10 ms·

This seems unconstitutional. It amounts to blocking photography in public spaces and using those photos as you see fit. It also seems very untimely. Portland i

This seems unconstitutional. It amounts to blocking photography in public spaces and using those photos as you see fit. It also seems very untimely. Portland is exactly the type of city that needs surveillance, to identify and arrest criminals who are committing property damage, theft, and arson as part of daily riots.

kstrauser 6y ago
Where's your constitutional right to photograph me and use my photo on your billboard if you see fit? If you don't believe that's OK, and it's clearly not, then we can agree that there are limits to your right to use photographs you've taken of someone. Also, I've heard approximately zero people from Portland calling for more police presence, even if it would cut down on the non-Portlanders traveling there to start problems. From what I can tell, they're not asking for or welcoming of that kind of "help".
- markkanof 6y ago
  I live in Portland. I don’t live downtown where most of the videos you see are coming from, but I do live in a neighborhood very close to downtown. Over the past few months there have been a bunch of smashed windows (and presumably theft) at many of the businesses on the main street, graffiti is out of control, theft appears to be increasing as well. This is all just in my neighborhood. There are also the fires being set downtown and other violence between various battling groups. I can’t say for sure that putting more police on the streets would solve all these problems, but we need to do something. We are not headed on a good trajectory but for whatever reason it seems like our political leaders are in support of this destruction. We do need help.
  - scribbles99 6y ago
    Keeping right wing terrorists out of the city would be a start.
    - jococo1 6y ago
      The body count is currently higher from the left wing militias so...
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      You mean like the guy who murdered an opposing protestor in cold blood? Oh wait, that was a self-proclaimed antifacist. What's more fascist than using violence to force your belief on others?
      - rudiv 6y ago
        > What's more fascist than using violence to force your belief on others? Many things. Using violence to spread your beliefs is not the sole preserve of fascism and is not the primary identifier of fascism either.
        nicky0 6y ago
        Can you give some examples of those many things?
        shadowprofile77 6y ago
        Many hard left movements (and sometimes even soft left groups) have used both mass violence and thuggish targeted violence to promote their agendas and intimidate rivals. The practice has a long, long history that predates even the soviet union and the Bolsheviks (who were extremely fond of vicious violence to edge their way into power). Claiming that violence for the sake of forcing one's beliefs on others is a uniquely fascist habit is historically ignorant or just biased and dishonest.
        salmon30salmon 6y ago
        That was my point. The violent actor in the above referenced incident was a self-described leftist. The post I was responding too laid blame for the riots on the right wing protestors
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    We must live near each other. For privacy I won't say where, but I am within two miles of downtown East of the river. The neighborhood has changed for the worse in the past 6 months by an insane amount. I don't feel safe and I'm a fit young male.
    - markkanof 6y ago
      Yup, sounds like we are in pretty much the same neighborhood. I wouldn't yet say I feel unsafe, but it sure doesn't seem like the city is moving in a positive direction. It makes me sad because I love this city and maybe I'm naive but I would like to believe that there are ways that we can address injustices that have been perpetrated against some of our neighbors without burning everything to the ground.
      - salmon30salmon 6y ago
        Unsafe is relative. I don't think I'll be assaulted, but I do think I could be robbed, or my property stolen. There is also the constant risk of folks in mental health crises or high as fuck being unreasonable or aggressive. Stay safe, Portland is a good town at times, just it's 2020 you know?
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    That's fair. And seriously, now I can say I have heard of Portlanders wanting help.
  - OzCrimson 6y ago
    I live in Portland, too. And we do need help. But facial recognition is unreliable. I'd hate to be the one who's misidentified but, overzealous law enforcement keeps insisting it's me. Or, maybe I'm shaking hands with some random person and then facial recognition is used to make it look like we're buddies, and accomplices in some mess he's in. And I've seen enough unreliable technologies hit the market and marketers don't talk about the flaws or limitations in a responsible way. They highlight when the tech has done something miraculous. With all of this kind of stuff I ask: what happens when the tech is wrong? Who's accountable? Who makes the victim whole? Too often the answer is nobody is accountable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jjcon 6y ago
  > Where's your constitutional right to photograph me and use my photo on your billboard if you see fit If it’s in a public place I would absolutely have a constitutional right to use that photograph, sell that photograph etc
