The plot of Person of Interest edges closer to nonfiction. Will US citizens be subject to a Correction or Sorting one day? Those who know the tech intimately might be trying to curtail that.
5
@Ned
Those who know the tech intimately already know absolutely everything about you just from commercial data and they pay people big money to not only know what you will do, but predict what you will do.
Looks as if most of the comments line up squarely behind this technology, with many claiming that liberals and the ACLU are behind banning it.
All those folks, especially the law-abiding ones, should march right down and give a DNA sample to their local police force. You know, just in case it's ever needed.
5
It' not potential abuse it's real abuse. We see it in the way DNA is used to track criminals through far removed relatives to then zero in on a someone who has escaped the law for many years but now is brought to justice. The problem though is that the privacy of every other extended family member has been violated. It seems at first blush that justice has been served but at a terrible price. The price of privacy and the right to live without government intrusion.
We see what is happening in China were there are millions of cameras that zoom in on private citizens to monitor their behavior. Then they are ridiculed or punished publicly for offenses that in a country in Western Europe or the United States or Canada would hardly be noticed.
The DNA tracking and the cameras have much in common. They operate behind the scenes without restriction or supervision. And they operated subversively and unobtrusively in the lives of ordinary and private citizens.
George Orwell's 1984 has arrived and grows. Where will government intrusion end and the right of privacy end too?
We have read recently of a number of unsolved crimes that have finally after decades been resolved because of DNA. What if after decades a government agency records a citizen in a comprising situation, not necessarily criminal, but like China, seemingly a threat to orderly conduct and a docile, compliant society? How many lives will be ruined by this intrusion and control? The risks out weigh the benefits.
1
@Jay Where do you get that "the privacy of every other family member has been violated"? All of the information comes from public DNA databases like GEDMatch into which the family members in question have loaded their DNA and the rest of it comes from public birth and death records. There's no government intrusion whatsoever. You could do it yourself if you knew what you were doing. In fact, the people who do it for the police are professional geneologists, not cops. Not one person has complained. You don't put out your DNA if you don't want people to use it to match to you. Geez.
1
@JerseyGirl
Read literature provided by 23 And Me and other DNA research/history providers. The companies seek permission to use your DNA for extended medical and other research but don't tell you how it will used, stored, protected or what government agencies, individuals, corporate interests, criminal investigators or anyone or anything else will use that DNA or for how long. In other words you blindly agree to be part of an experiment that has no end. Will your DNA be shared with medical researchers? How about other governments? Or what about someone is
trying to sue you or members of your family? Or what if the DNA is used selectively by insurance companies, potential job offerers, admission units of colleges or the military?
The point is you have no idea, no clue, where your DNA is going or how it will be used and you have no control once you sign off on a rather limited and vague approval agreement. For all you know the next bank loan/mortgage you apply for may have a DNA search as part of the review. If a distant family member has a "bad" history maybe you'll be denied on the basis of that DNA analysis.
As for no one has complained that's because it hasn't hit home yet and the full results and impacts are not yet known. I just learned I have a half sister born 50 years ago. It turned several lives upside down. Did we really have to know? Cameras are an equal or worse intrusion. Where does privacy end? How does it end? What if there is video and DNA evidence?
1
I believe surveillance like this has been in use in England for some time.
A good subject for a study of the effects both good and bad ?
1
In what sense do I or anyone else have a reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public? Isn't it the essence of being in a public place that other people (including law enforcement) can be there too and recognize you?
2
Terrorists and criminals rejoice! San Francisco will now be THEIR sanctuary city.
4
After being pickpocketed twice and seeing three purse-snatchings in board daylight it is about time that someone put a stop to these habitual criminal activities. The police can’t be everywhere and they are never where you really need.
5
Lots of luck finding criminals with scant evidence. It is going to be a "first-class goat rope" bringing perpetrators to justice. Typical San Francisco. they can take the credi9t for things going WRONG in our society. Remember, if you have nothing to hide do not worry about the camera.
3
Dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time. Does San Francisco recognize that this technology is used to not only catch the bad guy, but also to avoid crime? Most terrorists caught in London, Germany, France, and other countries would not have been possible without it. Understand we don't want government following us around (as if they don't already do that via Obamacare, Internet, social networks, etc.), but these are public spaces we're talking about. And if we're worried about that, limit the government's use to finding criminals.
6
Considering all the closed store fronts in San Francisco you would think that the board of supervisors and police could at least help businesses maintain what inventory that isn’t being hauled away.
4
I don't see a need for a right to privacy - out in public. You're out in public! Whether it's a police officer recognizing someone with a warrant, or an automated system is only a question of efficiency.
It would be reasonable to choose not to maintain long term records, not to identify nor search people without a legitimate purpose.
If our government goes evil - then this regulation won't stop anything, they'll ignore it. Pretendng like this protects you is nonsense.
4
A well designed facial recognition system will include an "ambiguity measure": the probability that the result is mis-qualified. I've seen systems where the training sets have resulted in ambiguity of at, or around, P values (probability, or for the lay person, the "chance" of correct identification) of 50% percent.
One has to look at the purpose of facial recognition. If you are just trying to find photos of your friend, Bob, there is little downside. If it's used in a criminal trial, then you want the technology to improve by orders of magnitude.The people developing AI, ML, NN are trying to do this, but it's not informed with a consciousness of the ethical issues, it's just finding a "better algorithm".
1
Recently, I renewed my license plate certification online. The mail was slow in returning the required sticker to me - as a result, I was a few days late pasting the sticker on the plate. But somehow, in that space of time, the State found it's way to my car, parked in front of my home, fast enough to slap a ticket for noncompliance on my windshield! It creeps me out that in a city where the murder rate continues to climb, our police are intently focused on chasing down such minor infractions as late compliance with a revenue-generating law.
This efficiency in what is essentially revenue collection, not a public safety issue, brought to us by the interoperability of monitoring platforms. Expect more of it, as the machines get smarter and talk to one another, operated by dumb humans intent on saving a buck for Uncle Sam, Big Bro, or some other corporation. If crime that doesn't pay, don't worry - the cowed citizens surely will!
2
I’m especially annoyed by supporters of the technology who say that if you have nothing to hide or you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. Coincidentally, it’s the Tech Industry consulting with the government who are defining what constitutes “hiding” something or what “wrong” is.
If you need a model for how things can go wrong, just look how we’re already being super-surveilled on the Internet. A particular putrid example is how Facebook scans photos of my friends and then scours the Internet looking for them elsewhere, connecting the dots and packaging the data to be stored until Big Brother needs to look for people “hiding” things or doing something “wrong”.
5
Crime is taking away our freedoms. So who is really the winner here if this technology is used?
1
The SF police does not currently employ facial recognition - but guess which Big Tech already requires users to submit a photo of their face, DL, and birthdate if they should happen to lose their password or be ejected from the platform and wish to recover their account?
Facebook, of course.
I do not trust any corporation farther than I can throw my shadow, but we are all, at this point, pretty much helpless to opt out of anything meaningfully and still work/function in 21st century world - brought to us by the nerds, courtesy of greed, irrespective of human nature, society, and our better judgement, surely a very endangered capacity, if there ever was one.
It's surprising that a SF governing body is even attempting to engage the clutch on one little vehicle speeding us toward our demise, but good on them for trying! Unless of course, it's just a shot of calculated, no impact Chamber of Commerce PR...
4
Freedom of thought and democracy cannot co-exist with the inevitable justified paranoia that grows as abuses and technological intrusion and spying improve.
We are already self-censoring online like crazy and you are probably crazy if you do not.
Now add to that self censoring your movements and associations for fear of being identified.
Then add to the problem targeted mis-identification and falsification of image records made possible by DeepFake AI tech and where false accusations are backed up by video and AI "evidence" that can be created by any enemy.
We who work in the heart of the tech industry can see the contours of a nightmarish dystopia forming as we speak which is why SF needs to take the lead.
3
@John
Did Dr. Frankenstein destroy his monster or remodel it? San Francisco is not Menlo Park, or even Cupertino, but still...
I have zero faith that the same group of corporate "leaders" and mercenary nerds who invented, engineered and perfected these systems as monopolistic dream machines will lead the way toward a kinder, gentler tech world. They really a) have no monetary motivation to do so and b) probably don't know how normal human beings wish to live.
So we'd better arm ourselves with some a few good geeks, and some ironclad legal repercussions. Good luck to us!
1
Do away with fingerprinting too? And let’s stop those police cars that watch for traffic offenders. Oh, and let’s do away with license plates and Drivers licenses, too. And no more cameras protecting your house. If we really work at it, we can make it so easy for bank robbers, murders and escape convicts to remain at large, to continue pillaging us, that your privacy will be worthless. I simply do not understand why a person would want criminal to remain at large under the pretext that, “For some reason, my privacy is more important than your safety.”
7
Let’s put your face on your license plate with your address and your phone. Let’s put cameras inside your house broadcasting to screens outside and streaming the internet too with your name and address clearly showing and let’s put links to all the websites you visit to make it easy for people to really get to know you,maybe some links to your children , friends and parents so that we can understand your whole family.
4
@Jerry Sturdivant
Then you probably have never lived in a home, community or time where it was totally unnecessary to lock every door you pass through.
3
This is awesome. Right now, in China, the government is using facial recognition software to keir track of the movements of all of the members of an ethnic minority, the Uighurs, so that they cannot poorest against the oppression of their communities by the Chinese government.
Right now, we have a president of the USA who is regularly promoting violence against minorities, protesters, political opponents, and the press.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
We have a president of the USA that is convinced that there are no limits to his power, advocating for political violence, regularly, while his base cheers.
Thinking that giving someone like this the awesome power of factual recognition software will keep anyone safe is delusional, but it is certainly a threat to essential liberties.
The world is made more dangerous by these technologies not less.
"The right to be secure in your person..." must include not using your face to track your location and your activities.
3
@McGloin Yes! Thank you. The definition of "criminal" can change and might one day include, journalists, non-religious (or "wrong" religion) people, people who criticize the govt... anyone! This kind of tech makes oppression too easy. Maybe not today but seriously, look who the president is! Anything you think "could never happen here" absolutely can happen here without vigilance.
Let's not hamper the criminals. Heaven forbid!
6
Because under a surveillance society WE are ALL criminals!
2
Too little, too late. The US Stasi is already in place.
Good. I don't want to live in a surveillance society. The bad outweighs the good.
5
@Sook: How about a society where criminals and lawbreakers can remain at large because nobody can be searched for, stopped or apprehended because it may invade their privacy?
4
@Jerry Sturdivant Someday, people with the wrong politics or religion might be "criminals." Could be you! This tech is too prone to tyrannical use.
