3 ms·

It's true I may not be, but I'm not sure what the material difference is between real-time facial recognition and performing the same analysis on security camer

by fitz13 6y ago

It's true I may not be, but I'm not sure what the material difference is between real-time facial recognition and performing the same analysis on security camera footage after the fact. I should clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of real time facial recognition, I'm just skeptical of this move's efficacy in preventing the same outcome.

lmkg 6y ago
With ubiquitous surveillance, you can build a database of the location activity of all citizens. This is problematic for several reasons, with top-of-mind right now being targeting individuals for political reasons, but also stuff like what if the database gets hacked, and general fourth- and fifth-amendment concerns. With a ban in place, the ability to build such a database drops significantly because you need a pretense for every image or piece of video you acquire. You can acquire and send for processing security camera footage when there was a crime, but when there was no crime? How do you justify acquiring the security footage, and how do you justify asking for it to be processed. Whether the footage available to facial recognize is ubiquitous or not makes a qualitative impact.
- fitz13 6y ago
  Good points, well made. Especially about the hacking. My only other thought is that a government/organization interested in using/misusing such a database would be willing to invent a pretense. I'm not sure how heavily to weigh the precedent of government surveillance skirting these kinds of protections. I assume that Portland doesn't have a FISA court rubber-stamp equivalent, but I can't know for sure. Either way, I think you're right that adding speedbumps to the process is a good thing, especially for data security. I just hope that people don't consider this too much of a victory, although it is definitely a victory.
SmellTheGlove 6y ago
> It's true I may not be, but I'm not sure what the material difference is between real-time facial recognition and performing the same analysis on security camera footage after the fact. I hope that the latter would require a warrant and have some scope limitations. The former expands constant surveillance to constant surveillance + identification. > I should clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of real time facial recognition, I'm just skeptical of this move's efficacy in preventing the same outcome. You don't appear to be, don't worry. And these days there's nothing wrong with being skeptical. After all, it did turn out that the government was spying on its citizens. This wouldn't stop that, but it does blunt it a bit. Dunno, maybe I'm an optimist.

by fitz13 6y ago

lmkg 6y ago

With ubiquitous surveillance, you can build a database of the location activity of all citizens. This is problematic for several reasons, with top-of-mind right now being targeting individuals for political reasons, but also stuff like what if the database gets hacked, and general fourth- and fifth-amendment concerns. With a ban in place, the ability to build such a database drops significantly because you need a pretense for every image or piece of video you acquire. You can acquire and send for processing security camera footage when there was a crime, but when there was no crime? How do you justify acquiring the security footage, and how do you justify asking for it to be processed. Whether the footage available to facial recognize is ubiquitous or not makes a qualitative impact.

fitz13 6y ago
Good points, well made. Especially about the hacking. My only other thought is that a government/organization interested in using/misusing such a database would be willing to invent a pretense. I'm not sure how heavily to weigh the precedent of government surveillance skirting these kinds of protections. I assume that Portland doesn't have a FISA court rubber-stamp equivalent, but I can't know for sure. Either way, I think you're right that adding speedbumps to the process is a good thing, especially for data security. I just hope that people don't consider this too much of a victory, although it is definitely a victory.

SmellTheGlove 6y ago

> It's true I may not be, but I'm not sure what the material difference is between real-time facial recognition and performing the same analysis on security camera footage after the fact. I hope that the latter would require a warrant and have some scope limitations. The former expands constant surveillance to constant surveillance + identification. > I should clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of real time facial recognition, I'm just skeptical of this move's efficacy in preventing the same outcome. You don't appear to be, don't worry. And these days there's nothing wrong with being skeptical. After all, it did turn out that the government was spying on its citizens. This wouldn't stop that, but it does blunt it a bit. Dunno, maybe I'm an optimist.