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Not for all purposes, no. You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public, and they would be able to recover damages from you for doing so.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      > You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public You 100% absolutely do if it is in public when it comes to publishing, even commercial publishing. Where do you think news gets their photos? Travel magazines? Professional photographers? You don’t need permission to publish or sell a photograph taken in a public place regardless of who or how many people are in it.
      - stjohnswarts 6y ago
        Your photos are fair game but if you present someone prominently in your ad they absolutely can come after you for damages or for monetary compensation for using their image. Why do you think that celebrities can sue for it? You think the average joe can't do the same thing?
        jjcon 6y ago
        That is true - the problem isn’t the photo though it is the false endorsement. A false endorsement in any medium is illegal.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
- Shivetya 6y ago
  LOL - you only hear what you want to hear. it is so damn easy to support the protests in Portland and some other cities when you don't have to experience it. The violence and fear is real, when your city officials effectively abandon their duties to score political points it should tell you your worth. I live near a not so violent city now; we had a time with it but it died out awhile ago because it was embarrassing an important mayor but I too had coworkers looking to get out of the area. People expect the government they elect to protect people and property and it is very disconcerting when they won't. Worse is the excuses they use for not doing so making you ask, then at what point would you step in?
  - treeman79 6y ago
    Same. Was watching twitter feeds if people planning to come up to “F$&@!” My area. Lots of people with guns near me. Could have ended very badly. Police shutdown the highway and trains. Eventually people gave up and went back to burning downtown.
dannykwells 6y ago
You mean, facial recognition so the armed thugs putting protestors into unmarked vans can be identified. That makes sense.
rblatz 6y ago
Do you live in Portland or are you trying to tell the people that do how to live based on what you see on Fox News?
- markkanof 6y ago
  I live in Portland. While I’m somewhat proud that my city is leading the way in protecting individuals privacy, it’s also hard given current events not to be a bit cynical about the actual intent of this legislation. There are people that are out everyday legitimately protesting. There are also people out every night setting things on fire, smashing windows, spraying graffiti, attacking other people, etc. It seems that our city government is essentially giving the ok for this crime to continue. If facial recognition could be used to identify the people committing crimes, that seems like a good thing.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    Criminals will easily adapt and protect themselves while data will still be collected on everyone else.
  - alexbanks 6y ago
    > It seems that our city government is essentially giving the ok for this crime to continue I don't know how you possibly came to this conclusion from the ordinances, but I would rethink this take.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I’m not sure why you’re trying to trivialize my comment. I don’t see what this has to do with Fox News, but even if it did, they often do cover stories and angles that other media with different biases do not. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss them as a source outright, given virtually all news media carry biases and virtually all have examples of misinformation. Getting back to Portland - if you haven’t kept an eye on what’s happening there, and are denying that there are disruptive riots virtually every night in one part of the city, then you are gaslighting. There is a mountain of evidence that a group of antifa/BLM participants willfully partake in criminal activity under the guise of racial justice with regularity (example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protests-police-declare-riot-on-100th-night-of-protests/#app https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protests-police-declar...). One of them even murdered another citizen recently (see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arrest-portland-shooting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arres...).
aarchi 6y ago
On the contrary. It is times like these in which citizens need protections from those that may not have their best interests in mind. People have every right to protest and should not be surveilled in doing so.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  People don’t have a right to commit crimes and call it a protest. Identifying criminals should be made efficient and facial recognition is part of that.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    > Identifying criminals should be made efficient This is a nightmare sentiment. No, identifying criminals should not be efficient at all. Everyone is a criminal -- whether that's speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, loitering, or whatever, the last thing we need is police having more powers to point to someone they dislike and saying, "We've got footage of you doing X, comply with our demands or suffer the consequences."
    - fiter 6y ago
      Better for us to actually remove those laws.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Hmm... I disagree. Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
        roenxi 6y ago
        > Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life. We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,
alexbanks 6y ago
A throwaway troll account
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
waheoo 6y ago
I'm disturbed by the riots as much as anyone but I applaud this legislation. Facial recognition and citizen movement tracking is a slippery slippery slope I want nobody in power to control. The thing that confuses me is this is clearly done for the rioters but they're the ones with the ideology that generally results in this type of draconian citizen tracking. Its an upside down world man. I do agree that limits on photography are probably unconstitutional though. And I'm not sure the gain justifies the cost. Not being able to facial rec a robbery suspect is going to have tragic outcomes.
- jackinloadup 6y ago
  I feel the same way. It seems like the future is going to be some cyberpunk place where people have masks or face tattoos to obscure tracking regardless of legislation like this. I'm very pro privacy and facial recognition is quite scary but it seems an impossible tech to contain. In theory, but not in practice, we can ensure governments aren't using it but businesses and private individuals seem almost impossible. Certainly underground businesses will take advantage of it like the mafia or other groups who figure out how to weaponize it.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  > The thing that confuses me is this is clearly done for the rioters but they're the ones with the ideology that generally results in this type of draconian citizen tracking. If you think anti-authoritarianism is an exclusively right-wing value you're sorely mistaken. Even the term 'libertarian' was co-opted from lefties. You'll learn more if you approach confusing issues with curiosity rather than calling Portland "upside down world" because your biases conflict with reality.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    Do you know what the word generally means?
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      Welcome to HN! Please read the HN guidelines on commenting: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I'm happy to discuss this topic with you as long as you're willing to hold up your end of the conversation.
rcoder 6y ago
Do you live in Portland? How about your family: kids, parents, siblings? Do you own businesses here? Have you spoken to anyone involved in the protests, or local business leaders? All of the above are true for me, and I was born here, and I for one applaud the new restrictions on facial recognition. If your answer to most or all of the above questions is "no", please reconsider telling those of us with actual lives here here how we should want to be policed and why.
- jjcon 6y ago
  Not op but I’m not sure hot living there changes the fact that it will be struck down as unconstitutional
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  I live in Portland. Have my whole life. We need more police. We need enforcement of basic laws like larceny and grand theft auto. We need to enforce the laws we have. We need more police. I called 911 to report an assault in progress. I was on hold for four minutes, and the police took over an hour to arrive.
  - drusepth 6y ago
    Yep, (downtown) Portlander here also with similar thoughts. I was in a bodega last week when a cop came in to respond to a robbery call that was made over 5 hours prior. The cashier was obviously having a bad day, but still absolutely livid at the response time. We don't have enough cops to go around right now. Technology helps what cops we do have scale the impact each one can have. Ideally, we'd have more cops _and_ more technology that helps them do their job. This ordinance is outright silly at best, and detrimental/dangerous at worst, IMO.
    - OzCrimson 6y ago
      Technology can help. Good, proven technology. Facial recognition tech is not ready for prime time. Too often we've seen the legal system use flimsy evidence, and comb the earth for experts who'll back up the flimsy evidence. Then years later the city is paying someone for their wrongful conviction. I don't want to be the person whose life is turned upside-down, and unable to pay legal fees all because of some flawed facial recognition. When facial recognition is reliable, then we need to talk about privacy and access to the data and how it's used. I can already imagine what'll happen. Government entities like, law enforcement, will have to jump through hoops to get warrants and prove they have a good reason to access the data. However, private entities like grocery stores, marijuana dispensaries and car washes won't need a good reason. They'll use it for marketing, and making money allowing 3rd parties to access the data. I'm not cool with any of that.
jMyles 6y ago
Tell you what: I (a frequent protestor at the JC and elsewhere) will volunteer my face and address, and allow you to perform facial recognition to match my face at any public place in Portland, if every PPB employee will do the same. Deal? Presently, the only way to identify the police officers who are polluting our town with toxic gasses and brutalizing families who are trying to assemble to protest the existence of their employers, is by their face. So don't pretend for a second like it's we, the protestors, who are trying to hide.
argb 6y ago
A stationary camera looking up up peoples faces 24/7 in a huge database is a very different thing to occasional photography by an individual, who only has a limited memory capacity. So it's the pervasive always-on nature that makes it different.