1
Remember the TV series "Person Of Interest"? If you missed it, the premise is at the point of full implementation of a facial recognition technology in which everyone in the city is constantly observed by cameras with their images processed by algorithm. The information gathered is fed to screens watched by agents who attempt to perceive potential criminal activity and go out to try to prevent it. Much like the Cruise movie "Minority Report" also. I think San Francisco is right to slow this movement down to give us time to consider the negatives along with the positives.
1
First, San Francisco is not "the real and perceived headquarters for all things tech." Silicon Valley is.
I have lived in the SF Bay Area, but not SF itself, my entire life. I have worked in SF for the past 23 years. SF has always been too full of itself, as this claim illustrates.
Second, this city needs to start worrying more about the people not committing crimes. They don't even bother to investigate car break-ins or shoplifting. Now they are denying police a tool that can help catch rapists and murderers. There are many reasons I have never moved to SF; this attitude is one of them.
3
Reminds me of the pointless Snowden scandal. The civil liberties crowd never presented a single instance of the government reading people's emails or otherwise damaging any innocent person through their massive automated surveillance operation.
So here's another example of a valuable tool we will not be using to fight crime and terrorism because, feelings.
2
@Max add the word "yet" to the end of your first paragraph. Then consider your feelings.
Temporary at best. The technology will be everywhere; it’s inevitable. Why? Because Americans adjust daily routines far more often to avoid becoming a crime victim than they do to avoid government surveillance. Crime limits freedom. Ask anyone who lives in a high crime neighborhood. Most any technology to help catch the bad guys will be welcomed. It’s less about abstractions and more about what we perceive the most.
10
So you are saying the surveillance will be used by the government equally and I guess you haven’t thought through how companies will use it? I trust the government far more than companies whose prime motive is profit and I don’t trust the government all at
The lack of overt bias in this piece is refreshing; it's nice (kinda) to read about a serious issue that we don't all agree on that also isn't divided strictly along political lines.
Personally; I'm not sure where I fall on this one. I understand the value of giving the police a tool like this, but I'm not sure it's worth the risk.
Perhaps if we were not living in a world which is headed toward massive dystopia, facial recognition could be just “another thing”. Trump may have read one book in his life, 1984, and wants to be “Big Brother” - the despot who sees and controls all. Hoover had files on everyone, as Trump would do. San Francisco is undoubtedly correct considering our sorry state of affairs.
Until we can once again trust that our government and its agencies are there to preserve our freedoms and protect us we must be suspect of many of their activities which could be used to oppress innocent people, especially for political reasons.
1
Wonder how many of the city councilman/women use an Alexa? AI is here already and exists in many forms.
@Patrick
I'm no fan of voice recognition (Alexa), but think it differs significantly in terms of ability to search and match features as efficiently as facial rec. Your point, if I understand it, is correct - e.g., we need to all be aware of the potential for abuse of these technologies. And not give in to "can't stop progress" mentality, I would add. E.g., just because we can edit genes, modify our foods to look good and taste like cardboard doesn't mean Montsanto or any other corp. should be allowed to. And some effects are considerably more serious than a tasteless strawberry.
We ought to at least try to resist the headlong rush to implement every new thing before we fully think through it's impact and interaction with all elements of society - corporate greed and criminality both. Tech is amoral, but humans are not. Let's use our brains for something other than arithmetic.
This hysteria over the use facial recognition is ridiculous and misplaced. We are already putting people in jail because they've been misidentified by the surveillance systems we already have and that includes human eye witnesses. We should be working to improve the technology, not banning it.
5
Curious that the people who make this software also fear it....
1
So "profiling" is terrible. But using genetic or face-recognition technology to make identification of a suspect far more precise is also terrible. Right. You do have to kind of wonder what the agenda is.
3
The agenda is to make money, who is promoting this technology? Who wants this technology?
I do not know any individual who wants this for themselves. I know what I look like ! Those who want it, want to use against somebody else, they say for protection. That is just the selling point.
This is a profit motive companies selling to governments and mostly to other companies , for security and for sales and demographic information. Companies will pay to know who is walking into their store, that is the holy grail, and not just who but all the data connected to you will be linked.
1
@JerseyGirl
And what is your agenda exactly?
Surveillance technology is indeed dangerous. But San Francisco’s main interest probably has to do with protecting illegal immigrants who are wanted on federal warrants for skipping court appearances. Without illegal immigrants, the wealthy would need to pay Americans to do child care, construction, etc. this would dramatically increase costs for people worth over $10 million. We cannot allow mere commoners to inconvenience their rich betters with foolish, insolent talk of American wages. Worse, some of these middle class people didn’t even go to the right schools.
1
I've nothing to hide and hope the police can use this to stop crime.
2
@Walker Rowe But you don't even live in the United States....? I would suggest worrying about your own country and let us worry about the degree to which San Franciscans wish to be monitored.
This article completely overlooks the real surveillance nightmare...where ever I travel in public, the police are always looking...at my car, at my linense plate number, at my face as we pass in the mall.. .when are we going to start to respect the Constitution and ban sighted officers from law enforcement!!! My private space should remain private and the leading surveillance mechanism of the police state must be ended.
1
Republicans and the right (who represent the majority of law enforcement) will use this technology to abuse and harass anyone who opposes them - just like they have always done with new technologies in the past. Today’s Republicans prove every day they cannot ignore their worst impulses.
Law enforcement has traditionally used sketches based on witness descriptions to catch suspects. Is there any evidence that that is and will always be more accurate than facial recognition software? Who is SF City Council trying to protect?
1
You need to do more research. This kind of oversimplified conspiracy talk is dripping with ignorance about an extremely important issue.
@Erin Miller
I think the thought of conspiracy is coming from not understanding how facial recognition works and will evolve in time.
My question about the City Council's intentions is simply about who needs to be protected - law abiding citizens, police or suspects who may or may not be guilty.
The innocent?
AI tech is already “out of control” and most do not realize it.
A key point is that It is FACIAL RECOGNITION AI SOFTWARE that is banned — not cameras or license plate readers — and only for government.
Even the pro camera surveillance group in SF signed off on the ban.
Mistakes in facial recognition and the complete loss of privacy when the government can track your every move and not to be dismissed is the racial disparity in facial recognition accuracy which likely would result in false positives in areas that already have issues with police community relations.
These technical details are exactly why I think San Francisco should take of the lead on technology legislation because our population and representatives disproportionately understand the implications of technology and thus we are in a better position than most to identify and spearhead legislation around AI and other complex technical issues.
Therefore I fully support this law and I am hopeful that SF will continue to lead in this way.
3
@John
Forgive me, but - given SF's rather well-publicized inability to address housing and homeless issues in your city, one wonders if understanding human beings, economics and compassion might not fall entirely within the skill set of the region's techocracy? The rest of the country, poorer and less skilled though we are, might just have something to say about that...
And the government is only part of the problem, companies are pushing for this just as much or more. They are stealthily pigging backing on the fear factor of rampant murders that will be rammed by facial recognition , when the real fear comes from unbridled invasion of companies use of facial recognition.
But this rule will not affect Federal law enforcement or possibly State level law enforcement. So it may be a symbolic gesture.
This really needs to happen country wide. The younger generation has already become far to used to being under surveillance all the time.
There is no good reason for it. And no public safety is not a valid issue for me. Safety is an illusion if it doesnt do anything to prevent it. And this doesnt do anything to prevent anything.
2
At a minimum, I like the idea of having the facial recognition cameras up... BUT... authorities only having the right to access data from specific cameras AFTER a crime has been committed, as a way to better see what may or may not have taken place.
2
The public seems highly uniformed about technology that we are all using today. Read the book the Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff and see where this has been going for some time and how poor our laws are to protect privacy.
3
"That’s incompatible with a healthy democracy.”
my democracy
recognizes only smiles
and maybe freckles
When you are under constant surveillance -- even the real or imagined threat of surveillance -- your freedom of expression is inhibited. You are under the subjugation of the state.
5
Isn't this how they caught the Boston Marathon bombers?
5
Reality Check we allready sold out to china long ago our freedoms just smoke in wind.
In the video Aaron Peskin (SF City Supervisor) also says: "We don't want to live in a police state" (0:47)
Finally, a city official that admits when the thin blue line in America now identifies a police state. It's probably no coincidence that lives next door to Silicon Valley.
I am a conflicted.
My inner American rebel applauds any move against government threats to my ability to go about life free of surveillance and interference. I support this decision which feels very American in its spirit; First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, “Give me liberty or give me death”, and all of that.
However, I’ve repeatedly visited and eventually lived in Britain where surveillance cameras are everywhere, making the British among the most-surveilled citizens on the planet. It began with the very real threat of IRA bombings that eventually made throwing away a candy wrapper while in tube stations an impossibility due to the fact that garbage bins had to be removed from public spaces because they were used to conceal bombs.
I’ve also watched plenty of British television that shows how the seamless ubiquity of Britain’s camera network helps law enforcement fight crime and alien invasions (from other planets, not countries; I’ve just finished the Doctor Who spin-off series “Torchwood”). Life was fine in Britain, even wonderful at times especially when I had a toothache and was charged only a small fee at an NHS dentist to have it managed. British society adapted and thrived.
I’m sure there’s been some abuse of the system but the British seem to manage to keep this to a minimum. With our robust Constitution, I’m sure we can do even better. Continue this fight but realize also that others have managed surveillance differently. Learn from it.
20
@left coast finch
The Party of Trump is actively attacking the Constitution. They are attacking all congressional oversight of the executive branch, for just one example.
Expecting the Constitution to save us from abuses by the most advanced surveillance systems in history is not realistic. We need our freedom to protect the Constitution, or both will be shredded by the Party of Trump with help from "centrist" doormat Democrats.
4
@left coast finch
Sorry you are so conflicted but keep asking yourself why is it anybody’s business that you are popping down to your local for a pint. Just a reminder: America hasn’t wanted to be like Britain since 1776.
My inner San Francisco rebel hates surveillance anywhere, from cameras on the street to spyware disguised as an search engine (google chrome).
Speaking of British entertainment, ever see Terry Gilliam’s film Brazil? Take some pointers from Harry Tuttle.
3
Surveillance of any kind may be abused. The first amendment may be abused. Ignorance is also a threat to democracy. Sweeping elimination of a technology because it may be abused is a cop-out. Legislators are too often too lazy to do their job of monitoring application of technologies. Instead they go ideological, imagining they can legislate a kumbaya world. If one of my grandchildren disappeared I would hope that a system existed that might help locate him. Of course facial recognition, as does any technology, has limits. We call them "risk". When the data is presented for evaluation it must be accompanied by a risk value that takes into account, in this case, such things as lighting, view angle, water on the lens, etc. The world is not a safe haven. Read the news.
14
Howard Winet, I am guessing you were one of the doubters when Iowa banned the automobile from public spaces given the havoc it was wrecking among horses on the road and the loss of good-paying farrier and ironsmith jobs. Technology is always a threat and we need far sighted government to keep things the way they are.
@Howard Winet
My initial response to this article was, "Right on!", but you raised some good points. Thanks for that.
