seeing plenty of comments along the lines of "don't they have better things to do?"
please remember that there are coalitions of activists advocating multiple issues for civil rights simultaneously, and that a victory in one area (e.g. fighting the surveillance state) is neither mutually exclusive nor to the detriment of another equal or greater social ill (e.g. homelessness).
In the meantime, enjoy these videos of what they're doing with facial recognition in China:
I'm happy to see this, but it's not really going to stop the inevitable rise of the police state. They _will_ find other methods that aren't using facial recognition technology. I hear that gait recognition is quite accurate.
There is no police state in SF. It is quite the opposite. Crime is rampant and criminals know the police don't bother going after non-life threatening crimes (e.g., car break-ins are rampant all over the Bay Area now).
I for one prefer the rise of the police state.
Have you been to China lately? Amazingly safe. Never once seen a broken car window anywhere there. There is no such thing as smash-and-grab there anymore and carjackings are unheard of. Used to be a lot of petty crime, not anymore. Cameras are everywhere in big cities. It is safe for any attractive young female to walk out on the streets at midnight there.
They use face-recognition technology heavily and catch criminals with the help of it.
I dream of the day law enforcement in the U.S. can link up to Facebook and find the real identities of criminals caught on video. Sadly I don't think that day will ever come. Or maybe in other states but definitely not in California. Crime fighting in California is still stuck in the 80s.
CHP actively scanning the highways for stolen plates using OCR readers? Technically possible but not happening (not sure why).
Police departments linking up to facebook to find thieves caught on 1080p video? Possible but not happening (not legally allowed?).
I know that my opinion is going to be unpopular but I strongly disagree with this move. I can understand not allowing facial recognition to be run in real time, or for instance to ban corporates from tracking me and using my face for advertisement data, but to ban the police seems extremely dumb. Facial recognition can be used to significantly cut down investigation times and costs and thus reduce the stress on police.
I can understand that viewpoint. But if we look at the track record of how authorities actually use surveillance technology, it is aggressively used to squash dissent, rather than prevent/investigate crimes.
Yes, facial recognition could help cops identify a robber more quickly and yes surveillance has been used to expedite investigations, but what we've seen is that cops across the board will disproportionately abuse this sort of technology to track and monitor (and sometimes later harass) protesters, activists, ethnic/religious minorities and the undocumented.
Here's one instance at the federal level, but abuse happens at the state and local level constantly.
There's no need to create the matrix in the name of security. Crime is historically low. Police have been able to do their jobs without this tool. Once the police have the tools it will be abused. Everytime. Stop it.
I think this conclusion is due to missing some of the downsides. Could it cut costs and speed investigations? Certainly! But try to imagine some of the creative ways in which a naive implementation could be abused.
I think everyone who supports the ban and all the supervisors that voted for it have never been a victim of a crime. Or at least never been a victim of a crime recorded on camera.
I bet 99% of the people who have been a victim of a crime that was recorded on camera and yet nothing was done to catch the criminals would be in favor of using facial recognition technology by the police.
I think the idea behind opposition to facial recognition is it makes law enforcement too efficient.
Facial recognition is a threat to administrative bloat because it improves the efficiency of the police and would actually reduce all those crises that are leading to higher salaries for administrators tasked with solving those oh so lucrative problems that are created by gaps in law enforcement.
This really feels like attacking the symptoms not the problem. Shouldn't the city, state and federal government develop guidelines on what can and can't be done with this information and ensure lack of abuse? You're in public, you have no expectation of privacy -- whether the video is assessed by computers or an army of humans, does it matter? Don't human viewers have 'facial recognition technology'?
Progress can't be stuffed back into the bottle, but it does need to be guided and controlled. It feels very SF these days, sad to say, to long for the good old days by placing the collective head into the collective sand (as with allowing new/taller buildings to be built).
Technology is neutral, what matters is what we do with it.
the point is to prevent the capture of such data to begin with. As a privacy activist, we've seen that simply developing a 'use-policy,' while effective, can only go so far. Once local/state/fed authorities possess this data, it's a matter of when, not if, it will be abused (or sold off to private interests).
Your second question: there's a massive difference between being observed by an individual officer and being perpetually tracked by an apparatus of ubiquitous cameras that cross-reference your face with your background information, possible criminal record, citizenship status, etc. It also opens the flood gates for horrific scenarios like the 'social credit system' that they've implemented in China. Go look that one up and tell me you're still ok with facial recognition.
> You're in public, you have no expectation of privacy
That's wrong from the start and leads to people not using their rights (e.g. not going to a demonstration, because they have to fear long-term repression).
> whether the video is assessed by computers or an army of humans, does it matter? Don't human viewers have 'facial recognition technology'?