kstrauser 6y ago

Where's your constitutional right to photograph me and use my photo on your billboard if you see fit? If you don't believe that's OK, and it's clearly not, then we can agree that there are limits to your right to use photographs you've taken of someone. Also, I've heard approximately zero people from Portland calling for more police presence, even if it would cut down on the non-Portlanders traveling there to start problems. From what I can tell, they're not asking for or welcoming of that kind of "help".

markkanof 6y ago
I live in Portland. I don’t live downtown where most of the videos you see are coming from, but I do live in a neighborhood very close to downtown. Over the past few months there have been a bunch of smashed windows (and presumably theft) at many of the businesses on the main street, graffiti is out of control, theft appears to be increasing as well. This is all just in my neighborhood. There are also the fires being set downtown and other violence between various battling groups. I can’t say for sure that putting more police on the streets would solve all these problems, but we need to do something. We are not headed on a good trajectory but for whatever reason it seems like our political leaders are in support of this destruction. We do need help.
- scribbles99 6y ago
  Keeping right wing terrorists out of the city would be a start.
  - jococo1 6y ago
    The body count is currently higher from the left wing militias so...
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    You mean like the guy who murdered an opposing protestor in cold blood? Oh wait, that was a self-proclaimed antifacist. What's more fascist than using violence to force your belief on others?
    - rudiv 6y ago
      > What's more fascist than using violence to force your belief on others? Many things. Using violence to spread your beliefs is not the sole preserve of fascism and is not the primary identifier of fascism either.
      - nicky0 6y ago
        Can you give some examples of those many things?
        shadowprofile77 6y ago
        Many hard left movements (and sometimes even soft left groups) have used both mass violence and thuggish targeted violence to promote their agendas and intimidate rivals. The practice has a long, long history that predates even the soviet union and the Bolsheviks (who were extremely fond of vicious violence to edge their way into power). Claiming that violence for the sake of forcing one's beliefs on others is a uniquely fascist habit is historically ignorant or just biased and dishonest.
        salmon30salmon 6y ago
        That was my point. The violent actor in the above referenced incident was a self-described leftist. The post I was responding too laid blame for the riots on the right wing protestors
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  We must live near each other. For privacy I won't say where, but I am within two miles of downtown East of the river. The neighborhood has changed for the worse in the past 6 months by an insane amount. I don't feel safe and I'm a fit young male.
  - markkanof 6y ago
    Yup, sounds like we are in pretty much the same neighborhood. I wouldn't yet say I feel unsafe, but it sure doesn't seem like the city is moving in a positive direction. It makes me sad because I love this city and maybe I'm naive but I would like to believe that there are ways that we can address injustices that have been perpetrated against some of our neighbors without burning everything to the ground.
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      Unsafe is relative. I don't think I'll be assaulted, but I do think I could be robbed, or my property stolen. There is also the constant risk of folks in mental health crises or high as fuck being unreasonable or aggressive. Stay safe, Portland is a good town at times, just it's 2020 you know?
- kstrauser 6y ago
  That's fair. And seriously, now I can say I have heard of Portlanders wanting help.
- OzCrimson 6y ago
  I live in Portland, too. And we do need help. But facial recognition is unreliable. I'd hate to be the one who's misidentified but, overzealous law enforcement keeps insisting it's me. Or, maybe I'm shaking hands with some random person and then facial recognition is used to make it look like we're buddies, and accomplices in some mess he's in. And I've seen enough unreliable technologies hit the market and marketers don't talk about the flaws or limitations in a responsible way. They highlight when the tech has done something miraculous. With all of this kind of stuff I ask: what happens when the tech is wrong? Who's accountable? Who makes the victim whole? Too often the answer is nobody is accountable.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjcon 6y ago
> Where's your constitutional right to photograph me and use my photo on your billboard if you see fit If it’s in a public place I would absolutely have a constitutional right to use that photograph, sell that photograph etc
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Not for all purposes, no. You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public, and they would be able to recover damages from you for doing so.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > You don't have an unlimited right to publish other people's imagery for commercial purposes absent permission, even if they are photographed in public You 100% absolutely do if it is in public when it comes to publishing, even commercial publishing. Where do you think news gets their photos? Travel magazines? Professional photographers? You don’t need permission to publish or sell a photograph taken in a public place regardless of who or how many people are in it.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      Your photos are fair game but if you present someone prominently in your ad they absolutely can come after you for damages or for monetary compensation for using their image. Why do you think that celebrities can sue for it? You think the average joe can't do the same thing?
      - jjcon 6y ago
        That is true - the problem isn’t the photo though it is the false endorsement. A false endorsement in any medium is illegal.
        anigbrowl 6y ago
Shivetya 6y ago
LOL - you only hear what you want to hear. it is so damn easy to support the protests in Portland and some other cities when you don't have to experience it. The violence and fear is real, when your city officials effectively abandon their duties to score political points it should tell you your worth. I live near a not so violent city now; we had a time with it but it died out awhile ago because it was embarrassing an important mayor but I too had coworkers looking to get out of the area. People expect the government they elect to protect people and property and it is very disconcerting when they won't. Worse is the excuses they use for not doing so making you ask, then at what point would you step in?
- treeman79 6y ago
  Same. Was watching twitter feeds if people planning to come up to “F$&@!” My area. Lots of people with guns near me. Could have ended very badly. Police shutdown the highway and trains. Eventually people gave up and went back to burning downtown.