1
If only we had a farsighted government. They can only see to the next election.
Thank you San Francisco! The possibilities for future abuse of this technology by government are extremely frightening. China's use of it is just the tip of a potential iceberg. What happens when a Trump 2.0, or 3.0, comes along and takes a dislike to a certain class of people? This is an extremely powerful form of surveillance and controls need to be put in place now. The rapid proliferation of License Plate Readers by police forces in the last few years already makes me feel uncomfortably monitored in my travels. Facial recognition is far more intrusive. And scary.
14
I live in a very high crime city near SF. I want facial recognition software here. I want license plate readers on every major street and in every cop car. Heck, I would volunteer to put a license plate reader on my own car to help.
Once my city is established as a terrible place to commit crime because the risk of getting caught is astronomical (the exact opposite is true now), the equipment can be removed. Until then, though, bring it on.
25
@Djt I get your point but the ban is not on cameras or monitoring license plates or gunshots...
It is FACIAL RECOGNITION AI SOFTWARE that is banned — and only for government.
Even the pro camera surveillance group in SF signed off it.
Mistakes in facial recognition and the complete loss of privacy when the government can track your every move and not to be dismissed is the racial disparity in facial recognition accuracy which likely would result in false positives in areas that already have issues with police community relations.
This technical details are exactly why I think San Francisco should take of the lead on technology legislation because our population and representatives disproportionately understand the implications of technology and thus we are in a better position than most to identify and spearhead legislation around AI and other complex technical issues.
Therefore I fully support this law and I am hopeful that SF will continue to lead in this way.
6
Djt : What makes you think it will be easily removed?
5
The impulse to ban this potentially very beneficial technology stems from fear of its misuse. As in most human activities, regulation for the common good is essential.
6
Although I understand the concern that San Francisco is trying to address, I don't understand how this can be implemented. By being a local law, how would SF enforce it? They are not going to ban all cameras / CCTV feeds. And they cant' control where data is stored (like in Washington state, or across the street in a San Jose data center), where the real image processing happens. So this is a nice political stunt, but it has no teeth.
2
It would seem an honorable move if they were making other efforts to control crime, but as any visitor knows, this is far from the case. SF politicians have always passed these symbolic measures, but fall short in the real world.
6
A simple truism applies here - however worthwhile technology like this can be in solving major crimes (not stealing a bottle of vodka or missing one child support payment), if this can be abused, you may rest assured it WILL be abused, to the detriment of us all.
7
I keep receiving a notification indicating I can download a facial recognition program from Dell. Do any other Dell computer users receive it?
Cover the little camera port on your laptop, tablet, and any other devices.
BearBoy - Thanks. I keep deleting the message and have not downloaded it.
Hmmm frankly I see the argument from both sides here. As someone who lived with terrorism, bomb attacks and other outrages against civilians, I understand the need for surveillance that perhaps US Citizens don't appreciate. Still with most Americans living their lives on and via social media, I wonder whether these demarcation lines are pointless. Notice that those cities who have suffered terrorism in US are embracing the technology. Personal experience seems to change their attitude to this technology....
4
Oh for goodness sake, what’s with the paranoia? Privacy is a myth, this country even needed to see the inside of my chest before they’d give me a fiancé visa. Just use the technology to catch criminals before they hurt people.
3
They say in London you are always on CCTV somewhere. I've never felt uncomfortable, threatened or psychologically damaged there. On the contrary, it made me feel a little more comfortable. That and the near-total absence of firearms on the streets.
6
This information needs to be publicized throughout the community of those who commit crimes. San Francisco is a good place to live in and hide out in.
4
it's been possible to fight crime and keep the peace for decades without the use of these Orwellian nightmares. Let's keep them locked in Pandora's box. Good job, San Fran.
4
If we can't trust the police then we should be come the police. Universal service for all with service in police departments as one option. Put up or shut up
@RG you can not trust the police , if you think you can then you have not been paying attention
So city agencies cannot use the technology, but all of the corporations there can use it all they want on all of the phones, laptops, cameras, ect... that they make. That seems a but hypocritical.
@James Linus
Last time I looked Google or Facebook can’t arrest you and deprive you of your liberty. Huge difference.
1
No they just manipulate you into using technology you don’t need ... like facial recognition. Where do you think this stuff came from? I’ll give you two clues ... they have the word “face” in their company name and they also have an obvious surveillance term in their name ... oh you already mentioned them .
Maybe it is a good idea after all if California secedes and becomes its own country. They are escalating their move to the left socially and economically. Sanctuary cities, open borders, rampant homelessness, the highest state income taxes in the nation, and now blatantly anti-law enforcement measures. No wonder people are leaving California in droves.
1
So now facial recognition is a political topic? This is EXACTLY why we can’t handle the technology. Thanks for your comments clarify our worst fears and how deep rooted they should be. If Republicans come out in favor of facial recognition and Democrats come out against it this issue will escalate to rebellion. It’s that serious. Facial recognition punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
Isn’t that what they say about gun control : Everyone who owns a gun becomes a criminal. Now Everyone with a face is a criminal under surveillance? At least they will be able to follow everyone who has a gun more closely, I guess that depends on whoever is controlling the cameras right? What if Democrats want to put a special facial recognition tag on every gun owner & Republicans decided everyone who works at an abortion clinic should be tagged as such. This technology will not stay in government hands. Access will be sold to companies who will want to know you purchased a gun, so they can flag you when you go to buy a vehicle & try to sell you a gun rack for your truck. The genie is already out of the bottle, probably everything I’ve said here is already happening. We are ignorant sheep being crunched by the God of Data’s “Jaws of Matrix”. You are not an individual, you are a facial scan and a data trail. A trail no longer restricted to the cookies in your web browser, your linked data and face are free range and viral, like a billboard on 95 with your face & address
The ACLU is becoming to sound to me as extreme as the NRA is its dogma an extremely narrow and with total disregard to common sense interpretations of the constitution, almost to the detriment of society and as paranoid as well.
Always quoting Jenny Friedenbach. I'd like the Times to ask her, How many tents do you have on your lawn?
Why not use it for a year and see how many false positive I.D.s the police actually have? If it's a lot, then ban it. Europe locates terrorists and mass killers within an hour of their crime by pervasive use of cameras. That sounds like a good thing to me (and as a woman, I might be more likely to be misidentified). I'm not worried. Bring it on.
2
That’s what GW said about Afghanistan .... it’s a long battle... but it will be too late to say no after a while... well it’s too late already.
Who are we kidding? The US is already an overly oppressive surveillance state. Snowden warned us more than half a decade ago, with details. Things now have only gotten worse. Sure, the Government doesn't keep every single bit and byte in their storage containers but mega corporations do. And they provide whatever data is requested, whenever it is requested. They also sell it to the highest bidder, or lose it to nefarious players. Those electronic health records contain everything about you, and is available to anyone with the right paperwork - or in the case of a breach, to anyone. So banning facial recognition in one tiny geographic area is barely even the beginning of a push back.
10
@Doctor X
Every journey begins with the first step. What is he next step?
I applaud this action by San Francisco. While public safety is a major public concern, the potential abuse of facial recognition systems used to monitor the general public is real. No one wants to see a mass murderer escape from law enforcement, but at the same time, no one wants any agency to be able to track their own whereabouts when going about their daily routine.
Public safety advocates downplay the misuse of the system. But I can easily imagine a scenario: Let's say that a certain POTUS is upset that a very large group of citizens is marching in the public square in protest to a recent announcement or Tweet. So upset that he orders his minions to identify each and every one of them... and keep an eye on them. You know the type. Well facial recognition might actually be able to do this task someday. And that idea upsets me. It ought to upset everyone. Including the "patriot" visiting the gun store.
18
@Jeff P
I am a developer in the AI software dev space.
Bad news: This type of Facial recognition capacity now exists today using hardware from Amazon costing a couple hundred $.
Cross reference the list of faces identified via even newsfeeds
With stolen Facebook logins then target with malware that turn your phones and laptops into remote spy microphones and cameras.
The Israelis are way ahead in this stuff due to lax laws. So we just buy from them.
Google it all.
The genie is way out of the bottle.
1
This technology (when it is perfected) is akin to living in a small town where everyone knows everyone. Behavior is affected and it can be quite claustrophobic. It also provides benefits. Certainly due process protections need to be applied to prevent incorrect prosecutions. However, a good deterrent to crime is usually welcome.
1
I think the term you are looking for is “busy body”.... I’m more of the hank Williams “mind your own business”
Neanderthals. The technology is not the enemy; it’s misuse is. It is up to the governed to elect legislatures, executives and judges who respect our Constitutional rights.
The sad reality is that a high percentage of crime, including serious crime like murder, go unsolved. We have developed and utilized new technologies to aid our efforts to solve crimes. Fingerprinting, tool marks, DNA, cell phone tower records, license plate readers, video surveillance, and others have all aided investigations.
We can control misuse. As an example, The Supreme Court banned the use of tracking devices on cars without Judicial approval in the form of a warrant.
Banning the technology is not the right answer; creating rules to prevent misuse is.
6
@Kayemtee
No, the problem is the technology. It is everywhere and, just as a matter of plain everyday business, it tracks absolutely everything. It is the modern gold rush for data.
1
For all of you criticizing those who are against this tech, just wait until facial recognition invades your privacy and intrudes upon your life when you’ve done nothing wrong.
4
With the era that we now occupy, privacy really no longer exists. From the Facebook that most people have or to logged in news sites like the NYT, we are a far cry from a private society. As far as I can see, privacy is only if one is off the proverbial internet grid.
@Mare
Well, we can prevent that from happening if we just have a lot more information about you. Let's just run back through your activities, minute by minute, for the last month and you will be fine.
This ship has sailed.
Police already use camera to identify car tags and this technology has already resulted in armed confrontations between police and innocent civilians.
Just how much worse could a FR system, which has problems with African American faces, be?
Certain guidelines for usage and more robust technology would be required to make this safer but there is still this little issue of effectively having a police state and many of the police nowadays are prone to using a hammer to solve their problems.
How about spending more money on better trained police instead?
3
“I think part of San Francisco being the real and perceived headquarters for all things tech also comes with a responsibility for its local legislators,” Mr. Peskin said. “We have an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology precisely because they are headquartered here.”
Well said Mr Peskin.
Bravo San Francisco.
2
@Paula
In the meantime, the reason all those people are rich is because they are all keeping close track of you. Government is nothing in this regard.
This may be the first and only time I've ever agreed with the ACLU, at least that I remember. I appreciate all the great cops out there protecting the public, but SF has this right. There's far too much room for abuse with this technology.
4
Leave it to a California city to do exactly the opposite of what makes perfectly good sense. This seems to be the up and coming thing with that state. It was at one time on the leading edge of most things but is currently going craze on many issues.
