs an information ownership law that revises the existing "you collect it, you own it" data practises. If companies can't sell data about you, they won't bother to collect it.
When I lived in NYC, I knew lots of people renting "rent-regulated apartments". One worked at Goldman for 200K+ a year. It was a good deal. The person with the apartment pocked the rent spread each month. The Goldman guy paid about 75% or 80% of full market value and was able to save each month to buy an apartment.
If you have a NYC rent stabilized apartment, market forces push you very hard to live outside the city and sublet. I'm going to guess the people who were subletting, the leasors, were not paying taxes. They were well motivated to not get caught.
If the goal is to give poor people something for free, letting them sublet accomplishes that goal. Doubly so if they skip taxes.
The lease states who is allowed to use the unit. Landlords are allowed to enforce those clauses. Anyone not on the lease is trespassing on the landlord's property.
BULLSHIT
Your landlord has no legal right to know who you have over for dinner. He/She has no legal right to know who you brought home to fuck last night. He/She has no legal right to know who you asked to swing by your apartment to pick up your dry cleaning.
Nearly every state in the union has codified the concept of "Quiet Enjoyment" and tenants are entitled to a certain level of privacy.
When you lease/rent a property to another person you surrender a certain level of control over it IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY
If you want to maintain state-level surveillance and dictatorial control over your property, then don't fucking lease it.
Thank goodness the police or government would never misuse such a wonderful surveillance tool.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
That's a great argument - can we apply it to gun rights? Lets see, there are 300 million guns in America, and several thousand (give or take) are used in crimes during the year - so why infringe everyone's rights to own a gun because of a few bad apples?
I don't think the issue is Airbnb, I think it has to do with rent subsidies/rent control.
Ken
The tenants are living in rent-stabilized or rent-controlled buildings, which offer highly discounted rents. However, the tenants are required to use the discounted apartments as their primary residences. The city does not want tenants to turn around and sublet their apartments at market rates, and pocket the difference. So landlords have been installing cameras to see who is living in the apartments. The facial recognition system is another step in that direction.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Remember the last swatting guy got twenty years. How about if the landlord gets the same, when their system falsely identifies someone and they get shot, the landlords facial recognition swatted them. How about locking people out and not letting them because, cough, cough, the facial recognition system told them to. How about you guests are they not entitled to privacy, so what if they wear a face mask or scarfe they are not allowed in the building. You can have cameras, you can not have facial recognition, the intent there is clear, the landlords control of the tenants, monitoring all their comings and goings, locking people out to get rid of them, harass them and their guests and blame it on the computer because it told them to do it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The landlord in general would be happy as a pig in mud to void the leases of rent-regulated tenants. The whole point of this exercise is to obtain evidence that the tenant isn't coming and going frequently enough to prove that it's his/her "primary residence" so that the landlord can evict them.
It's not for security. It's not to make it easier for the tenants to enter without carrying a key. It's to claw back the few remaining affordable apartments.