dannykwells 6y ago

You mean, facial recognition so the armed thugs putting protestors into unmarked vans can be identified. That makes sense.

rblatz 6y ago

Do you live in Portland or are you trying to tell the people that do how to live based on what you see on Fox News?

markkanof 6y ago
I live in Portland. While I’m somewhat proud that my city is leading the way in protecting individuals privacy, it’s also hard given current events not to be a bit cynical about the actual intent of this legislation. There are people that are out everyday legitimately protesting. There are also people out every night setting things on fire, smashing windows, spraying graffiti, attacking other people, etc. It seems that our city government is essentially giving the ok for this crime to continue. If facial recognition could be used to identify the people committing crimes, that seems like a good thing.
- thatcat 6y ago
  Criminals will easily adapt and protect themselves while data will still be collected on everyone else.
- alexbanks 6y ago
  > It seems that our city government is essentially giving the ok for this crime to continue I don't know how you possibly came to this conclusion from the ordinances, but I would rethink this take.
throwawaysea 6y ago
I’m not sure why you’re trying to trivialize my comment. I don’t see what this has to do with Fox News, but even if it did, they often do cover stories and angles that other media with different biases do not. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss them as a source outright, given virtually all news media carry biases and virtually all have examples of misinformation. Getting back to Portland - if you haven’t kept an eye on what’s happening there, and are denying that there are disruptive riots virtually every night in one part of the city, then you are gaslighting. There is a mountain of evidence that a group of antifa/BLM participants willfully partake in criminal activity under the guise of racial justice with regularity (example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protests-police-declare-riot-on-100th-night-of-protests/#app https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protests-police-declar...). One of them even murdered another citizen recently (see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arrest-portland-shooting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arres...).

aarchi 6y ago

On the contrary. It is times like these in which citizens need protections from those that may not have their best interests in mind. People have every right to protest and should not be surveilled in doing so.

throwawaysea 6y ago
People don’t have a right to commit crimes and call it a protest. Identifying criminals should be made efficient and facial recognition is part of that.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  > Identifying criminals should be made efficient This is a nightmare sentiment. No, identifying criminals should not be efficient at all. Everyone is a criminal -- whether that's speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, loitering, or whatever, the last thing we need is police having more powers to point to someone they dislike and saying, "We've got footage of you doing X, comply with our demands or suffer the consequences."
  - fiter 6y ago
    Better for us to actually remove those laws.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Hmm... I disagree. Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
      - roenxi 6y ago
        > Speed limits are important. So are various other laws that require human judgement to interpret. What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life. We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,

alexbanks 6y ago

A throwaway troll account

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

waheoo 6y ago

I'm disturbed by the riots as much as anyone but I applaud this legislation. Facial recognition and citizen movement tracking is a slippery slippery slope I want nobody in power to control. The thing that confuses me is this is clearly done for the rioters but they're the ones with the ideology that generally results in this type of draconian citizen tracking. Its an upside down world man. I do agree that limits on photography are probably unconstitutional though. And I'm not sure the gain justifies the cost. Not being able to facial rec a robbery suspect is going to have tragic outcomes.

