9 ms·

San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

194 points by aaronbrethorst 8y ago

mc32 8y ago
But will it yet allow private facial recognition? If so that’s a loophole. Oh, we don’t do FR ourselves, we contract that out! FR isn’t bad in and of itself. What is needed is regulation governing that data.
- tehlike 8y ago
  If it is available, it will be used. Either within stretched legal frameworks, or through illegal surveillance. Not that we can do much about it. It is going to happen eventually .
  - philliphaydon 8y ago
    “Eye witness put a person in the area and we just looked at the footage for that time frame”
- samstave 8y ago
  exactly - all the bigTechCos will likely have it, of they dont already...
el_don_almighty 8y ago
umm..so no more iPhones????
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Dose the iPhone count as government facial recognition?
  - eecsninja 8y ago
    It does if you believe Apple was infiltrated by NSA agents.
  - sp332 8y ago
    It does if a department issues iPhones to employees. Or Windows laptops with "Windows Hello" logins, or Samsung phones with facial unlock features, etc. It doesn't specify if "face recognition" includes iris and retina scans.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      But that would only ban those iPhones not iPhones in general.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
PHGamer 8y ago
and whats to stop the federal government from doing this. At this point people need to accept everything is being recording in public.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  My thoughts exactly. The proposed ordinance would only apply to "city departments", so the feds could do whatever they want. Given my vague recollections of the Supremacy Clause [1] of the Constitution, I don't think a local ordinance like this could have legal effect on the feds, even if it purported to. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
  - freedomben 8y ago
    It would be a legal battle for sure, but there's a chance that nullification could win [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constituti...
stickfigure 8y ago
The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.
- draw_down 8y ago
  You’re right, it’s a real shame they didn’t do that.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there often for work) that otherwise well meaning people entertain mass surveillance as a solution it might be too late.
  - admiralEyebrows 8y ago
    Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.
    - landryraccoon 8y ago
      > a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. "Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones. The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.
alottafunchata 8y ago
I for one want criminals apprehended. This is more of the typical San Francisco hoopla.
- isostatic 8y ago
  I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear
  - imtringued 8y ago
    If the police had one's detailed driving history including speed limits and how fast one was driving at any given moment then how many speeding tickets would one get? Even someone who obeys the speed limit would get dozens of tickets per year.
    - isostatic 8y ago
      How? Assuming the information is accurate, how would someone who didn't exceed the speedlimit get dozens of tickets per year?
bsenftner 8y ago
So, private use and private security agencies are free and clear. Sounds like a nice contract for a security firm to land with various loose neighborhood associations, shopping district management and pretty much the exact private hands you do not want developing large scale FR.
olliej 8y ago
Given people seem super pro “catch the criminals” because facial recognition: 1. It can only identify people it already has facial recognition for. So that means people who are already in the system - who you already have fingerprints as well. 2. Can facial recognition provide cause for a warrant? If it can, what happens if its accuracy is biased (see the numerous studies showing “accurate” facial recognition systems are in the order of 15%-20% less accurate at identifying women of color than white men). Seems like that would be reason to get the warrant dismissed and subsequent evidence removed - based on my years of legal experience watching tv ;) 3. Can this be used to identify wanted people randomly on the street, or is it just retroactive (eg there was a crime, identify the person in the picture). The latter is significantly less of a problem (imo) than continuous live identification. 4. How long is this data archived? Who is responsible when it leaks?
throwawaysea 8y ago
This seems like a really bad time to propose something like this. Parts of SF look like a mad max wasteland and they really have blown it when it comes to crime, vagrancy, and blight. It really seems like facial recognition could help catch criminals and put them away for once.
- gammateam 8y ago
  The city knows who the criminals are. The district attorney drops the cases, you can have your open air drug bazaar or stolen bike shanty town in broad daylight.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    When I worked in the Mission we watched a small homeless encampment run a bicycle chop shop wide open in broad daylight for over a month. Police regularly came by, nothing more than an old tarp was used to try hide the bicycle operation. Increased surveillance would have made zero difference. For whatever reason the activity was simply tolerated.
    - gammateam 8y ago
      Because it is a waste of time and money for the police to do anything, if the DA is going to drop the case. It is a waste of time for the DA to do anything, if the judge will drop the case. It is a waste of time for the judge to do anything, if the prisons are full, expensive and downsizing such that these kind of offenders are not exceptional enough and therefore right back on the street.
jjcm 8y ago
I'm against this, but not for the typical reason of privacy or worry of government overuse. What I'm worried about more than either of those is the growing prevalence of GAN created video. As the outputs of GAN become more realistic and indistinguishable from the real thing, having a facial recognition system to be able to prove that you were or were not in some place at a certain time is going to be integral in fighting off the fake videos that are going to swarm us all soon. What I'd rather see is twofold: 1.) A right to wear a mask. Both legally and for it to become socially acceptable. We should have a right to protect our privacy, when we want it. 2.) Open data when it comes to this. Otherwise I feel that power will centralize with governments and larger private orgs. By opening the data set, the system can be used for good. This would have to include some sort of authentication system as well - possibly something like 2fa where an alert comes to your phone that you have to authorize before an entity can query your facial recognition stats.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
run414 8y ago
Some of comments here are suggesting that facial recognition wouldn't be necessary if San Francisco would just fix the root cause of its crime problem. There is a common pattern I've noticed in discussions about San Francisco. Person A: San Francisco should implement <solution that provides relief in the near-future>. Person B: That's just a bandaid over the problem. It's better to just fix <problem that has plagued humanity for all of history>. Usually, the solution to <problem that has always plagued humanity> requires large changes to our economic system or society that would take decades, if not lifetimes. I'm not opposed to such changes, but it seems naive to me to not do quality-of-life improvements because they would be unnecessary if our society was massively different. If this is how the city is managed, it's no surprise that it's a mess.
- spullara 8y ago
  SF is broken because they refuse to punish bad behavior. Pising and pooping on streets and sidewalks. Breaking into cars. Using heroin and meth in public. Disposing of needles wherever you feel like. Setting up a tent in the park. Most other cities would stop this from happening but SF won't.
  - selestify 8y ago
    Why wouldn't they punish such behavior? That sounds ridiculous
    - michaelt 8y ago
      Some people believe mentally ill homeless drug addicts are the tragic, powerless victims of a society which has made housing and medical care unaffordable and deprived them of political representation; that putting a homeless person in jail guaranteeing them food and a bed for a week is unlikely to be much of a deterrent; and that the things that would be an effective deterrent are inhumane. Personally I don't agree, but I can see why a person would think that way.
kevcampb 8y ago
City full of tech companies working on facial recognition, bans facial recognition being used on it's residents