4
@Confused : Your tag speaks volumes. Having overwhelming state control of your liberty is a bad thing. This technology allows for that to happen. When you cannot be in public without the worry of being monitored by the the state, your liberty is curtailed. There are a lot of laws. How can you know every one, and whether you may have violated one, and whether "they" happen to be monitoring for that one, and whether "they" decide to enforce it? Large scale monitoring of a population opens the door to government control of the population, a la the book "1984." The power is too tempting for would be authoritarians to leave alone.
1
It’s not the government that bothers me.
“Police, and other Agencies”. How about private companies? Seems to me any private company could simply bypass that law and just provide the results to the agency next door. If a city wanted to ban Facebook in their community, wanna bet a lawsuit wouldn’t follow. If cities and the ACLU are concerned about abusing privacy, what about Facebook, Google, and Amazon who sell private user information as a business model? They are listening to and tracking our every step. Bet San Francisco wants to stop that?
Good for San Francisco. Law enforcement always wants whatever it can get. But law enforcement is not in charge of defining our civil liberties, and never has been.
Law enforcement did not advocate for appointed counsel for the indigent, for Miranda warnings, for jury pools truly composed of the accused person's peers, or for uniform sentencing guidelines.
Take a look sometime at the famous Norman Rockwell painting of a policeman sitting next to a 6-7 year old boy at the lunch counter. The officer looks like a husband and a father, and we infer that he is counseling the young boy (clearly bent on "running away" from home, even if only for 5 minutes), to go on along home.
He's not wearing camo, as if expecting to fight in the jungles of Southeast Asia. He's not armed with enough firepower to defeat the British at Lexington and Concord all by himself. He's a fellow citizen, and a friend to those in need.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
2
They only banned it for government. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the government is not the biggest user of face recognition, nor is it the biggest intruder into personal privacy. But it looks good on paper and fuels lots of fist in the air rage.
3
@ondelette : And it starts a very important debate.
@ondelette
Correct. What is to stop Google from doing face recognition everywhere and then adding your location to Maps? You can already do that yourself with various programs, and the cameras are cheap. It's probably already in the works.
This seems like a plausible tool to help w/ authorities on so many levels to identify criminals. I would have thought a nay vote would have come from Southern California where plastic surgery runs rampant.
1
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The above is the 4th Amendment.
This applies to facial recognition software in used public spaces by the State.
2
@The Falcon No, it doesn't apply at all.
@Jackson : I have to disagree. I find it unreasonable to be subject to my face being recorded and checked against a database if I simply want to take a walk in public. There is no valid reason for that search.
1
I lived in SF in the early 90's and thoroughly enjoyed the tipped balance of left and right -- now it's just left. Sanctuary, high personal crime, robberies and car thefts, along with an an exploding homeless issue turned SF into a city I avoid. Its difficult to shop, dine, or simply walk downtown in peace. Now they turn their backs on the hand that has fed them for the last 20 years, Tech. If any city needed new technology to identify criminals and reduce their crime rate, it's San Francisco.
29
@fourteenwest you have a point, but the threat of state-controlled surveillance on this scale is too high and incompatible with freedom.
however: personal and corporate tech is fair game. let your imagination run with that for a bit.
1
Here in SF my local grocery store has all the liquor on recorded camera and behind lock and key and it can only be handled by an employee who takes it directly to a cashier. A uniformed policeman with a patrol car stands at the entrance to the store most of the time.
These face recognition cameras would be a tremendous help to prevent the loss of liquor to thieves and make better use of our limited police presence.
It really is up to our business community to bring some common-sense best practices and pressure the crazy board of supervisors and our lame mayor.
19
Good. Um, has anyone noticed the whole techno-control state dystopia the Chinese are putting together? Mass surveillance coupled with facial recognition is a key part. If you think it can't happen here, you are kidding yourself. I'm all for law enforcement but those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
43
@Sci guy Right, because China was a total Civil Rights utopia before! Without all this nasty technology, we had DJ Mao and the Tianamen Square day party. Everything was so fun and free! But now because of evil technology, China has suddenly become a totalitarian state...
2
@Sci guy
This fact about the Chinese system is in direct contrast to my comment on the generally innocuous British surveillance system. The Chinese system in the hands of an authoritarian regime is a nightmare come true.
I’ve also been to China. I saw cameras everywhere, like I did in Britain, but the feeling was 180 degrees the opposite of what I felt seeing them in Britain. To dispel the very real chill, I simply smiled directly at them, even giving a tiny wave to the one seemingly monitoring the pores on my face as I bought a subway ticket from a machine in Shanghai. And I clutched my American passport a little closer to my heart.
4
@Sci guy good job pointing out the state-of-the-art in population control via technology.
Freedom of thought and democracy cannot co-exist with paranoia that will grow as abuses and technological intrusion and spying improve.
We are already self-censoring online like crazy and you are probably crazy if you do not.
Now add to that self censoring your movements and associations for fear of being identified.
Then add to the problem targeted mis-identification and falsification of image records made possible by DeepFake AI tech and where false accusations are backed up by video and AI "evidence" that can be created by any enemy.
We can see the contours of a nightmare dystopia forming as we speak which is why SF needs to take the lead and set the example for FREEDOM.
3
This was an important crime fighting tool. There is no reasonable expectation of "privacy" when you out in the public. This is another outbreak of political correctness. I used to think San Francisco was a cool place to live. It is now in a neck and neck race with Berkeley to become the laughing stock of America.
15
@styleman
I used to think San Francisco was a cool place to live until Silicon Valley imposed their suburban values on us natives and turned SF into their bedroom community.
Why don’t you encourage San Jose to use facial recognition technology and then just stay there please?
2
San Francisco: playground of the criminal kind and no one will recognize them.
3
Listen to The Daily podcast on the use of this technology for mass surveillance and population control. What is marketed for "safety" can quickly become something else.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/podcasts/the-daily/china-surveillance-uighurs.html?module=inline
3
@Charlotte Thank you for posting this. What's happening in China is terrifying and anyone who thinks this technology isn't going to be exploited for political purposes here in this country is hopelessly naive.
2
These technologies of identity and control produce maleable data and are used against the people. You might feel all cozy and comfortable while they put others in cages, until you or your kids are caught in a data harvest. Now you realize, too late, that you are a bug about to be crushed by the machine you praised.
5
"Warning that African-Americans, women and others could easily be incorrectly identified as suspects"
Strange description: isn't African-Americans, women and others a whole society?
1
No big brother. Maybe it could be used per court order on a cases by case basis, say, in searching for fugitives or kidnap victims.
Why should the CIA or some intelligence authority care what law are passed in San Francisco?
San Francisco bans technology used to fight crime.
1
Very alarmist article. The issue is surveillance cameras, not searching for what's produced by them.
AI, or more accurately machine learning, does in minutes what officers and detectives would otherwise take hours of mind numbing viewing of videos to find.
If you don't want to find words where a suspect changes his the story behind his alibi, if you don't want to easily transcribe the audio and produces sub-titles to make it easy for a jury to comprehend and interview, if you don't want to see quickly who dropped the backpack with a bomb in it. Don't use AI. Let officers suck up hours of their time trying to do what AI can do in minutes, find the needle in a haystack.
2
Considering that SF has the lowest successful prosecution rate for murders of any major US city you might expect better but there is no money in catching killers. On the bright side the traffic cameras are back in force.
3
Liberals run amuck. Let's limit the effectiveness of law enforcement and then in the same breath question the level of crime in the streets.
Our European neighbors use CCTV for crime prevention by monitor neighborhoods, yet we find it too invasive an approach.
If you want to clean up the problems and permanently fix a neighborhood, it's an easy solution. It's a high tech version of putting a cop on the corner. If you own a cell phone, drive a car or purchase a metro card, your movement is already know. This is no different.
13
@George Facial recognition could help with the fare dodging said to cost the MTA a significant amount in lost revenue.
@George
"Run amok" is the way to write that.
@George
I fear street crime far less than a president who is constantly promoting political violence against minorities, protesters, political opponents, and the press.
If Trump gets his way, he will be using facial recognition to track anyone that disagrees with him so they can be arrested and re-educated, like they do in China.
Trump asked why American citizens don't "sit in attention for him," with "fervor," like the North Koreans do for Kim. The reason is that Kim uses mass surveillance and political violence to force these behaviors from his subjects. Trump "fell in love" with Kim and the head off Russian intelligence, who also uses his surveillance state to oppress his subjects. And yes ours obviously jealous when he talks about Xi being "president for life" in China.
Read the history of Operation Condor if you think government surveillance of citizens will keep you safe.
1
I'm sure the state of Alabama, Georgia, and other states law enforcement would get great use out of this technology to track doctors and woman to enforce abortion laws. Certainly no bias would be involved. Welcome to 1984.
22
Not really surprising in a city that won’t investigate car theft.
8
Swimming upstream as the river is rising, San Francisco is wasting its time and energy. If the technology exists, it will be used - this has been an inevitable reality of human behaviour since we learned to control fire and create stone tools.
Banning facial recognition technology is a futile “feel good” gesture that will seem foolish as its use becomes standard practice in every other private and public sphere.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in any public setting - the power of digital technology doesn’t and shouldn’t change that simple fact. Facial recognition is little different from reviewing pages of mug shots or hours of surveillance camera footage - just faster and more efficient.
8
I agree that the tech will be used widely one day. But I don’t think that day should be today. As several tech leaders have warned, it's too premature. There’s problems with it recognizing faces of people of color, a report by NPR said it could only identify people of color correctly something as low as 30% of the time. Imagine not being able to board your flight or being arrested for a crime you didn’t commit because the software couldn’t ID you or misidentified you as someone else. I think tech is evolving rapidly but we need to pause and ask serious questions about ethics.
I don’t get it. Technology can’t be used to prevent crime or detain criminals ? Are they serious? Do These civil liberty groups have nothing better to do.?.. we need more republicans in power in 2020.
7
@Wendel Your first observation was correct. You do not understand this issue. The quality of a society rests upon the relationship between the individual and the collective or state. Due to the creep of technology, individual rights are being degraded by technology like this, which can easily be abused.
3
@Ronn
Criminals and Terrorists are counting on utopian opinions such as yours.
1
@Ronn The quality of a society also rests on freedom from crime and the fear of crime.
The USA have a 6 times higher violent crime rate per capita and 6 times higher incarceration rate than in Europe .
The worst police and justice system.
The last industrialized nation not to have yet abolished the death penalty and far from doing it.
1
Many citizens will cheer this move until the time comes when a perpetrator gets away with a crime where, with facial recognition technology, they would have been identified and caught. This is a more likely scenario than the use of that technology for societal control and harassment in SF or anywhere else in our country.
6
I think a police department with eidetic memory for faces would be a better police department. Let's make memory training mandatory for police officers.
Yes, because the SFPD has lots of down time.
Ironic the city that has benefited so much from tech shuns it. As an aid to solving crimes no less.