jackinloadup 6y ago
I feel the same way. It seems like the future is going to be some cyberpunk place where people have masks or face tattoos to obscure tracking regardless of legislation like this. I'm very pro privacy and facial recognition is quite scary but it seems an impossible tech to contain. In theory, but not in practice, we can ensure governments aren't using it but businesses and private individuals seem almost impossible. Certainly underground businesses will take advantage of it like the mafia or other groups who figure out how to weaponize it.
jhardy54 6y ago
> The thing that confuses me is this is clearly done for the rioters but they're the ones with the ideology that generally results in this type of draconian citizen tracking. If you think anti-authoritarianism is an exclusively right-wing value you're sorely mistaken. Even the term 'libertarian' was co-opted from lefties. You'll learn more if you approach confusing issues with curiosity rather than calling Portland "upside down world" because your biases conflict with reality.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Do you know what the word generally means?
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    Welcome to HN! Please read the HN guidelines on commenting: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I'm happy to discuss this topic with you as long as you're willing to hold up your end of the conversation.

rcoder 6y ago

Do you live in Portland? How about your family: kids, parents, siblings? Do you own businesses here? Have you spoken to anyone involved in the protests, or local business leaders? All of the above are true for me, and I was born here, and I for one applaud the new restrictions on facial recognition. If your answer to most or all of the above questions is "no", please reconsider telling those of us with actual lives here here how we should want to be policed and why.

jjcon 6y ago
Not op but I’m not sure hot living there changes the fact that it will be struck down as unconstitutional
salmon30salmon 6y ago
I live in Portland. Have my whole life. We need more police. We need enforcement of basic laws like larceny and grand theft auto. We need to enforce the laws we have. We need more police. I called 911 to report an assault in progress. I was on hold for four minutes, and the police took over an hour to arrive.
- drusepth 6y ago
  Yep, (downtown) Portlander here also with similar thoughts. I was in a bodega last week when a cop came in to respond to a robbery call that was made over 5 hours prior. The cashier was obviously having a bad day, but still absolutely livid at the response time. We don't have enough cops to go around right now. Technology helps what cops we do have scale the impact each one can have. Ideally, we'd have more cops _and_ more technology that helps them do their job. This ordinance is outright silly at best, and detrimental/dangerous at worst, IMO.
  - OzCrimson 6y ago
    Technology can help. Good, proven technology. Facial recognition tech is not ready for prime time. Too often we've seen the legal system use flimsy evidence, and comb the earth for experts who'll back up the flimsy evidence. Then years later the city is paying someone for their wrongful conviction. I don't want to be the person whose life is turned upside-down, and unable to pay legal fees all because of some flawed facial recognition. When facial recognition is reliable, then we need to talk about privacy and access to the data and how it's used. I can already imagine what'll happen. Government entities like, law enforcement, will have to jump through hoops to get warrants and prove they have a good reason to access the data. However, private entities like grocery stores, marijuana dispensaries and car washes won't need a good reason. They'll use it for marketing, and making money allowing 3rd parties to access the data. I'm not cool with any of that.

jMyles 6y ago

Tell you what: I (a frequent protestor at the JC and elsewhere) will volunteer my face and address, and allow you to perform facial recognition to match my face at any public place in Portland, if every PPB employee will do the same. Deal? Presently, the only way to identify the police officers who are polluting our town with toxic gasses and brutalizing families who are trying to assemble to protest the existence of their employers, is by their face. So don't pretend for a second like it's we, the protestors, who are trying to hide.

argb 6y ago

A stationary camera looking up up peoples faces 24/7 in a huge database is a very different thing to occasional photography by an individual, who only has a limited memory capacity. So it's the pervasive always-on nature that makes it different.