Scale matters and computers are machines of scale. When I no longer have a risk of getting recognized somewhere but instead know that I will and that this information can be stored long-term that has consequences on peoples behavior. See above why that's bad.
Sure, in theory you could try to employ half the population of SF to get the same result as one computer. That would lead to discussions about usage of limited city resources very, very fast and probably stop this in it's tracks. These options are only equivalent in theory, not in practice.
> Technology is neutral, what matters is what we do with it.
Banning usages society deems bad is a valid option of "what to do with it". If you want other options you are always free to argue for them, but then you can no longer claim it's neutral.
It's inevitable that San Francisco (and other parts of the bay area), which like to be on the forefront of certain rights issues will occasionally run up against the interests of some of the repercussions of the technology developed in the area, as technology stresses different areas of rights and the law.
Ideally, SF is just a testing ground for something enacted at a state level that's a bit better worded and more comprehensive, and that in turn is a testing ground for some national legislation that works even better. I mean, that's how it's supposed to work, even if it feels like it rarely does. I've been waiting for something like that to happen on the front of ownership of personal information and online tracking for years. Looks like it's finally getting a bit more attention, but who knows if something useful will come out of it.
Were citizens having trouble with this in SF? I live in SF and have never seen police use facial recognition, nor have I seen anyone have a problem with it's use at a Governmental level.
Could that happen? Sure.
But SF Board of Supervisors have SO MANY REALLY BAD PROBLEMS they need to be solving.
Instead they are choosing to be pro-active legislating against tech (because they hate tech, let's admit it). Pro-active legislation is something that should be higher level -- state senate, federal, etc. Local politicians should be listening to their constituents to determine their priorities.
They need to get off their butts and solve our homelessness problem with the $50k per homeless individual they now have in their yearly budget. Why do I still see crap all over the streets? Why do I feel like I'm going to be attacked when I'm in the streets?
Some guy stabbed himself with a knife right buy the Caltrain station last year. If that was an isolated event, I wouldn't have a problem.
I grew up in a pretty dangerous city and have been robbed at gunpoint. San Francisco is _not_ a dangerous city and the problems it has pales in comparison to many cities in the United States, especially in the rust belt. Are there homeless people? Yeah. Is the city trying to address it? I honestly think so, it's not a simple problem to solve.
I don't understand how this post caused so many knee jerk reactions to homelessness and housing etc. I swear you bring up _anything_ related to San Francisco and it triggers people. If you hate the city so much how can you stand living there?
"please remember that there are coalitions of activists advocating multiple issues for civil rights simultaneously, and that a victory in one area (e.g. fighting the surveillance state) is neither mutually exclusive nor to the detriment of another equal or greater social ill (e.g. homelessness)."
oh and "Instead they are choosing to be pro-active legislating against tech..."
While the legislation is pre-emptive (being rolled out before an invasive technology becomes widespread, which, duh), it is in no way pro-active.
This legislation passing is a reaction to years-long, tireless efforts of coalitions of privacy activists, religious/ethnic minority activists, and activists advocating for the undocumented.
A pro-active legislation against tech doesn't cost in the current budget, is hard to account for as a cost in a future budget, doesn't call anyone's current actions out as problematic, and doesn't really require a change at the employee level. It's basically free.
By the same token, it doesn't really detract from anything else they should be doing, so using it as a reason to criticize other problems they have doesn't make much sense, unless you assume they can only do one thing at a time, which doesn't seem likely.
Nope - from the article "The facial recognition fight in San Francisco is largely theoretical — the police department does not currently deploy facial recognition technology, except in its airport and ports that are under federal jurisdiction and are not impacted by the legislation."
Drugs, homelessness, human feces, insane housing prices -- well at least we can solve theoretical facial recognition
Aaron Peskin is the king of pandering in this city. He comes up with bills like this all the time.
I just can't understand why people in District 3 keep re-electing him... even bringing him back after terming out before. I guess his strategy works even while the city has all of these huge problems?
> Pro-active legislation is something that should be higher level -- state senate, federal, etc. Local politicians should be listening to their constituents to determine their priorities.
I'd argue the opposite--pro-active legislation is better if it is tried locally first. That way, we can see how different places try different approaches to a given problem to learn what the right approach is to use when later the problem is addressed at the state or national level.
I agree they have better things to be doing but there's nothing wrong with them saying "we see where this road is going and we're not going down it". It's not like doing that costs money.
How would you _see_ facial recognition technology being used?
Do you see a way facial recognition technology would be used to solve the homelessness problem? Like, I'm not sure how you see them being connected, or how banning it will harm efforts to address homelessness.
Isn't this a benefit cause the money saved not doing facial recognition can be used for things that do matter to you?
The reason you see lots of homeless people is because there are lots of poor people who are homeless. Simple as that.