4
I believe they said the same things about atomic energy. My grandma said there were three sides to every story two sides and then the real side. Only time will tell.
3
The recent NYT piece in which a passer-by was identified based on readily available FR software and web photos was an eye-opener. Most tools which nowadays make our lives what they are, such as the telephone or Alexa, can easily be used by 'the government' for nefarious purposes but we have decided that these things' usefulness (I'm not sure about Alexa) outweighs their potential for misuse. We have accepted Hawkeye in tennis to call the lines because it is allegedly superior to human judges; and whatever defects there are currently in FR technology, such as its apparent shortcomings with identifying African-American faces, will surely be overcome as it develops. This genie left the bottle long ago.
3
The Norwegian crime doctrine author, John Nesbo has a character Beate Lonn who has an eidetic memory which allows her to remember faces.
She can essential do face recognition.
Would we object to the police employing a team of people with eidetic memories? How about training officers to develop such capacities?
I don't think there world be any objection.
How often has generic "young black male is a person of interest" lead to tragic results because too many police can't or won't distinguish.
The smarter move would have been a moratorium while regulations are developed. Photographs were a huge technological leap and, even though they are an obvious threat to privacy, today they are widely accepted and necessary, to put it mildly. Fundamentally, facial recognition technology is an advancement of photography. Like most tech advances, it cannot be stopped, only controlled.
4
It's a competing harms dilemma. Current power holders in China might argue that targeting small groups in order to create a more perfected state serves a greater good. There's both real and perceived harm to debate about.
Using facial recognition to locate individuals who are known to have done harm or who are known to a about to to harm may serve a positive purpose. It's when we begin to indulge in predicting likely harmful behavior based on AI interpretations of, say facial expression, body language, etc., that we may get into trouble.
2
@me AI gone bad represents public safety in danger, actually.
"But critics said that rather than focusing on bans, the city should find ways to craft regulations that acknowledge the usefulness of face recognition."
The critics have a point. But until such regulations are crafted, we have the choice of either banning facial recognition or letting the state exploit this technology however it sees fit. I'll go with Door B, Monty.
3
Interesting that it bans government use, but not private use. My guess is that Facebook will still be collecting facial recognition data on all of us.
6
They are kidding. This is like banning abortions. It doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. The users will just keep it hush-hush claiming some other factor resulted in the arrest (finger prints, corneal scan, DNA). Waste of legislative energy.
1
Biometrics provide transaction efficiency whether helping locate a lost child or elderly person, as well as catch a rapist. Such use contributes to a safer and more hospitable society.
It is a bit hypocritical to proclaim "sanctuary" city status while banning technology that helps provide safety to those who need it most, and contributes to catching those who commit violent crimes against citizens who rely on City Services to protect them.
32
@ Mike S. and Trump is president. What could go wrong?
2
@Mike_S Not against the tech, but I'm not sure you quite grasp the meaning of a sanctuary city.
@Indy
My grasp of a "sanctuary" is a refuge, a place of peace, where families feel safe.
My grasp of a City is a place where people gather to interact and live in close proximity to each other.
Tools like automated biometrics are wholly consistent with making communities safer, more efficient, and more hospitable.
If you don't trust the Leaders you elect to make positive use of these tools in the Public's Interest, address the actual problem by electing some Leaders you can trust. It's not like these silicon and tin contraptions are going to jump off a poll and attack somebody.
This will be eventually overturned at some level by a tech corporate funded bill introduced by a political shill on the same bases as “Citizens United”. Now that they have invested so much money into FR, to see the it banned in SF with other cities pending, would put a large hole in their wallet. Not to worry big money always overcomes democracy.
6
The US never learns from history and hence it is destined to repeat it.
The pot-haze hanging over the City by the Bay makes the residents conveniently forget 911, San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Orlando, Columbus, and countless others.
Face recognition is by no way a mature technology but it is a hopeful tool to thwart terrorism especially in a city that coddles the many misfit and misaligned masses.
Let us hope that the few sane San Franciscans move out of the city soon and will not suffer the consequences of foolish decisions such as this.
14
@Appu Nair Amen, brother. Of course, FR may be too sophisticated a tool for those in San Francisco government. After all, they can't figure out how to put a stop to the widespread defication on The City's streets.
@Appu Nair
A better response would be sensible gun control—age limits, holding period and one gun per adult old enough to buy alcohol and no automatics or clips by citizens OR police. Also, better language skills in US ‘intelligence agencies.’
SFPD enforcing the laws? What laws? You kidding?
13
Nice try, but the Luddites lost that battle two hundred years ago. There’s no going back; not to the garden, or to an era where privacy was a thing. They paved paradise and put up a smart parking lot.
6
I am not afraid of the police using facial recognition to find bad guys who may be planning to hurt my family or me because I’m not a bad guy.
Should the technology at some time in the future overstep our rights THEN it could be legally restricted. But until then I’m in favor of making it more and more difficult to be a criminal.
14
So after the horse is out of the barn?
1
We really need federal legislation that comprehensively addresses privacy. Our web activity is tracked and sold, cell phone locations tracked and sold, license plate recognition tracks the location of our cars, and now facial recognition can be used to publicize where we go. Shouldn’t we be able to take our phone and go for a walk or drive and not have where we went or what we did be used in a nefarious way. If all the politicians that are having affairs understood this I am sure they would act immediately.
6
As a former San Franciscan from the 1970 decade, I applaud the Board of Supervisors for its forward looking thinking.
In the unlikely event that facial recognition is necessary, modifying the existing security cameras will be easily accomplished.
Now that The Times has published the new legislation, what percentage of Americans will line up on each side of another divisive issue?
A convincing argument can be made for dividing America into at least countries to give the disagreeing citizens a choice of where to live!
5
This technology is not so much a bad thing in itself; rather, the use of the devices at random to direct people's attention is what is at issue.
I agree with Marc Roterberg that it is an invasive technique which should be sidelined, like random calling on a mobile phone.
2
The ruling, combative, paradigms of Democracy, Republics, Communism, Socialism and all the other "isms" have a new member to add to their ranks. It's the latest, and most powerful, in a long line of tools used by the ruling classes in their never ending attempts at maintaining control and hold on their power.
The ascension of the Surveillance State in association with the Corporate managerial mind. Welcome the new Boss; same as the old Boss, only this one is infinitely more intrusive than anything that has come before.
It will be interesting to see how the masses push back against it. You know they will. And push seems to be coming to shove if this SF "shot across the bow" is indicative of where things are going. The struggle for power and control in its latest incarnation; it never ends does it?
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
1
strange back lash over surveillance when on the flip side their taking 400 selfies a day and posting them to social media. just saying
18
A suggestion for those disappointed by SF’s new legislation. Just write your name and SSN on your forehead when you visit the city.
4
These systems "improve" as they are trained with more data. Data in this case being more images of faces; hence there is an incentive to record and categorize as many faces as can be acquired, and training sets are frequently shared between entities.
Social media companies will "helpfully organize" your personal photos stored in their cloud so you can find images you want easily. This is done using facial recognition software; hence the "unintended consequence" of assembling a massive database of billions of users is underway.
1
Thankfully the people in the city at the heart of the Democratic People's Republic of California know and recognize the nature of the modern Prometheus aka Dr. Frankenstein aka Dr. Jekyll aka Big Brother aka the new gilded age robber baron malefactors of great wealth aka Silicon Valley.
3
@NYT: I think this article needs a few words about the reasoning behind the Microsoft CEO’s and the Microsoft researcher’s conclusions to the that this technology is not compatible democracy.
You have given the example of the Chinese government’s actions against Muslim Uighers - is that the kind of use these critics cited? More explanation on this point would be helpful.
2
Thank you San Francisco for taking a stand for privacy.
6
If you have a Ring doorbell, you can monitor who comes and goes near the doorbell. You can see the FedEx driver who left your package, and possibly the porch pirate who just stole the delivered goods. Why wouldn't you use that technology to capture a thief?
Put another way, substitute the words fingerprinting, or DNA testing, everywhere facial recognition is mentioned in the article. Would San Francisco have banned those technologies in their infant stages of development?
30
@Lambros Balatsias this ban only applies to government agencies and to FACIAL RECOGNITION AI.
Not cameras, ring doorbells or whatever home tech of private people and companies.
Here in Singapore I'm concerned that the local *malls* are deploying facial recognition. I'm ok with (properly legislated, properly controlled) public safety applications of facial recognition but the commercial application of this kind of surveillance 'to help you find where you parked your car and make helpful suggestions and product promotions' makes me want to avoid a growing number of public spaces.
6
Is anyone opposed to the police taking surveillance images of a person committing a violent crime and using facial recognition algorithms to map the face of that criminal and then compare that mapping to a database of criminal’s booking photos? That is what most police facial recognition is doing.
16
I think SFPD should take a hard look at why they can’t combat street crime at the same level as for example NYPD. Tech is probably not the only answer here. What about other laws that safeguard criminals and mis-priortize resources? It’s insane to me that legislation blurs the line between drug offenses and property crime and crime that makes a city unlivable and prohibitively expensive for the least advantaged (whereas the two are completely different: the former we should stop wasting resources on, the latter should be better enforced). But the largest driver may be that some people are left behind economically and really unhappy? Whatever SF does I hope the rest of the country ignores, because it is a mess all the way down.
7
Perhaps it is the afternoon fog.
Perhaps it is the legalized Pot.
Perhaps it is just plain naivety
but having the ability to recognize criminals
before and after their crimes is for the Public Good -
why the Board of Supervisors cannot recognize that
say all you need to know about San Francisco.
12
Thanks for doing what I wish I could have done: protecting us citizens against tech bombardment. Whoever had a stake in protecting us... Thank you.
4
If only our fair city (and specifically, our legislators) could invest 1/4 of this energy towards getting our own house in order!
But no, “Marquees legislation”, usually styled as a statement to a national audience, has been the order of the day for nearly two decades.
I’ve voted for Peskin again and again (I’m part of the problem) and I once thought he stood out for his courage, but when it comes to the challenging local matters that only our local government can address, the board of supes, and mayor, are nearly impotent. And this seems never to change.
New Yorkers, be grateful there remain some adults in the room at your city hall! Our small town still has its charms, but they are cracking under strain at best. And truth be told, the issues, (all of them!) pre-date the tech boom that we are so tired of.
3
Just a bump in the road to our future and one day this too shall pass. Remember a few years ago when genetically altered humans were a no no? Human’s fatal flaw is that we are intellectually unable to stay ahead of our technology curve. Smart enough to make it but blind as to its future consequences .
4
Banning technologies doesn't work. It's like using antimicrobial soap. You won't actually ban the target, which is endemic and inevitable, you'll just distort the ecosystem. Smarter to know what's happening, the way you look at the weather report, and cultivate the desired ecology intentionally.
3
As long as this law does not interfere with American efforts to watch and stop Chinese spies from harming our national interest, I have no problem with it.
