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
The Oakland City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night in favor of a ban on public agencies using facial recognition technology. (Image: Krzysztof Urbanowicz/flickr/cc)
'Good News!': With Unanimous Vote, Oakland Joins Growing List of Cities to Ban Facial Recognition Technology
The move comes as the Berkeley City Council considers a similar policy
Jul 17, 2019
Digital privacy advocates praised the Oakland City Council in California for unanimously approving a local ordinance that bans public agencies, including police, from "acquiring, obtaining, retaining, requesting, or accessing" facial recognition technology--following the lead of San Francisco and Somerville, Massachusetts.
"These decisions should be made as Somerville, San Francisco, and now Oakland just made: by the public, including the communities that will be most impacted, through an affirmative vote by their elected representatives."
--Matt Cagle, ACLU of Northern California
On the heels of Oakland's Tuesday night vote--which will be followed by a second, procedural vote in mid-September--the Public Safety Committee of the Berkeley City Council was slated to meet Wednesday to finalize a similar proposal.
In the absence of federal regulations, local policymakers and privacy advocates have been working together to craft and enact bans on local government using facial recognition technology in their communities. Some of the measures are part of the ACLU's Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) effort, launched in 2016.
Matt Cagle, technology and civil liberties attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, welcomed the news out of Oakland in a statement Wednesday.
"Decisions about whether we want to hand the government the power to identify who attends protests, political rallies, church, or AA meetings should not be made in the secret backroom of a police station, lobbied by corporate executives that market this technology," said Cagle. "These decisions should be made as Somerville, San Francisco, and now Oakland just made: by the public, including the communities that will be most impacted, through an affirmative vote by their elected representatives."
VICE reported Wednesday on the motivation behind Oakland's ordinance:
According to a public memo by Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland City Council president, the ban was instituted on the basis that facial recognition is often inaccurate, lacks established ethical standards, is invasive in nature, and has a high potential for government abuse.
"Face recognition technology runs the risk of making Oakland residents less safe as the misidentification of individuals could lead to the misuse of force, false incarceration, and minority-based persecution," Kaplan said.
Fight for the Future--which launched a campaign earlier this month demanding a nationwide moratorium on facial recognition surveillance--took to Twitter Wednesday to celebrate Oakland's ban and urge residents of other cities to pressure their local officials to pursue similar measures.
Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future, specifically addressed Berkeley's possible ban in a statement Tuesday.
"The proposal on the table in Berkeley is clear, direct, and effective," she said. "It's a critical line of defense against invasive surveillance. But police are pushing carve-outs for all different kinds of--you guessed it--invasive surveillance. They're trying to make it a self-negating law so they can monitor and control the population with impunity."
"You don't let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none."
--Evan Greer, Fight for the Future
"The people of Berkeley know better," Greer added. "They support a ban, and they won't allow the council to pass an empty shell of a law that doesn't do what it's intended to do. You don't let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none."
The fight for local ordinances in the pair of California cities comes as the Democratically-controlled U.S. House on Tuesday passed an amendment (pdf) to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H.R. 3494) that requires the Director of National Intelligence to report the U.S. government's use of facial recognition technology, detailing its accuracy as well as efforts to protect and potential consequences for human and civil rights.
"It is encouraging that Congress has united across party lines to recognize that this surveillance technology presents an unprecedented threat to our most fundamental democratic values," ACLU senior legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said after the vote. "The amendment is a good first step in bringing some much-needed transparency to the government's growing and reckless use of face surveillance technology."
Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty Program, worked on Somerville's ordinance. Responding to House lawmakers' approval of the amendment, Crockford tweeted Wednesday: "Reports are good; bans are better."
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.
aclubig brothercaliforniacivil rightsfight for the futurehuman rightsmassachusettsoaklandprivacysan francisco
Digital privacy advocates praised the Oakland City Council in California for unanimously approving a local ordinance that bans public agencies, including police, from "acquiring, obtaining, retaining, requesting, or accessing" facial recognition technology--following the lead of San Francisco and Somerville, Massachusetts.
"These decisions should be made as Somerville, San Francisco, and now Oakland just made: by the public, including the communities that will be most impacted, through an affirmative vote by their elected representatives."
--Matt Cagle, ACLU of Northern California
On the heels of Oakland's Tuesday night vote--which will be followed by a second, procedural vote in mid-September--the Public Safety Committee of the Berkeley City Council was slated to meet Wednesday to finalize a similar proposal.
In the absence of federal regulations, local policymakers and privacy advocates have been working together to craft and enact bans on local government using facial recognition technology in their communities. Some of the measures are part of the ACLU's Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) effort, launched in 2016.
Matt Cagle, technology and civil liberties attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, welcomed the news out of Oakland in a statement Wednesday.
"Decisions about whether we want to hand the government the power to identify who attends protests, political rallies, church, or AA meetings should not be made in the secret backroom of a police station, lobbied by corporate executives that market this technology," said Cagle. "These decisions should be made as Somerville, San Francisco, and now Oakland just made: by the public, including the communities that will be most impacted, through an affirmative vote by their elected representatives."
VICE reported Wednesday on the motivation behind Oakland's ordinance:
According to a public memo by Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland City Council president, the ban was instituted on the basis that facial recognition is often inaccurate, lacks established ethical standards, is invasive in nature, and has a high potential for government abuse.
