> The blogpost doesn't explicitly name "facial recognition", but from context I understand she's referring to this law [0] that was frequently discussed on HN

> The blogpost doesn't explicitly name "facial recognition", but from context I understand she's referring to this law [0] that was frequently discussed on HN I don't think that's right. That facial recognition bill was largely for show. Since 2006 San Francisco has had strict limitations on the placement of public-facing surveillance cameras by the city. They're virtually unheard of. There are exceptions, but as far as I can tell cameras have mostly dwindled further since shortly after the original legislation as each successive administration became less inclined to even try to seek permission to install a camera somewhere. The biggest exception by far, and also relatively recent (2016, AFAICT), was permitting the use of police body cameras. Because there are so few city surveillance cameras, the police created a program to work with businesses and homeowners to make it easier to access their security footage. But as mentioned by Breed, in 2019 the city passed a law to limit that as well. Anyhow, so long as people are wearing masks then facial recognition doesn't provide any benefit, presuming it even could.