5 ms·

>A city fire marshal used FDNY’s access to a facial recognition software to help NYPD detectives identify a pro-Palestinian protester at Columbia University, ci

by gruez 1y ago

>A city fire marshal used FDNY’s access to a facial recognition software to help NYPD detectives identify a pro-Palestinian protester at Columbia University, circumventing policies that tightly restrict the Police Department’s use of the technology. Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition?

dmix 1y ago
The cop emailed the Fire Marshal who technically does investigations for stuff like arson. Maybe that's the justification for it, not sure.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Same operating model of law enforcement laundering their data requests on the Flock Safety/Group ALPR platform through adjacent agencies who have access. My hot take is this should be a termination and criminal offense in public employment (as a cybersecurity/risk mgmt practitioner).
  - dmix 1y ago
    Or Five Eyes doing data sharing between themselves which 'incidentally' bypasses domestic surveillance laws https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...
  - geodel 1y ago
    This sounds great. Have your clients or employers followed this advice?
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      Yes, and in some cases, I was the person who had to sign off on the termination after providing a packet from the incident response case (which feels about as terrible as having to lay someone off, having had to do that before too).
hearsathought 1y ago
Cause israel. The fire marshal probably is pro-israel or israel has dirt on him. All because of a protest against a foreign country committing acts of genocide. It's unbelievable when you think about it.
- dralley 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - reactordev 1y ago
    Just because it was written does not make it true. Cops have come up with all sorts of excuses to justify their criminal behavior including just plain old “I’m a cop” defense.
  - buran77 1y ago
    One thing's for sure, it always starts with the "terrorists" and "pedophiles". But it would never be used against someone like you, would it? Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving is what this is.
  - hearsathought 1y ago
    > He hit (or at least was accused of hitting) a counter-protester with a rock. It's in the 3rd paragraph of the article. And? Do you think the authorities would go to such extremes over a rock throwing incident if it didn't involve israel? Better yet, if it was the pro-israel counter-protestor throwing the rock, do you think the authorities would have wasted a second investigating the matter? Let alone breaking the law to get the suspect?
bsenftner 1y ago
It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the office chose that option because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading FR system.)
- rendaw 1y ago
  It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the police department chose to ask the fire department because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, the police department would have chosen some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading facial recognition system.)
- pinkmuffinere 1y ago
  Sorry, can you clarify this? I’m not understanding. I think you’re saying - the fire marshal happened to be the route chosen in this case - but there are many other routes - so the fire marshal detail is kindof insignificant. Is that a correct understanding? If so, I still wonder why the fire marshal has access?
  - bsenftner 1y ago
    Fire marshals are investigative, and under less scrutiny. That specific one probably just wanted it. If one wants Clearview FR, there is very little beyond ethics and the state of mind to understand the ethics preventing anyone from running Clearview FR.
  - ccorcos 1y ago
    I think what he’s saying is if the police department is trying to identify a person in a photo, then anyone from the public can try to help them out. Whether those people use facial recognition software or not isn’t exactly relevant to the law because the police didn’t use it. And it’s legal for other people to use it. As far as the police are concerned, they could have just been the person’s neighbor…
neilv 1y ago
> Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition? Arson investigation, identifying the people at the scene of a suspicious fire?
- krapp 1y ago
  The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. The police should be the ones investigating crimes, under extremely strict and limited guidelines (eg. 4th amendment) which in this case include not being allowed to use facial recognition software.
  - Anechoic 1y ago
    The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. Part of the investigation is determining whether the event is actually a crime. I'd much rather have subject matter experts make the determination of arson vs. act-of-god rather than "every nail needs a hammer" police force.
    - Detrytus 1y ago
      Determining if it was an arson vs act-of-god should be mostly lab work, analyzing how the fire spread, whether there are any traces of flammable substances that should not be there, etc. That's what fire department should do, because they have expertise here. Analyzing security footage for potential suspects should be done by police.
      - Anechoic 1y ago
        Analyzing security footage for potential suspects should be done by police. Again, it's not just "potential suspects" it's potential witnesses, or identification of potential casualties. I don't feel great about state actors of any type using facial ID, but I can think of any number of reasons why a FD might use it in the course of their duties, and I would much prefer they have it over the PD.
  - 1y ago