What they need to do is integrate their BaRT and Muni cameras, feed them images of felons with outstanding warrants and alert authorities when they ping so authorities can check it out.
But, as always, the SF supes are entranced by high-viz lo-impact measures. It’s their MO.
The standard response from the apologists re: what you're pointing out is, "The Board of Supervisors can walk and chew gum at the same time."
But it's undermined by the fact that they're not actually making progress on the actual crises (of which I'd put housing at the top, followed by an overdominant car culture) — so it's more like they're simultaneously failing to walk and failing to chew.
If you're worried about how SF is allocating resources, then a pre-emptive ban on this stuff is an extremely efficient way to regulate in this area (compared to doing studies once it's built, or creating an oversight panel etc.).
[+] [-] jasaloo|6 years ago|reply
please remember that there are coalitions of activists advocating multiple issues for civil rights simultaneously, and that a victory in one area (e.g. fighting the surveillance state) is neither mutually exclusive nor to the detriment of another equal or greater social ill (e.g. homelessness).
In the meantime, enjoy these videos of what they're doing with facial recognition in China:
(Social credit system) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkw15LkZ_Kw
(broad piece on facial recognition): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tuxxy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|6 years ago|reply
Democracies operate in small steps rather than broad strokes like totalitarian states.
[+] [-] kansface|6 years ago|reply
I used to recognize my friends in a crowd by their gait before I got glasses. It could be better than faces in some ways.
[+] [-] fenwick67|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Causality1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toephu2|6 years ago|reply
I for one prefer the rise of the police state. Have you been to China lately? Amazingly safe. Never once seen a broken car window anywhere there. There is no such thing as smash-and-grab there anymore and carjackings are unheard of. Used to be a lot of petty crime, not anymore. Cameras are everywhere in big cities. It is safe for any attractive young female to walk out on the streets at midnight there.
They use face-recognition technology heavily and catch criminals with the help of it.
I dream of the day law enforcement in the U.S. can link up to Facebook and find the real identities of criminals caught on video. Sadly I don't think that day will ever come. Or maybe in other states but definitely not in California. Crime fighting in California is still stuck in the 80s.
CHP actively scanning the highways for stolen plates using OCR readers? Technically possible but not happening (not sure why).
Police departments linking up to facebook to find thieves caught on 1080p video? Possible but not happening (not legally allowed?).
[+] [-] megous|6 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/JamieJBartlett/status/112865736509036134...
[+] [-] MagicPropmaker|6 years ago|reply
And that's perfectly OK according to the SF City Council.
[+] [-] ultrarunner|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtr1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arjo129|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasaloo|6 years ago|reply
Yes, facial recognition could help cops identify a robber more quickly and yes surveillance has been used to expedite investigations, but what we've seen is that cops across the board will disproportionately abuse this sort of technology to track and monitor (and sometimes later harass) protesters, activists, ethnic/religious minorities and the undocumented.
Here's one instance at the federal level, but abuse happens at the state and local level constantly.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/10/standing-roc...
[+] [-] guelo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Reelin|6 years ago|reply
I think this conclusion is due to missing some of the downsides. Could it cut costs and speed investigations? Certainly! But try to imagine some of the creative ways in which a naive implementation could be abused.
[+] [-] toephu2|6 years ago|reply
I think everyone who supports the ban and all the supervisors that voted for it have never been a victim of a crime. Or at least never been a victim of a crime recorded on camera.
I bet 99% of the people who have been a victim of a crime that was recorded on camera and yet nothing was done to catch the criminals would be in favor of using facial recognition technology by the police.
[+] [-] GarrisonPrime|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BlackRing|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|6 years ago|reply
Facial recognition is a threat to administrative bloat because it improves the efficiency of the police and would actually reduce all those crises that are leading to higher salaries for administrators tasked with solving those oh so lucrative problems that are created by gaps in law enforcement.
[+] [-] arcticbull|6 years ago|reply
Progress can't be stuffed back into the bottle, but it does need to be guided and controlled. It feels very SF these days, sad to say, to long for the good old days by placing the collective head into the collective sand (as with allowing new/taller buildings to be built).
Technology is neutral, what matters is what we do with it.
[+] [-] jasaloo|6 years ago|reply
Your second question: there's a massive difference between being observed by an individual officer and being perpetually tracked by an apparatus of ubiquitous cameras that cross-reference your face with your background information, possible criminal record, citizenship status, etc. It also opens the flood gates for horrific scenarios like the 'social credit system' that they've implemented in China. Go look that one up and tell me you're still ok with facial recognition.
[+] [-] sgift|6 years ago|reply
That's wrong from the start and leads to people not using their rights (e.g. not going to a demonstration, because they have to fear long-term repression).
> whether the video is assessed by computers or an army of humans, does it matter? Don't human viewers have 'facial recognition technology'?