American citizens have a right to not be watched unless they are suspected of breaking any law, right?
However, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of hundreds of Chinese government agents coming though San Francisco periodically.
criminals can use the same name. I don't see much difference from using fingerprints by law enforcement.
2
On a recent trip to China, these cameras were everywhere. If you jaywalk, you receive a ticket via your phone immediately. The state is aware of your every move and actually assigns points to or from your social account based on your overall "performance".
If the state determines you are not complying with state goals, you cannot get a better job, healthcare nor tickets to events and much more.
The intrusion was absolutely pervasive. Does it impede crime? I'm certain it does, but at what cost?
What I find most perplexing is the bastion of liberal behavior, SFO, objects to camera use whereas the freedom loving gun owners in TX & AL don't seem to care if Big Brother is watching their every move.
13
That’s fascinating about China. I haven’t heard that from my friends who have visited. Do you have any suggestions about where to read more about this? It’s hard to catch up with reality!
People who support these intrusive surveillance techniques always make the same error. They think that the government (any government) will always be benign and always act in society's best interest.
But can anyone guarantee that a malevolent government will not take control in ten years? In 20 years? In 50 years?
Turkey today offers a terrific example of how this can happen in reality. This is a closer reality than people think. And it can happen in the United States or Europe or anywhere else in the world.
10
Using facial recognition tech for the sake of using the latest technology is ill conceived and San Francisco did the right thing.
When there is are no rules as to how the law enforcement can use it it WILL be abused.
There is no difference between you being tracked by facial recognition systems as soon as you walk out your own home and the governments drag-netting of all internet communication. The latter had zero judicial oversight or open courts.
How long should the surveillance tapes (your face ID with location and time) be stored for?
Who will have access to the data?
Should law enforcement be able to go back years and see where and when you were? Does a judge need to sign off on it before the face ID tape is used?
Once the laws and rules are in place that protect privacy I’m sure San Francisco will allow face ID recognition.
PS When you use fingerprinting for ID you identify yourself, with face ID you are being tracked - big difference.
8
'a city transformed' by high tech, indeed, and definitely not in a good way. Their (SF government's) choice in this matter is doubtless the right one and, likewise, a completely futile one in a world which consumerism, fomented significantly by tech's encoragement of the millisecond attention span, has given free reign to id over thought.
1
That barn door's been open for 20 years. The horse is long gone. The FBI and CIA have been using face recognition technology - with high quality results - for as long as it's been available. Americans are blissfully unaware of just how well they're watched - and have been for a long time.
4
We need cameras bolted to both sides of EVERY door in America now! Every door. Way too much goes on behind closed doors.
Every person must be seen at all times just like the sun can see you all day and the moon at night! No one should complain unless you gots something to hide.
So what if they recognize you -- then you are famous! Everyone's phones must be on permanent recording especially because sometimes you're not near a door.
Just think about how easy it will be to write up all them history books! Just go back and see what was done. Piece of cake. Never have to read some boring blah, blah, blah, whatever gettybergs this or money depression that. No more wondering what happened in courts, no more boring jury duty, just look at the tape -- done! You ever sit through history and have to learned it? Now we don't have to waste our time on it and can have people just see what happened. Just put them history books on the tapes to -- voila!
I wanna see the entire world on tape, every inch of it 24/7. Make people wear the glasses with cameras for a law. I wear glasses, it's no problem!
3
@Jorden A spooky idea - but this sounds like the beginning of a killer film script.
Well, they've already banned children and the working class, why not facial recognition, too.
17
This is absolutely brilliant. I can consider again leaving my heart in San Francisco. A spirit not yet completely destroyed by tech boosterism and uni-think.
7
Good. I hope this gets banned everywhere for use in public.
I don't want a Minority Report future where I get flooded with ads in public, because the stores know who I am and how I shop.
14
I remember going through check points in old East Germany(1960's). The thoughts I had then and now were ones of gratitude that I was an American. Thirty years ago, I couldn't leave SF airport until the 'computer' photographed my license plate. I felt like that was unAmerican.Now I read that SF is fighting 'constant video monitoring' and I realize there are still Americans fighting for American freedoms. Thanks!
32
The is REALLY sad... guys.. regulate it.. don't ban it
Technology could be developed to audit and report who abuse it
Also most importantly.. judges should be looped in as the FISA courts does. As long we can monitor who uses this software and for what purpose with constant and repeated audit
Use it. We need it to cut costs and to catch the bad guys.
21
@Salah Mansour
No, not sad at all. Regulation will not work, as those that want to surveil people will do it under the guise of "catching the bad guys".
Look at what has happened in China, and it will be obvious that this technology needs to be banned for the use of surveillance of people in public spaces.
14
@S B
You are citing a BAD example. China's isn't a good example. We should not let fear.. dictates our policies PERIOD
This could be done. We must find ways to regulate it rather than banning it guys. Plz don't let fear control us.
2
Why be so naive? The federal government has always interpreted law to it's advantage. That is how the Patriot Acts came to mean torture and illegal wiretapping became the norm. Getting the bad guy is ALWAYS and without exception just an excuse to take the easy shortcut to ripping up the Constitution and its protections. Then the Good Guy becomes the Bad Guy.
10
That will certainly put a damper on burkas and wearing Jason masks or Darth Vader helmets to protect your privacy in public.
Just what we need, facial recognition in the hands of privatized police departments (under Republicans you know they are coming), where the police are replaced by autonomous police (aka robots) to lower costs, and will use imperfect facial recognition to TERMINATE YOU - again to lower costs.
No doubt Alabama Republicans will be the first to use facial recognition of pregnant mothers to ensure compliance with government mandated incubation laws.
Moratorium? No way. Ban it until it is helpful.
15
I would like to know if those in favor of law enforcement using this technology are also in favor of banning encryption for private use? If you’re comfortable with being autonomously tracked and identified then you shouldn’t have any problem with all of your communications monitored and recorded. I feel like only my creator should have this luxury.
9
And here in our small town in upstate NY our school district voted to spend $2.7 million to turn facial recognition cameras on our students as the price of going to high school, all in the name of school security. Let's hope that the NYT and Governor Cuomo start paying attention to what is happening in their own backyard. Those closest to where technology is born know better.
14
Everyone seems focused on the use of facial recognition technology for surveillance, with no understanding of how state and local police actually use such technology for police work. By far the most common use is for identifying unknown suspects in a crime that has already happened. For example, someone robs a convenience store and the suspect’s face is captured by the security camera. Investigators will use that image to search databases of previously arrested or convicted people to see if there is a possible match. They will use multiple factors, not just the photo, to identify possible suspects. Once they have potential suspects is identified, they will follow through on those leads the same way would with any investigative lead, with the same burden of proof. It is not even remotely any form of big brother surveillance. San Francisco is hurting their own citizens, especially poor people who are more likely to be victims of crime, by passing this law.
16
@Nick Coult
Thank you for this. I was about to write a comment asking why this is so “dangerous”.
One has no expectation of privacy in public spaces. We already have photo id in our drivers licenses and passports. It seems to me that facial recognition technology is merely making the process of identifying people more efficient. And as you point out, it is only a part of the investigative and evidence gathering process.
If I am out and about, shoppung or driving or relaxing in a park or even at work, anyone can see me and potentially identify me whether I want them to or not.
9
Welcome news from San Francisco. The ability to be anonymous in public spaces is an important value that needs to be preserved. This is a democracy. I read about a company that uses facial recognition software to identify protesters and then sells the information. That use certainly should be outlawed. It is also important to have our homes as sanctuaries from the outside world. We should think about what it means to be human and try to preserve human qualities as attempts by companies to increase surveillance to obtain data continues at a rapid pace. Banning facial recognition software is a good place to start in the fight against Silicon Valley to preserve what makes us human.
13
In ancient societies ever knew—could recognize—everyone else. No anonymity, yet the people were human. Being anonymous doesn’t make a person human.
1
San Francisco bans face recognition, but Chinese don’t ban it.
3
Those people in California sure are smart. They just choose not to catch criminals. Boy, I feel terrible I don’t live in such a smart, educated state.
15
@Shamrock
They really are smart. They have undoubtedly researched how other countries have used this technology to suppress freedom of speech and criticism of government and politicians.
The fool takes a superficial look at the issue, makes a snap judgement, and believes those in power when they say the technology would only be used for the good of the people.
13
@Shamrock the tech people KNOW the downside - that is why many dont let their kids use screens and phones etc until high school!!
3
Except that crime rate has been dropping for years before this news.
3
Kudos to SanFran, but what about a facial recognition server in San Jose? Can you send a SanFran video feed there and recognize all you want?
2
San Francisco's intelligent ban to preserve our democracy and civil rights is necessary to prevent techno fascism which currently is where the future is trending toward worldwide. In addition cash is absolutely necessary for democracy.
13
Good for San Francisco. Facial recognition technology is only reliable for white people. There was an article in NYT a month or so ago about how this technology is far from accurate with respect to darker-skinned people. It is very troubling that this technology is in broad use in law enforcement. An innocent black person could find himself or herself caught up in a case of mistaken identity and unable to get the police to listen or at least verify whether the correct person has been apprehended.
9
A tool to catch criminals is banned? Now that's paranoia! It's like NRA members afraid the government is going to take away all their guns. Or folks afraid of EZPass, thinking they're going to get a speeding ticket based on the time between two toll booths, or that the government is spying on their travels.
I wish no harm to anyone voting against a powerful tool to catch an unlawful person, but if they were a victim, perhaps their mind would change. How about anti-vacciners? Paranoia is also a disease. No vaccine.
11
@David J
A powerful tool can sometimes be used for good and for bad. It's not the good uses that people are worried about. Look at how Autocrats in other countries are using this tool, and you may better understand SF's logic.
4
@S B, when this no longer America I’ll worry.
@David J
When it's no longer America, it will be too late. That is the issue
Somebody is watching everybody.
If you have been doing the wrong things you should be watched.
If you are doing anything wrong you should not care if they watch.
Get a grip.
You really are not all that important.
You just think you are.
9
@Pogo
This is such a short sighted remark, it is hard to even know where to start.
People who are unaware of how this technology is being used in other countries should take the time educate themselves. Autocrats are using the technology to suppress freedom of speech and to identify people who question the government and their power.
6
Happy day for criminals and creeps...
9
The Bay Area is the capital city of the internet. We should follow their lead.
3
@Frank M on this, perhaps. Just maybe. On other items, not So much. Will you please name another city of less than one less than one million disposing of of a billion - yes with a B - dollars PER MONTH, that has this little to show for it!!?
