[jackinloadup]

The social media loophole seems ripe for exploit. As long as the destination of the content goes to a social platform it's all free game.

I wonder what they will consider a social platform as people develop new systems to get around this law. Cuz logic and unknown reasons.

[Reelin]

A lot of the comments here seem conflicting, to say the least. The article has:

> use by private entities in public accommodations

Which still doesn't fully explain it for me. In an HN comment someone linked what appears to be the ordinance in question: (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff...)

That says (§34.10.020 D) that a place of public accommodation is a "place or service" offering various things. I'm not quite sure how to interpret the wording "advantages, facilities, or privileges" though. In addition to public businesses, I'm assuming that would include city parks (they seem like facilities), but what about roads and sidewalks? I guess those offer "advantages" and "privileges", at least?

But regarding the context of the earlier comments in this chain, it seems like intent would be the key factor. Recording video with the intent to run facial recognition against it, whether it was to be done by you or someone else, would presumably qualify as a violation.

So what about recording large quantities of video without intending to run facial recognition, for example a dash cam, but then later running it against a specific segment in response to an incident?

[nl]

Recording video with the intent to run facial recognition against it, whether it was to be done by you or someone else, would presumably qualify as a violation.

It seems to me quite clear that the act of running facial recognition is the problem.

[xupybd]

Yeah that is a silly loophole. If it's dangerous enough to ban ( and it is) how can social media be a justifiable exception. Unless they implicitly trust the people that run social media companies for some reason?

[Reelin]

My guess is that they lack the jurisdiction to regulate how (for example) Facebook processes images on their platform. Rather, the ordinance only applies to entities while they are within the city. So without the social media exception, it would likely be illegal for any individual within city limits to take a picture with the intent to upload it to Facebook. That would make for some interesting fallout to say the least.