SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
San Francisco could become the first city to ban the use of facial recigntion technology by city agencies. (Photo: Steffi Loos/Getty Images)
San Francisco Poised to Make History With Law Banning Use of Facial Recognition Technology
"The harms of unchecked surveillance are very real and they often impact immigrant and communities of color disproportionately."
May 13, 2019
Civil liberties advocates on Monday eagerly awaited the results of a vote by San Francisco officials on the city's use of facial recognition technology--hoping the city's Board of Supervisors would vote to ban the surveillance tool.
The board is set to vote Tuesday on the Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, a law that advocates say would make history and potentially encourage other cities to ban the use of facial recognition technology, which is being used increasingly by police and private companies.
Since San Francisco is the "most technologically advanced city in our country," privacy expert Alvaro Bedoya told the Associated Press, the city's rejection of cameras which can capture anyone's image for use by the police or city agencies could send a strong message to other government officials.
"The people of San Francisco and their elected representatives deserve an open and democratic process that answers critical questions before City departments acquire or use surveillance technology." --Nathan Sheard, Electronic Frontier Foundation
The technology is also unpopular with the public. A majority of respondents in a 2018 poll by the Brookings Institution said they were opposed to facial recognition being used in stores, airports, and stadiums. Last November, 60 percent of San Francisco voters approved a measure to strengthen data privacy protections in the city.
"Face recognition is one of those technologies that people get how creepy it is," Bedoya, director of Georgetown University's Center on Privacy and Technology, told the AP. "There's something about this technology that really sets the hairs on the back of people's heads up."
Under the proposed ordinance, San Francisco police and city agencies would be barred from using the technology. The rule would also put in place strict oversight of all surveillance technology used by the city, including cameras and license plate readers. City departments would be required to alert the public before attempting to use any new surveillance technology, and to obtain board approval before introducing the tools.
The measure is being considered amidst rapid advances by the tech industry as it develops the technology, making it easier for law enforcement to identify faces in a crowd and use images of people taken by surveillance cameras to scan databases.
"Without regulations barring law enforcement from accessing driver's license databases, people who have never been arrested could be part of virtual police line-ups without their knowledge," the AP reported.
In fact, according to a 2016 study by the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology, "roughly one out of every two American adults (48 percent) has had their photo enrolled in a criminal face recognition network."
That report also found that because black communities disproportionately come into contact with police, "African Americans will likely be overrepresented in mug shot-based face recognition databases."
"Law enforcement's discriminatory and unaccountable use of surveillance technologies can put people's lives at risk," wrote Nathan Sheard at Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has spoken out in support of the ordinance. "The people of San Francisco and their elected representatives deserve an open and democratic process that answers critical questions before City departments acquire or use surveillance technology."
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security said last month that it aims to subject 97 percent of airline passengers to surveillance by facial recognition technology by 2023.
"Right now, there is a pressing need to act," Matt Cagle, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told the San Francisco Examiner. "The harms of unchecked surveillance are very real and they often impact immigrant and communities of color disproportionately."
San Francisco's proposed ordinance would impose controls only on city agencies--not San Francisco International Airport or private companies which may seek to use the technology to surveill customers--but proponents say the city's embrace of restrictions could urge other local governments to adopt their own measures protecting residents from surveillance.
"With this law," Cagle said in a statement, "San Francisco can demonstrate real tech leadership by giving our communities a seat at the table, and the power to create safeguards to prevent misuse."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Civil liberties advocates on Monday eagerly awaited the results of a vote by San Francisco officials on the city's use of facial recognition technology--hoping the city's Board of Supervisors would vote to ban the surveillance tool.
The board is set to vote Tuesday on the Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, a law that advocates say would make history and potentially encourage other cities to ban the use of facial recognition technology, which is being used increasingly by police and private companies.
Since San Francisco is the "most technologically advanced city in our country," privacy expert Alvaro Bedoya told the Associated Press, the city's rejection of cameras which can capture anyone's image for use by the police or city agencies could send a strong message to other government officials.
"The people of San Francisco and their elected representatives deserve an open and democratic process that answers critical questions before City departments acquire or use surveillance technology." --Nathan Sheard, Electronic Frontier Foundation
The technology is also unpopular with the public. A majority of respondents in a 2018 poll by the Brookings Institution said they were opposed to facial recognition being used in stores, airports, and stadiums. Last November, 60 percent of San Francisco voters approved a measure to strengthen data privacy protections in the city.
"Face recognition is one of those technologies that people get how creepy it is," Bedoya, director of Georgetown University's Center on Privacy and Technology, told the AP. "There's something about this technology that really sets the hairs on the back of people's heads up."
Under the proposed ordinance, San Francisco police and city agencies would be barred from using the technology. The rule would also put in place strict oversight of all surveillance technology used by the city, including cameras and license plate readers. City departments would be required to alert the public before attempting to use any new surveillance technology, and to obtain board approval before introducing the tools.
