3 ms·

There is however a huge loophole From the ban: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6956465/Boston-City-Council-face-surveillance-ban.pdf https://assets.

There is however a huge loophole From the ban: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6956465/Boston-City-Council-face-surveillance-ban.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6956465/Boston-Ci... "Nothing in (b)(1) shall prohibit Boston or any Boston official from: a. using evidence relating to the investigation of a specific crime that may have been generated from a face surveillance system, so long as such evidence was not generated by or at the the request of Boston or any Boston official;" So if a third-party, say the FBI or DEA, provides info from face surveilance systems to Boston with them specifically requesting it, they could use that.

lvs 6y ago
Or a State agency.
- bsenftner 6y ago
  Or a private firm that sets up to perform FR as a "public service" while collecting valuable person traffic marketing data. Realize people, FR enables the physical world to be overlaid with web-site-like tracking ability. This is hugely valuable to business, and if they figure that out, they will push FR just like they pushed evasive tracking advertising all over the web.
  - notwhereyouare 6y ago
    Wouldn't that private firm fall under a 3rd party? From the article: The city council unanimously voted on Wednesday to ban the use of the technology and prohibit any city official from obtaining facial surveillance by asking for it through third parties. The measure will now go to Mayor Marty Walsh with a veto-proof majority. Walsh's office said he would review the ban.
    - bsenftner 6y ago
      What if they "don't ask for it" but is made available?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]