mc32 8y ago

But will it yet allow private facial recognition? If so that’s a loophole. Oh, we don’t do FR ourselves, we contract that out! FR isn’t bad in and of itself. What is needed is regulation governing that data.

tehlike 8y ago
If it is available, it will be used. Either within stretched legal frameworks, or through illegal surveillance. Not that we can do much about it. It is going to happen eventually .
- philliphaydon 8y ago
  “Eye witness put a person in the area and we just looked at the footage for that time frame”
samstave 8y ago
exactly - all the bigTechCos will likely have it, of they dont already...

el_don_almighty 8y ago

umm..so no more iPhones????

chrisseaton 8y ago
Dose the iPhone count as government facial recognition?
- eecsninja 8y ago
  It does if you believe Apple was infiltrated by NSA agents.
- sp332 8y ago
  It does if a department issues iPhones to employees. Or Windows laptops with "Windows Hello" logins, or Samsung phones with facial unlock features, etc. It doesn't specify if "face recognition" includes iris and retina scans.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    But that would only ban those iPhones not iPhones in general.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

PHGamer 8y ago

and whats to stop the federal government from doing this. At this point people need to accept everything is being recording in public.

gnicholas 8y ago
My thoughts exactly. The proposed ordinance would only apply to "city departments", so the feds could do whatever they want. Given my vague recollections of the Supremacy Clause [1] of the Constitution, I don't think a local ordinance like this could have legal effect on the feds, even if it purported to. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause
- freedomben 8y ago
  It would be a legal battle for sure, but there's a chance that nullification could win [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constituti...

stickfigure 8y ago

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.

draw_down 8y ago
You’re right, it’s a real shame they didn’t do that.
remarkEon 8y ago
I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there often for work) that otherwise well meaning people entertain mass surveillance as a solution it might be too late.
- admiralEyebrows 8y ago
  Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.
  - landryraccoon 8y ago
    > a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. "Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones. The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.

alottafunchata 8y ago

I for one want criminals apprehended. This is more of the typical San Francisco hoopla.

