5 ms·

How does this apply to something like Facebook scanning someone else’s photo and detecting my face in it? So for an entity present in Portland they cannot run

by erentz 6y ago

How does this apply to something like Facebook scanning someone else’s photo and detecting my face in it? So for an entity present in Portland they cannot run facial recognition in a public place in Portland. But what if entity A is partnered with entity B. Entity B procures images of people in public in Portland city limits and places them on a server in another state. Entity A, which is conveniently headquartered elsewhere takes the data from the server and runs facial recognition. This is clearly facial recognition of persons in public in Portland. But it’s not by a Portland business and the computing isn’t done in Portland either.

cwzwarich 6y ago
Doesn’t Facebook have a Portland office?
- pc86 6y ago
  Social media is specifically excluded.
jonas21 6y ago
There's a specific exception for social media applications: > 34.10.040 Exceptions. > The prohibition in this Chapter does not apply to use of Face Recognition Technologies: > A. To the extent necessary for a Private Entity to comply with federal, state, or local laws; > B. For user verification purposes by an individual to access the individual’s own personal or employer issued communication and electronic devices; or > C. In automatic face detection services in social media applications. [1] That seems like it would include what Facebook is doing -- but the ordinance never defines a "social media application" and also uses face detection and face recognition interchangeably in some places, so it's hard to say for sure what it allows. [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff42c/t/5f3ad787ba3fd27776e444af/1597691785249/Ordinance+to+ban+use+of+FRT+in+Places+of+Public+Accommodation+plus+code+amendment+-Final.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff...
- erentz 6y ago
  So that would mean things like Clearview [1] wouldn’t be legal on any person or photograph taken in Portland. Which is great for privacy, but I wonder how they’d enforce that. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-priv...
  - pc86 6y ago
    Doesn't that make it illegal for someone to use Clearview in public, as opposed to making Clearview itself illegal?
- kortex 6y ago
  It seems unclear whether face detection unto itself is allowed. Eg automated face blurring. The spirit is definitely the one-to-many searching. This law could certainly use more clarity.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    I think it's good that it is simple. People are constantly complaining about the excess of legalese in various contexts. A law that can be understood is cool and a breath of fresh air. I doubt the judges will have any trouble parsing between face blurring and face recognition. Also, the definition excludes the face blurring use case. "'Face Recognition' means the automated searching for a reference image in an image repository." Although that detail does mean that if you're not searching for "a reference image" then you would technically be clear of the law's restriction. What if you build features based on a reference image then delete the image? Or what if what you're searching for is a person and the image is not the search target? That I suspect would take more effort to parse. But the penalties are pretty light and the provable damages done by facial recognition are pretty minor, so if organizations get a lot of value out of facial recognition then they might want to try rolling the dice.
    - jackinloadup 6y ago
pc86 6y ago
> But it’s not by a Portland business and the computing isn’t done in Portland either. Then it's not illegal. Portland's jurisdiction only extends to the borders of Portland. Even when it makes logical sense, you can't have agencies in Portland exercising executive control over organizations and people that don't live there. That way lies madness. But it's a pretty easy loophole to close - just make it illegal to share images of people in public in Portland for the purposes of facial recognition. Now you can keep sharing images the way you used to, but it's a huge liability to try to do this to skirt the law. At the end of the day if someone really wants to use facial recognition on (against?) someone in Portland, there are legal ways to do it even with explicit prohibitions like this. And the more nefarious the actors, the more likely they'll just use an illegal way.

by erentz 6y ago

cwzwarich 6y ago

Doesn’t Facebook have a Portland office?

pc86 6y ago
Social media is specifically excluded.

jonas21 6y ago

There's a specific exception for social media applications: > 34.10.040 Exceptions. > The prohibition in this Chapter does not apply to use of Face Recognition Technologies: > A. To the extent necessary for a Private Entity to comply with federal, state, or local laws; > B. For user verification purposes by an individual to access the individual’s own personal or employer issued communication and electronic devices; or > C. In automatic face detection services in social media applications. [1] That seems like it would include what Facebook is doing -- but the ordinance never defines a "social media application" and also uses face detection and face recognition interchangeably in some places, so it's hard to say for sure what it allows. [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff42c/t/5f3ad787ba3fd27776e444af/1597691785249/Ordinance+to+ban+use+of+FRT+in+Places+of+Public+Accommodation+plus+code+amendment+-Final.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff...

erentz 6y ago
So that would mean things like Clearview [1] wouldn’t be legal on any person or photograph taken in Portland. Which is great for privacy, but I wonder how they’d enforce that. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-priv...
- pc86 6y ago
  Doesn't that make it illegal for someone to use Clearview in public, as opposed to making Clearview itself illegal?
kortex 6y ago
It seems unclear whether face detection unto itself is allowed. Eg automated face blurring. The spirit is definitely the one-to-many searching. This law could certainly use more clarity.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  I think it's good that it is simple. People are constantly complaining about the excess of legalese in various contexts. A law that can be understood is cool and a breath of fresh air. I doubt the judges will have any trouble parsing between face blurring and face recognition. Also, the definition excludes the face blurring use case. "'Face Recognition' means the automated searching for a reference image in an image repository." Although that detail does mean that if you're not searching for "a reference image" then you would technically be clear of the law's restriction. What if you build features based on a reference image then delete the image? Or what if what you're searching for is a person and the image is not the search target? That I suspect would take more effort to parse. But the penalties are pretty light and the provable damages done by facial recognition are pretty minor, so if organizations get a lot of value out of facial recognition then they might want to try rolling the dice.
  - jackinloadup 6y ago

pc86 6y ago

> But it’s not by a Portland business and the computing isn’t done in Portland either. Then it's not illegal. Portland's jurisdiction only extends to the borders of Portland. Even when it makes logical sense, you can't have agencies in Portland exercising executive control over organizations and people that don't live there. That way lies madness. But it's a pretty easy loophole to close - just make it illegal to share images of people in public in Portland for the purposes of facial recognition. Now you can keep sharing images the way you used to, but it's a huge liability to try to do this to skirt the law. At the end of the day if someone really wants to use facial recognition on (against?) someone in Portland, there are legal ways to do it even with explicit prohibitions like this. And the more nefarious the actors, the more likely they'll just use an illegal way.