I read comments below characterizing Facial Recognition technology as a tool for monitoring behavior, but, one could also argue that the technology is foremost a tool for quickly finding the whereabouts of a dangerous criminal, terrorist on the loose, a tool to keep society safe. I have spent my youth in a police state where gathering, protesting or even publishing a cartoon mocking a leader ended you in a prison cell; I would hardly hardly call USA a police state nor an authoritarian state. Unfortunately Americans are truly confused (and a bit ungrateful) about notions of freedom, what it is to live in an open and safe society like the USA where privacy is not paramount (but it is not abused, who has been falsely accused of a crime by facial recognition tech. as a criminal and have rotten in a jail in USA? nobody! this is a country of law and order compared to police states ) Please do go and live in a real police state (like Russia, China, Turkey, All Arab countries) in repressed, closed, authoritarian societies, where even ideas, expressions are considered dangerous, where privacy doesn't even exist.
13
Why would the suppression of freedom in other places convince us to make this loss of freedom easier to swallow. We don't want personal constant monitoring of our citizens- period!@Chatelet
7
@Chatelet
" Please do go and live in a real police state (like Russia, China, Turkey, All Arab countries) in repressed, closed, authoritarian societies, where even ideas, expressions are considered dangerous, where privacy doesn't even exist. "
This is what we do not want in the USA. Do you not believe Trump would use this technology to monitor his enemies if he had it at his disposal ?
6
Your gait is also unique and vulnerable to video identification through software analysis. Everything we do is monitored. Everything we do is recorded. Companies like Palantir make the tools to tie all this together for an instant inspection of who you are and what you are doing. There’s no way to opt out and still participate in society. Next up we have an onslaught of fabricated media by way of ‘deep fakes’. There will be no way to trust anything you see or hear. This leaves you with the choice of disconnecting completely, or staying tuned in and living in a fog without a compass. Either way you are completely vulnerable to those who are in control of this power. I’m not saying we should all be hoarding guns and ammunition, but culturally, we should be prepared for mass revolt, because it’s clear this is a true crisis coming together in less than 10 years.
2
The "lineup" and "6-pack photo lineup" are not perfect nor are they quite accurate. Remember the photo recognition tech is also observing the entire body in movement when you scan out and view it that way as well as full facial abilities. Isn't this better than the old "lineup" techniques. All improvements to track down and apprehend the bad guy are necessary. SFR is setting a bad example for the entire country but this is nothing new.
6
I work in Shenzhen, China and go back and forth to Hong Kong frequently. That means two immigration crossings in each direction. Normally, that would entail long delays waiting to talk to an immigration official, but I have signed up for "E-Channel" in both directions. That means I put my passport in the machine, it scans my face and records my fingerprint (thumb for China, forefinger for Hong Kong), and presto, I'm done and on my way. It's like E-Z Pass on the highway.
3
The tech kings and queens are afraid their faces will be facially recognized. The same folks that restrict or prohibit their children from using social media or gaming. Possible just fearful of lawsuits or bad press. I don't trust these folks as far as I could throw them as my late mother always told me.
23
The same way you cannot make a color scan of currency, nor will their faces appear in any database.
This is the only logical and ethical step to take until laws regulating the use of an invasive surveillance technology with major first and fourth amendment implications can be debated and passed. Other cities should follow suit.
17
Face recognition is about as ready for primetime as flying cars. Try Stansted airport (London) were myself and about 200 other passengers recently missed a connection because the face recognition system could not match passport pictures to the facial scans. It took the only available immigration officer about 2 hours to clear up the mess.
Even if the technology were flawless, do we really want to live in a society where face recognition prevents us from boarding an aircraft because of an unpaid parking ticket... will never happen you say... It happened to me in Amsterdam Airport (one of the most liberal places in the world) 2 months ago...
16
Facial recognition is useful for law enforcement in two ways. You can have a list of people you are actively seeking (e.g. people you have warrants out for) and scan crowds to locate those people. Or you can record every face so you have a record of people's activities over time which you can scan in the future when a crime is reported to see the history of possible suspects.
The former case creates the danger of false positives. You might pull over or arrest or harass an innocent person who happens to resemble the suspect. Ironically, the more accurate the system, the more severe the likely mistreatment of the innocent person, because the police will believe the system.
The latter case is more problematic, though. This is where the privacy issues arise, because you now have a record of the activities of innocent people under no suspicion. What are the safeguards against this data being used improperly? How long is the data retained? Who is it shared with? You can mitigate this to some extent by setting strict limits for how long it is retained, by requiring a warrant to search it, by subjecting all usage to audits.
I doubt in the long term we will be able to ban all use of facial recognition but we should minimally be able to mitigate the privacy harm, and it's possible the best solution would be to ban all data retention so that only the first use case is permitted.
4
An idiotic act of Luddism. Are they going to ban the use of computers next? Facial recognition technology is a tool, and, as any technology, it is not static but constantly changing and developing. There are legitimate privacy concerns about this technology, but the thing to do is to regulate, monitor, evaluate and adjust the use of the technology, not to ban it altogether.
11
Perhaps we should look no further than China and its camera harassment of Muslims to understand why this technology has the potential for misuse. Add misidentification to that, and in today's America, you could get shot and killed by accident.
I stand with San Francisco on this one.
100
@Manuela Why not look to Britain, where CCTV has been used for crime prevention for many years? A much more relevant comparison.
1
@Paulo
CCTV is not facial recognition.
And the British Constitution is not as clear on prohibiting these kinds of abuses.
And last I checked Britain its not without crime or terrorism, so what are they getting in return for freedom?
Facial recognition and autonomous police drones. The near-future is scarier than most fiction.
55
@Chris McClure
so true.
long term, the mature, fully baked AI will be running everything smoothly with or without us.
but short term, this immature, scattershot, human-driven AI is just another tool in the oppressors toolkit.
very insidious.
This wouldn't be news if it didn't make me (and many others) jealous - jealous because we're afraid and realize we have zero protection, and our government isn't trying to help.
5
In the modern society, there are a lot of security cameras in our city. Of cause, they are installed for monitoring us, and protecting from the crimes. However, everyday we are being watched by these. When I walk the streets of the city, sometimes I catch sight of these, and honestly, I'm not favorably impressed by that. I feel, "Where is my private space in the city?" and "I'm not criminal." I understand these camera's role, but at the same time, I feel a fear and displeasure.
17
@Takayuki - My apartment building has cameras along with FOB keys. My landlady knows every time I leave the building, which door I use, what I was wearing, what box I picked up in the mail area, who comes to visit, etc.
8
The ban is premature, simple-minded and grand-standing, especially given that the police force does not use this technology. Unfortunately, those who back these measures, in particular the misguided ACLU, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the profound civil rights costs of criminality as well as the substantial civil rights advantages to accurate police enforcement.
32
@Shiroto the NSA our National Security Agency is already using this technology on who? regular American citizens and families who were protesting the family separation policy at our Southern border. the federal government hired a private Corporation to do facial recognition surveillance by video and which sold it to the NSA. there is no Freedom of Information Act for private corporations. Our taxpayer dollars are being spent on this. it is the beginning of techno fascism.
7
@Shiroto what a ridiculous claim. It sounds more like you have stock in this technology.
3
@Shiroto
How does protecting the civil rights of others infringe on your civil rights?
4
There is a gap between the politics and policies of the wealthy elite, and the realities on the street in SF. My daughter lives in SF (the Castro) and I hear about the homeless, the drug needles in the playgrounds, package thieves, robberies, the mentally ill, and last week the attempted kidnapping of a 3 year old while walking with his mother in the middle of the day. I wonder about the tradeoff between liberal values versus security and quality of life for the average citizen. I'm all for security technology, if it gets me something in return.
28
@Ben
We lived in the Castro for 22 years and left. Guess why. Exactly for the reasons your daughter describes. SF is too concerned with the rights of deadbeats and drug addicts and not with overall quality of life of its (majority) law abiding and decent citizens - who pay the taxes and deserve a police force that cracks down on social outliers. The city needs to become a lot more serious about creating a liveable environment - by discouraging migration of deadbeats, finding ways to get the ones they have already off the streets and into treatment and jobs, and cracking down on disorderly behavior.
11
@Ben the gap between the wealthy elite and the “average citizen” is widening and many of those who once thought they were “average” are now living homeless and drug-addicted as you describe. Surveilling and jailing isn’t the answer; it’s narrowing the gap between rich and poor. Hardship and poverty beget the kind of criminality you fear.
9
Facial recognition by police is the stuff of the Chinese Communist Party. I don't want it anywhere in this country for any reason.
45
So if a child is kidnapped and there is video of the kidnapper, you do not want the police to use facial recognition technology to try to identify the criminal by indexing previously arrested person’s photos?
1
@Casey Penk Are you worried about the Chinese Communist Party and not worried about the American Communist Party?
Burglar. Two nights ago. Took two bikes and three tennis rackets, which were all at the landing on the first floor of my three story house by the staircase.
My dog and I were asleep on the third floor. Thank God the burglar(s) was content with the stuff by the landing. Last night I had a nightmare. I thought the burglar might be back.
My home has the same architecture as many late 19th/early 20th century homes in San Francisco. Richardsonian Romanesque, c.1899.
I'm an honest person. I think this technology will protect people like me.
The challenge is separating thieves and sexual predators from political dissidents. But we're not China. C'mon my fellow Americans! I don't think we expect all that much. Just don't steal things.
I'd love it if my camera could alert me or raise an alarm every time a rapist, child molester, murderer, or thief is nearby. I'm sick of these people.
11
@Mike you are willing to sell out your fellow citizens’ right to privacy for two bikes and three tennis rackets. What a cheap date!
5
@Mike
two words - "motion sensor"
6
It's not going to be helpful with criminals who pull their hoodies tight around their faces, but I'd like to see the police use it - if they have a warrant.
Technology that could help fight car break-ins, package thefts, maybe even tagging! Of course, our DA and courts would have to actually prosecute and punish criminals
3
@Ty
I noticed on KRON4 news over the weekend that a senior citizen wellness check in San Rafael resulted in the arrest of the senior's roommate who had been driving to San Francisco to steal packages. The roommate failed to remove the address labels. Had the senior lived in SF, there likely would not have been an arrest. Crime is taken seriously in neighboring Marin and San Mateo counties.
SFPD regularly asks SF crime victims for access to the data on their home security camera systems. Much is not helpful due to hoodies.
1
@Ty what kind of people commit the crimes you describe? Poor people, drug addicts... instead of filling prisons with petty criminals, why not fix the societal ills that create criminalty? Like poverty, addiction, and lack of healthcare?
1
Please inform us all on how to fix those problems.
"1984" all comes true. Big brother is watching. So wear your hat low or wear a mask.
Privacy? A thing of the distant past.
32
@Pataman
Never voluntarily say that privacy does not exist. That is why we are losing it.
1
Ridiculous.
What’s next? A ban on using fingerprints?
77
@JQGALT
... ever heard of anyone mistakenly arrested on the basis of fingerprint evidence? How often do fingerprints produce false positives?
6
Ever hear of someone falsely arrested based on facial rec?