isostatic 8y ago
I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear
- imtringued 8y ago
  If the police had one's detailed driving history including speed limits and how fast one was driving at any given moment then how many speeding tickets would one get? Even someone who obeys the speed limit would get dozens of tickets per year.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    How? Assuming the information is accurate, how would someone who didn't exceed the speedlimit get dozens of tickets per year?

bsenftner 8y ago

So, private use and private security agencies are free and clear. Sounds like a nice contract for a security firm to land with various loose neighborhood associations, shopping district management and pretty much the exact private hands you do not want developing large scale FR.

olliej 8y ago

Given people seem super pro “catch the criminals” because facial recognition: 1. It can only identify people it already has facial recognition for. So that means people who are already in the system - who you already have fingerprints as well. 2. Can facial recognition provide cause for a warrant? If it can, what happens if its accuracy is biased (see the numerous studies showing “accurate” facial recognition systems are in the order of 15%-20% less accurate at identifying women of color than white men). Seems like that would be reason to get the warrant dismissed and subsequent evidence removed - based on my years of legal experience watching tv ;) 3. Can this be used to identify wanted people randomly on the street, or is it just retroactive (eg there was a crime, identify the person in the picture). The latter is significantly less of a problem (imo) than continuous live identification. 4. How long is this data archived? Who is responsible when it leaks?

throwawaysea 8y ago

This seems like a really bad time to propose something like this. Parts of SF look like a mad max wasteland and they really have blown it when it comes to crime, vagrancy, and blight. It really seems like facial recognition could help catch criminals and put them away for once.

gammateam 8y ago
The city knows who the criminals are. The district attorney drops the cases, you can have your open air drug bazaar or stolen bike shanty town in broad daylight.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  When I worked in the Mission we watched a small homeless encampment run a bicycle chop shop wide open in broad daylight for over a month. Police regularly came by, nothing more than an old tarp was used to try hide the bicycle operation. Increased surveillance would have made zero difference. For whatever reason the activity was simply tolerated.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    Because it is a waste of time and money for the police to do anything, if the DA is going to drop the case. It is a waste of time for the DA to do anything, if the judge will drop the case. It is a waste of time for the judge to do anything, if the prisons are full, expensive and downsizing such that these kind of offenders are not exceptional enough and therefore right back on the street.

jjcm 8y ago

I'm against this, but not for the typical reason of privacy or worry of government overuse. What I'm worried about more than either of those is the growing prevalence of GAN created video. As the outputs of GAN become more realistic and indistinguishable from the real thing, having a facial recognition system to be able to prove that you were or were not in some place at a certain time is going to be integral in fighting off the fake videos that are going to swarm us all soon. What I'd rather see is twofold: 1.) A right to wear a mask. Both legally and for it to become socially acceptable. We should have a right to protect our privacy, when we want it. 2.) Open data when it comes to this. Otherwise I feel that power will centralize with governments and larger private orgs. By opening the data set, the system can be used for good. This would have to include some sort of authentication system as well - possibly something like 2fa where an alert comes to your phone that you have to authorize before an entity can query your facial recognition stats.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

run414 8y ago

Some of comments here are suggesting that facial recognition wouldn't be necessary if San Francisco would just fix the root cause of its crime problem. There is a common pattern I've noticed in discussions about San Francisco. Person A: San Francisco should implement <solution that provides relief in the near-future>. Person B: That's just a bandaid over the problem. It's better to just fix <problem that has plagued humanity for all of history>. Usually, the solution to <problem that has always plagued humanity> requires large changes to our economic system or society that would take decades, if not lifetimes. I'm not opposed to such changes, but it seems naive to me to not do quality-of-life improvements because they would be unnecessary if our society was massively different. If this is how the city is managed, it's no surprise that it's a mess.

spullara 8y ago
SF is broken because they refuse to punish bad behavior. Pising and pooping on streets and sidewalks. Breaking into cars. Using heroin and meth in public. Disposing of needles wherever you feel like. Setting up a tent in the park. Most other cities would stop this from happening but SF won't.
- selestify 8y ago
  Why wouldn't they punish such behavior? That sounds ridiculous
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Some people believe mentally ill homeless drug addicts are the tragic, powerless victims of a society which has made housing and medical care unaffordable and deprived them of political representation; that putting a homeless person in jail guaranteeing them food and a bed for a week is unlikely to be much of a deterrent; and that the things that would be an effective deterrent are inhumane. Personally I don't agree, but I can see why a person would think that way.

kevcampb 8y ago

City full of tech companies working on facial recognition, bans facial recognition being used on it's residents