5 ms·

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 Recognitio

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
    I think in a way you are countering your first point that it's good that it's simple. I'm not big into the facial recognition space but I'd imagine that the tech is saving personalized feature vectors and not images. Thus making the definition already moot. Then again maybe that means the language isn't simple enough.
    - kortex 6y ago
      That's a fair point but most systems capture the face chips for human comparison. Is it still capturing "features of images in a repository" if your face descriptors are anonymous with no face images? This is imho a loophole they missed
  - nl 6y ago
    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? Any reasonable interpertation would find that the representation used during search doesn't affect what is happening.
AniseAbyss 6y ago
Great, Facebook pipes everything directly into the US intelligence agencies. Its not just Chinese tech firms that have ties to the military.

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
  I think in a way you are countering your first point that it's good that it's simple. I'm not big into the facial recognition space but I'd imagine that the tech is saving personalized feature vectors and not images. Thus making the definition already moot. Then again maybe that means the language isn't simple enough.
  - kortex 6y ago
    That's a fair point but most systems capture the face chips for human comparison. Is it still capturing "features of images in a repository" if your face descriptors are anonymous with no face images? This is imho a loophole they missed
- nl 6y ago
  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? Any reasonable interpertation would find that the representation used during search doesn't affect what is happening.

AniseAbyss 6y ago

Great, Facebook pipes everything directly into the US intelligence agencies. Its not just Chinese tech firms that have ties to the military.