The measure is being considered amidst rapid advances by the tech industry as it develops the technology, making it easier for law enforcement to identify faces in a crowd and use images of people taken by surveillance cameras to scan databases.
"Without regulations barring law enforcement from accessing driver's license databases, people who have never been arrested could be part of virtual police line-ups without their knowledge," the AP reported.
In fact, according to a 2016 study by the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology, "roughly one out of every two American adults (48 percent) has had their photo enrolled in a criminal face recognition network."
That report also found that because black communities disproportionately come into contact with police, "African Americans will likely be overrepresented in mug shot-based face recognition databases."
"Law enforcement's discriminatory and unaccountable use of surveillance technologies can put people's lives at risk," wrote Nathan Sheard at Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has spoken out in support of the ordinance. "The people of San Francisco and their elected representatives deserve an open and democratic process that answers critical questions before City departments acquire or use surveillance technology."
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security said last month that it aims to subject 97 percent of airline passengers to surveillance by facial recognition technology by 2023.
"Right now, there is a pressing need to act," Matt Cagle, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told the San Francisco Examiner. "The harms of unchecked surveillance are very real and they often impact immigrant and communities of color disproportionately."
San Francisco's proposed ordinance would impose controls only on city agencies--not San Francisco International Airport or private companies which may seek to use the technology to surveill customers--but proponents say the city's embrace of restrictions could urge other local governments to adopt their own measures protecting residents from surveillance.
"With this law," Cagle said in a statement, "San Francisco can demonstrate real tech leadership by giving our communities a seat at the table, and the power to create safeguards to prevent misuse."
Civil liberties advocates on Monday eagerly awaited the results of a vote by San Francisco officials on the city's use of facial recognition technology--hoping the city's Board of Supervisors would vote to ban the surveillance tool.
The board is set to vote Tuesday on the Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance, a law that advocates say would make history and potentially encourage other cities to ban the use of facial recognition technology, which is being used increasingly by police and private companies.
Since San Francisco is the "most technologically advanced city in our country," privacy expert Alvaro Bedoya told the Associated Press, the city's rejection of cameras which can capture anyone's image for use by the police or city agencies could send a strong message to other government officials.
"The people of San Francisco and their elected representatives deserve an open and democratic process that answers critical questions before City departments acquire or use surveillance technology." --Nathan Sheard, Electronic Frontier Foundation
The technology is also unpopular with the public. A majority of respondents in a 2018 poll by the Brookings Institution said they were opposed to facial recognition being used in stores, airports, and stadiums. Last November, 60 percent of San Francisco voters approved a measure to strengthen data privacy protections in the city.
"Face recognition is one of those technologies that people get how creepy it is," Bedoya, director of Georgetown University's Center on Privacy and Technology, told the AP. "There's something about this technology that really sets the hairs on the back of people's heads up."
Under the proposed ordinance, San Francisco police and city agencies would be barred from using the technology. The rule would also put in place strict oversight of all surveillance technology used by the city, including cameras and license plate readers. City departments would be required to alert the public before attempting to use any new surveillance technology, and to obtain board approval before introducing the tools.
The measure is being considered amidst rapid advances by the tech industry as it develops the technology, making it easier for law enforcement to identify faces in a crowd and use images of people taken by surveillance cameras to scan databases.
"Without regulations barring law enforcement from accessing driver's license databases, people who have never been arrested could be part of virtual police line-ups without their knowledge," the AP reported.
In fact, according to a 2016 study by the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology, "roughly one out of every two American adults (48 percent) has had their photo enrolled in a criminal face recognition network."
That report also found that because black communities disproportionately come into contact with police, "African Americans will likely be overrepresented in mug shot-based face recognition databases."
"Law enforcement's discriminatory and unaccountable use of surveillance technologies can put people's lives at risk," wrote Nathan Sheard at Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has spoken out in support of the ordinance. "The people of San Francisco and their elected representatives deserve an open and democratic process that answers critical questions before City departments acquire or use surveillance technology."
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security said last month that it aims to subject 97 percent of airline passengers to surveillance by facial recognition technology by 2023.
"Right now, there is a pressing need to act," Matt Cagle, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, told the San Francisco Examiner. "The harms of unchecked surveillance are very real and they often impact immigrant and communities of color disproportionately."
San Francisco's proposed ordinance would impose controls only on city agencies--not San Francisco International Airport or private companies which may seek to use the technology to surveill customers--but proponents say the city's embrace of restrictions could urge other local governments to adopt their own measures protecting residents from surveillance.
"With this law," Cagle said in a statement, "San Francisco can demonstrate real tech leadership by giving our communities a seat at the table, and the power to create safeguards to prevent misuse."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.