Scale matters and computers are machines of scale. When I no longer have a risk of getting recognized somewhere but instead know that I will and that this information can be stored long-term that has consequences on peoples behavior. See above why that's bad.
Sure, in theory you could try to employ half the population of SF to get the same result as one computer. That would lead to discussions about usage of limited city resources very, very fast and probably stop this in it's tracks. These options are only equivalent in theory, not in practice.
> Technology is neutral, what matters is what we do with it.
Banning usages society deems bad is a valid option of "what to do with it". If you want other options you are always free to argue for them, but then you can no longer claim it's neutral.
[+] [-] toephu2|6 years ago|reply
They weren't even using it in the first place. I wish they were. More criminals could be caught.
[+] [-] MagicPropmaker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dqpb|6 years ago|reply
- information
- information asymmetry
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Klonoar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbenson|6 years ago|reply
Ideally, SF is just a testing ground for something enacted at a state level that's a bit better worded and more comprehensive, and that in turn is a testing ground for some national legislation that works even better. I mean, that's how it's supposed to work, even if it feels like it rarely does. I've been waiting for something like that to happen on the front of ownership of personal information and online tracking for years. Looks like it's finally getting a bit more attention, but who knows if something useful will come out of it.
[+] [-] caprese|6 years ago|reply
I'm not even sure if the article is what you responded to
Private sector and their partners can all still use it
[+] [-] ztratar|6 years ago|reply
Could that happen? Sure.
But SF Board of Supervisors have SO MANY REALLY BAD PROBLEMS they need to be solving.
Instead they are choosing to be pro-active legislating against tech (because they hate tech, let's admit it). Pro-active legislation is something that should be higher level -- state senate, federal, etc. Local politicians should be listening to their constituents to determine their priorities.
They need to get off their butts and solve our homelessness problem with the $50k per homeless individual they now have in their yearly budget. Why do I still see crap all over the streets? Why do I feel like I'm going to be attacked when I'm in the streets?
Some guy stabbed himself with a knife right buy the Caltrain station last year. If that was an isolated event, I wouldn't have a problem.
Their priorities are so out of whack.
[+] [-] almost_usual|6 years ago|reply
I don't understand how this post caused so many knee jerk reactions to homelessness and housing etc. I swear you bring up _anything_ related to San Francisco and it triggers people. If you hate the city so much how can you stand living there?
[+] [-] jasaloo|6 years ago|reply
"please remember that there are coalitions of activists advocating multiple issues for civil rights simultaneously, and that a victory in one area (e.g. fighting the surveillance state) is neither mutually exclusive nor to the detriment of another equal or greater social ill (e.g. homelessness)."
oh and "Instead they are choosing to be pro-active legislating against tech..."
While the legislation is pre-emptive (being rolled out before an invasive technology becomes widespread, which, duh), it is in no way pro-active.
This legislation passing is a reaction to years-long, tireless efforts of coalitions of privacy activists, religious/ethnic minority activists, and activists advocating for the undocumented.
[+] [-] kbenson|6 years ago|reply
By the same token, it doesn't really detract from anything else they should be doing, so using it as a reason to criticize other problems they have doesn't make much sense, unless you assume they can only do one thing at a time, which doesn't seem likely.
[+] [-] non_sequitur|6 years ago|reply
Drugs, homelessness, human feces, insane housing prices -- well at least we can solve theoretical facial recognition
[+] [-] guelo|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trimbo|6 years ago|reply
I just can't understand why people in District 3 keep re-electing him... even bringing him back after terming out before. I guess his strategy works even while the city has all of these huge problems?
[+] [-] tzs|6 years ago|reply
I'd argue the opposite--pro-active legislation is better if it is tried locally first. That way, we can see how different places try different approaches to a given problem to learn what the right approach is to use when later the problem is addressed at the state or national level.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debt|6 years ago|reply
Now you never will.
[+] [-] jrochkind1|6 years ago|reply
Do you see a way facial recognition technology would be used to solve the homelessness problem? Like, I'm not sure how you see them being connected, or how banning it will harm efforts to address homelessness.
Isn't this a benefit cause the money saved not doing facial recognition can be used for things that do matter to you?
The reason you see lots of homeless people is because there are lots of poor people who are homeless. Simple as that.
[+] [-] mc32|6 years ago|reply
But, as always, the SF supes are entranced by high-viz lo-impact measures. It’s their MO.
[+] [-] raldi|6 years ago|reply
But it's undermined by the fact that they're not actually making progress on the actual crises (of which I'd put housing at the top, followed by an overdominant car culture) — so it's more like they're simultaneously failing to walk and failing to chew.
[+] [-] idlewords|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modzu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] decacorn1|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] prepend|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yurasuckrr|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] humanExcrement|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]