2
@JQGALT Just thought you might like to be aware that WE know who you are, where you live, what you watch/eat/buy, and even who some of your friends/acquaintance are (and what they w/e/b..).
Enjoy your day.
1
It is time for every city and state in this country to take a long, very serious look at the issue of the individual citizen’s right to privacy.
The federal government has failed all of us by neglecting to address this crucial question. Privacy-related issues brought on by advances in technology have been ignored, in some cases, for decades.
The current situation is “1984”-nightmarish and only seems to grow ever more threatening.
If the congress and the supreme court won’t take action to protect us, let us encourage our state and local governmental officials to address this ever-widening area of concern.
Good for you, San Francisco!
68
And what about all those NEST door cameras? Should Google be the only one with the knowledge of who is when, where? Can the police then subpoena them?
4
A sad loss for the ski mask industry.
7
This is the right decision by San Francisco.
As a lot of other states head towards "The Purge" mentality it's good to see some sanity.
37
Luddites still exist. They mostly live in California.
We have a few here in Texas. The state just outlawed red light cameras as being unacceptable; one cannot cross-examine a camera. I mean, really!
When you are in public, you don't have privacy. Public :: Private.
I doubt anybody will ever be brought to trial, let alone convicted, because the facial recognition software erred. Suspected, questioned? Sure. But that's it.
It just a method of reducing the suspect pool. I expect it errs less than the positive IDs made by eyewitnesses.
41
@Austin Liberal
Actually, the place you are *most* likely to meet red light cameras is in California. Where you must have front and back license plates unobscured by anything so that they can be clearly read from the front or the rear, and so that the cameras can accurately read them if you go speeding through that clearly marked intersection with the sign that says "Red Light Warning: Minimum $400 Fine", Flash, Shot of Back License Plate, DMV Sends You the Bill. Pay within 20 days or the fine doubles.
We don't have them in NM. Luddites live here. You have to be stopped to get fined and we allow people to drive around with dark license plate covers on the (back only) plate without consequence.
4
@Austin Liberal have you seen how China uses it to surveill its citizens? Let’s not emulate the Chinese in this regard.
3
@Austin Liberal. Do you know about the red light camera fiasco in Chicago?
While the ban affects the police force, it doesn't affect stores or shopping centers. One of the most memorable movie scenes, ever, was in "Minority Report," way back in 2002, when Tom Cruise ("John Anderton") walks past a number of ad displays (e.g., Lexus, Guiness) that call out to him specifically, with knowledge of his interests and past purchases. Later, after he has had some eye surgery, the displays think he's someone else, but ignoring that (it's a murder mystery story), will we want shopping malls and multi-story depaartment stores to direct us toward things we're likely to buy, just as logging into a shopping site does now? Time-saver, snoop, or both? (The video clip is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiDMlFycNrw)
3
We have reached the tipping point and are about to embrace Big Brother.
Good for San Francisco - not that it will do much good in the long run.
28
There is good reason to worry about the increasing loss of our personal privacy online and otherwise from corporate and government actors, but there is little reason to explain why facial recognition technology, and for that matter widespread use of CCTV, in public places is not already common and tolerated. Remember, this is technology that will look at persons in public places, like sidewalks, in cars, on transit, in stadiums, theaters and shops--no one has any reasonable expectation of privacy in any of those or other public places. This is not about being secure in your homes or your personal affairs, this is being out in public where you have voluntarily placed yourself for anyone to see. False positives and IDs will occur, but the advantages far outweigh and the technology wii improve. As a San Franciscan, this is simply another example of why you do not want the SF Board of Supervisors making poorly thought out decisions on a broad policy basis.
43
This is about tolerating being stalked by someone afar. Creepy! First step to tolerating totalitarianism.
35
@Cazanoma
Recently I was in a casino and approached by security. I was told that my face matched someone that was banished from the casino. I simply showed my driver's license to prove I was not their person.
7
@Mozart
And that ended the encounter.
The system worked. No problem.
5
If San Francisco banned a tool that would help apprehend criminals, they deserve what they get. A taxpayer citizen who becomes a victim of a crime perpetrated by a criminal who could have been taken off the street before if facial recognition software was used to identify the criminal before the crime was committed against the victim, has a huge claim against the City.
77
@Samara
And when a tyrant rises up and takes power. When our rights are revoked what then?
When the government knows where everyone is 24-hours-a-day. Knows what we read. How we spend our money. Who we text or speak to on the telephone. Who we vote for. What we think and believe. WHAT THEN?
The idea of citizens sacrificing all rights to privacy in order to make law enforcement more efficient is folly of the first order. Willingly subjecting ourselves to this invasive terror is motivated by fear and paranoia.
It is cowardice.
We are Americans. And Americans do not willingly submit to the transition of their country into a police state!
119
@tom
Your post sounds paranoid due to creative worrying. Public is not Private.
6
@Samara
I assume then you'd have no issue wearing a police monitoring bracelet at all times? Skip on down there Johnny (or Janny) American, I'm sure they'd be happy to outfit you with one.
I suspect you wouldn't, despite this level of surveillance being effectively the same thing.
16
Hope they don't regret this in a big way.
8
It is a brave, new world. There is facial recognition *technology*, and there is *policy* in using it. I don't think that an argument for using the technology is that it seems okay to use. If it is theoretically possible to abuse it, then, if we decide to use it, then we'll have to design safeguards in the system to protect individual privacy. This is exceedingly difficult to do to the level that it guarantees high, let alone perfect, assurance of individual privacy.
But proponents see facial recognition technology's usefulness. This too is theoretical to some extent and needs to be validated; the argument for using it has to be more than a feeling, and not be based on fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Facial recognition is the dual of privacy in cell phones. Installing a back door in cell phones that lets government get at the private data that is on the phone weakens the security of the phone and endangers cell phone users. Those who believe that the back door can be used to find that particular terrorist are operating on a theoretical, imagined argument. Similarly, for facial recognition, proponents imagine finding that one terrorist with the technology, but it can weaken the security of the population by being used to abuse individual privacy rights.
If we deploy facial recognition throughout our society, we'll have indeed entered the Huxleyan brave new world. If that happens, I think I'll spend the rest of my time on soma.
8
The news here said today that a recent test of the facial recognition tech claimed that 23 black members of Congress are criminals. So much for it's accuracy.
23
How do you know it’s not accurate?
5
@nuicam
That definitely is fake news!
4
@niucame
Congressmen criminals? Sounds like facial recognition is flawless.
10
“It is hard to deny that there is a public safety value to this technology.”
I deny the public safety value, the human cost, and the necessity of this oppressive and intrusive technology designed to monitor our movements and control the freedom of our action. Make surveillance a crime.
26
Disgusting. We have all lost our freedom. There is no turning back. Countless people and society will suffer. We are all just cost centers to the greater AI force.
17
Thrilled to hear this. Our major tech companies are fallible. We’ve repeatedly been told our personal data is protected, only for the opposite to be revealed. The LAST scenario I want to find myself in is one with a corporate apparatus following me around offline and online. A literal nightmare.
I can’t even be sure TODAY that one of my iPhone applications isn’t recording my conversations or storing location data it shouldn’t be. I might be living my nightmare.
109
@ Wyatt. Apple knows where you are every minute thanks to your phone and your phone company. Unless you leave it a home of course. It’s a bit late for privacy — pretty much everyone has gps.
3
@Wyatt Is it all or nothing? Britain has used CCTV in public places for many years to great effect. Hyperbole of worst case scenarios lead to nothing being down, which San Francisco politicians excels at - grand gestures but no substance.
1
Some version of this tech is clearly a major turning point in our ability to both deter and investigate criminal activity. Should it be heavily regulated? Of course. But banning it outright? Seems like a knee-jerk response that ignores the major benefits to law enforcement agencies.
78
@Dan I’d say the ban is right because recent events have shown that we cannot trust that the police will be policed.
2
@Dan
Technology should be heavily regulated - in general - yes. But have you noticed anything out of Washington other than de-regulation, for years now, in every sector?
2
Gee, I guess the Millennial's haven't seen Clock Work Orange or read George Orwell's book 1984. Oh, that's right they make money for making it and aren't responsible for it's dissemination against humanity. Like the Nazi's of World War Two, they were just following orders.
15
I'm pretty sure most of the people who initially made this technology weren't millenials by any means. Also, lumping a group of people into the same age category to describe the way a generation behaves is simply dumb and insulting. Generalizations anywhere just make the entire intelligence of humanity rot just a little bit every day.
9
@haleys51
Let the state fear the People, that's the way it should always be.
5
As I learn more about the capabilities and especially the pervasiveness of this 'facial recognition' surveillance, the "V for Vendetta" Guy Fawkes face mask keeps popping into my thoughts. How long before something like that face mask becomes a 'socially accepted' way of preserving the illusion of personal anonymity when in public in a crowd...? I'm sure there are 'walk recognition' and 'posture recognition' programs in the works to make sure that every illusion of public anonymity is just that, pure illusion. No doubt the NSA and police agencies will reassure us that "its all for your safety" and "if you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy anyway?" -- although they might not actually say the second phrase. That seems to be what all the apologists for the surveillance police state seem to feel... nobody will miss privacy and anonymity too much, until it is already far too late. It may be already.
14
@Jim Brokaw
Two years ago I purchased the best new Surface Book, fully loaded. During the process of setting it up, a flash went off, without any permission request or forewarning.
I was shaken and immediately shut down the Surface. I then blocked the camera with black tape which is still there. I have recently reset the Surface to factory settings, tape still on. But who knows where the stolen photo has gone, to which database it now belongs. Do I have anything to hide - No! But I belong to a time when we actively resisted governments on moral grounds: the Vietnam war, women's rights and political freedom. I stand on this ground still today and to the little munchkins who say "It doesn't matter", I say Yes! It matters!
17
Only authoritarian States monitor their people. Every Progressive candidate and every blue state must lead the way in rolling back the police surveillance state.
138
@Fourteen14
This is not being used to "monitor" people. It's just an automated version of photo ID by an eyewitness, probably more accurate.
Nobody will ever be convicted because facial recognition erred. The courts will require much more than this. But people have been convicted because am eyewitness got it wrong.
25
@Fourteen14 Britain monitors the heck out of its people. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/one-nation-under-cctv
11
@Fourteen14 - With all due respect there is no such thing as "the policy surveilance state". I am a Libertarian and I am all for rights and freedoms, but most Facial Recognition does not do anything other than help law enforcement capture dangerous criminals who threaten us all. I understand where you are coming from, and your concerns are very real. But there are bigger things to be worried about these days than who is watching you, we should be more worried about what the people who watch us do. We need to all face that living in the 21st Century this will be the new norm forever more. -- Also, authoritarian states are not the only ones who monitor their people, they are just the ones that lock people up for saying what they don't want to hear. Surveillance is only bad when it is used with actions that infringe on people's rights.
12