"Face recognition technology runs the risk of making Oakland residents less safe as the misidentification of individuals could lead to the misuse of force, false incarceration, and minority-based persecution," Kaplan said.
Fight for the Future--which launched a campaign earlier this month demanding a nationwide moratorium on facial recognition surveillance--took to Twitter Wednesday to celebrate Oakland's ban and urge residents of other cities to pressure their local officials to pursue similar measures.
Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future, specifically addressed Berkeley's possible ban in a statement Tuesday.
"The proposal on the table in Berkeley is clear, direct, and effective," she said. "It's a critical line of defense against invasive surveillance. But police are pushing carve-outs for all different kinds of--you guessed it--invasive surveillance. They're trying to make it a self-negating law so they can monitor and control the population with impunity."
"You don't let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none."
--Evan Greer, Fight for the Future
"The people of Berkeley know better," Greer added. "They support a ban, and they won't allow the council to pass an empty shell of a law that doesn't do what it's intended to do. You don't let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none."
The fight for local ordinances in the pair of California cities comes as the Democratically-controlled U.S. House on Tuesday passed an amendment (pdf) to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H.R. 3494) that requires the Director of National Intelligence to report the U.S. government's use of facial recognition technology, detailing its accuracy as well as efforts to protect and potential consequences for human and civil rights.
"It is encouraging that Congress has united across party lines to recognize that this surveillance technology presents an unprecedented threat to our most fundamental democratic values," ACLU senior legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said after the vote. "The amendment is a good first step in bringing some much-needed transparency to the government's growing and reckless use of face surveillance technology."
Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty Program, worked on Somerville's ordinance. Responding to House lawmakers' approval of the amendment, Crockford tweeted Wednesday: "Reports are good; bans are better."
Digital privacy advocates praised the Oakland City Council in California for unanimously approving a local ordinance that bans public agencies, including police, from "acquiring, obtaining, retaining, requesting, or accessing" facial recognition technology--following the lead of San Francisco and Somerville, Massachusetts.
"These decisions should be made as Somerville, San Francisco, and now Oakland just made: by the public, including the communities that will be most impacted, through an affirmative vote by their elected representatives."
--Matt Cagle, ACLU of Northern California
On the heels of Oakland's Tuesday night vote--which will be followed by a second, procedural vote in mid-September--the Public Safety Committee of the Berkeley City Council was slated to meet Wednesday to finalize a similar proposal.
In the absence of federal regulations, local policymakers and privacy advocates have been working together to craft and enact bans on local government using facial recognition technology in their communities. Some of the measures are part of the ACLU's Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) effort, launched in 2016.
Matt Cagle, technology and civil liberties attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, welcomed the news out of Oakland in a statement Wednesday.
"Decisions about whether we want to hand the government the power to identify who attends protests, political rallies, church, or AA meetings should not be made in the secret backroom of a police station, lobbied by corporate executives that market this technology," said Cagle. "These decisions should be made as Somerville, San Francisco, and now Oakland just made: by the public, including the communities that will be most impacted, through an affirmative vote by their elected representatives."
VICE reported Wednesday on the motivation behind Oakland's ordinance:
According to a public memo by Rebecca Kaplan, Oakland City Council president, the ban was instituted on the basis that facial recognition is often inaccurate, lacks established ethical standards, is invasive in nature, and has a high potential for government abuse.
"Face recognition technology runs the risk of making Oakland residents less safe as the misidentification of individuals could lead to the misuse of force, false incarceration, and minority-based persecution," Kaplan said.
Fight for the Future--which launched a campaign earlier this month demanding a nationwide moratorium on facial recognition surveillance--took to Twitter Wednesday to celebrate Oakland's ban and urge residents of other cities to pressure their local officials to pursue similar measures.
Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future, specifically addressed Berkeley's possible ban in a statement Tuesday.
"The proposal on the table in Berkeley is clear, direct, and effective," she said. "It's a critical line of defense against invasive surveillance. But police are pushing carve-outs for all different kinds of--you guessed it--invasive surveillance. They're trying to make it a self-negating law so they can monitor and control the population with impunity."
"You don't let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none."
--Evan Greer, Fight for the Future
"The people of Berkeley know better," Greer added. "They support a ban, and they won't allow the council to pass an empty shell of a law that doesn't do what it's intended to do. You don't let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none."
The fight for local ordinances in the pair of California cities comes as the Democratically-controlled U.S. House on Tuesday passed an amendment (pdf) to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H.R. 3494) that requires the Director of National Intelligence to report the U.S. government's use of facial recognition technology, detailing its accuracy as well as efforts to protect and potential consequences for human and civil rights.
"It is encouraging that Congress has united across party lines to recognize that this surveillance technology presents an unprecedented threat to our most fundamental democratic values," ACLU senior legislative counsel Neema Singh Guliani said after the vote. "The amendment is a good first step in bringing some much-needed transparency to the government's growing and reckless use of face surveillance technology."
Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty Program, worked on Somerville's ordinance. Responding to House lawmakers' approval of the amendment, Crockford tweeted Wednesday: "Reports are good; bans are better."
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.