by gruez 1y ago

dmix 1y ago

The cop emailed the Fire Marshal who technically does investigations for stuff like arson. Maybe that's the justification for it, not sure.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
Same operating model of law enforcement laundering their data requests on the Flock Safety/Group ALPR platform through adjacent agencies who have access. My hot take is this should be a termination and criminal offense in public employment (as a cybersecurity/risk mgmt practitioner).
- dmix 1y ago
  Or Five Eyes doing data sharing between themselves which 'incidentally' bypasses domestic surveillance laws https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...
- geodel 1y ago
  This sounds great. Have your clients or employers followed this advice?
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Yes, and in some cases, I was the person who had to sign off on the termination after providing a packet from the incident response case (which feels about as terrible as having to lay someone off, having had to do that before too).

hearsathought 1y ago

Cause israel. The fire marshal probably is pro-israel or israel has dirt on him. All because of a protest against a foreign country committing acts of genocide. It's unbelievable when you think about it.

dralley 1y ago
[flagged]
- reactordev 1y ago
  Just because it was written does not make it true. Cops have come up with all sorts of excuses to justify their criminal behavior including just plain old “I’m a cop” defense.
- buran77 1y ago
  One thing's for sure, it always starts with the "terrorists" and "pedophiles". But it would never be used against someone like you, would it? Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving is what this is.
- hearsathought 1y ago
  > He hit (or at least was accused of hitting) a counter-protester with a rock. It's in the 3rd paragraph of the article. And? Do you think the authorities would go to such extremes over a rock throwing incident if it didn't involve israel? Better yet, if it was the pro-israel counter-protestor throwing the rock, do you think the authorities would have wasted a second investigating the matter? Let alone breaking the law to get the suspect?

bsenftner 1y ago

It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the office chose that option because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading FR system.)

rendaw 1y ago
It is not so important that the fire marshal has facial recognition, because the police department chose to ask the fire department because access was then free of charge and a mere handshake to them. If not the fire marshal, the police department would have chosen some independent 3rd party. This is a known trivial loophole to facial recognition bans. (Former lead dev of globally leading facial recognition system.)
pinkmuffinere 1y ago
Sorry, can you clarify this? I’m not understanding. I think you’re saying - the fire marshal happened to be the route chosen in this case - but there are many other routes - so the fire marshal detail is kindof insignificant. Is that a correct understanding? If so, I still wonder why the fire marshal has access?
- bsenftner 1y ago
  Fire marshals are investigative, and under less scrutiny. That specific one probably just wanted it. If one wants Clearview FR, there is very little beyond ethics and the state of mind to understand the ethics preventing anyone from running Clearview FR.
- ccorcos 1y ago
  I think what he’s saying is if the police department is trying to identify a person in a photo, then anyone from the public can try to help them out. Whether those people use facial recognition software or not isn’t exactly relevant to the law because the police didn’t use it. And it’s legal for other people to use it. As far as the police are concerned, they could have just been the person’s neighbor…

neilv 1y ago

> Why does the fire department need access to run facial recognition? Arson investigation, identifying the people at the scene of a suspicious fire?

krapp 1y ago
The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. The police should be the ones investigating crimes, under extremely strict and limited guidelines (eg. 4th amendment) which in this case include not being allowed to use facial recognition software.
- Anechoic 1y ago
  The job of the fire department should be to fight fires, not to investigate crimes. Part of the investigation is determining whether the event is actually a crime. I'd much rather have subject matter experts make the determination of arson vs. act-of-god rather than "every nail needs a hammer" police force.
  - Detrytus 1y ago
    Determining if it was an arson vs act-of-god should be mostly lab work, analyzing how the fire spread, whether there are any traces of flammable substances that should not be there, etc. That's what fire department should do, because they have expertise here. Analyzing security footage for potential suspects should be done by police.
    - Anechoic 1y ago
      Analyzing security footage for potential suspects should be done by police. Again, it's not just "potential suspects" it's potential witnesses, or identification of potential casualties. I don't feel great about state actors of any type using facial ID, but I can think of any number of reasons why a FD might use it in the course of their duties, and I would much prefer they have it over the PD.
- 1y ago