San Francisco Could Be First US City To Ban Facial-Recognition Technology (cnn.com) 78
San Francisco, long one of the most tech-friendly and tech-savvy cities in the world, is poised to prohibit its government from using facial-recognition technology. From a report: A proposed ban is part of a broader anti-surveillance ordinance that the city's Board of Supervisors is expected to approve on Tuesday. If passed -- a majority of the board's 11 supervisors have expressed support for it -- it will make San Francisco the first city in the United States to outlaw the use of such technology by the police and other government departments. The ordinance could also spur other local governments to take similar action. Facial-recognition systems are increasingly used everywhere from police departments to rock concerts to homes, stores and schools. They are designed to identify specific people from live video feeds, recorded video footage or still photos, often by comparing their features with a set of faces (such as mugshots).
Poop recognition technology (Score:4, Funny)
What they really need is some poop recognition technology, so they can fine all those fuckers shitting on the sidewalks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a real shitty proposition and a shit job to boot, probably even got a shitty supervisor and likely shit pay!
Where do people get these shit ideas from?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Poop recognition technology (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem, well... the police have been see doing some shady stuff like tasering people for no reason, beating the shit out of them, making illegal arrests, abusing their power, raping people, choking people, murdering people, covering for each other along with their unions when "fellow" officers break the law, do wrong, or go bad.
I mean... they kinda asked for it because they could not figure out how to enforce the law without acting like tyrants.
If a cop that beats up a suspect for no reason is your "fellow" officer... that kinda tells me you are bad just like him!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not really, cjjer knows nothing about it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Widespread homelessness among the mentally ill can be traced back to the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s and the influential works of writers such as Thomas Szasz, Erving Goffman, Ken Kesey, and R.D. Laing. These authors maintained that sufferers of mental illness were a kind of political prisoner to an unjust social structure and that they were "really just marching to a different drummer and should be free to do their marching in the streets," and so paved the way for the wholesale deinstitutionalization of mentally ill individuals in the U.S. When many of them ended up homeless and alone, posing a danger to themselves and sometimes to others, civil liberties activists âoesnuffed out any lingering possibility that the state hospitals and the community mental health centers might treat the vast majority of the seriously mentally illâ by reinterpreting their condition of homelessness as a state of emancipation.
It wasn't Ronald Reagan, but the mainstream media hated him so they made sure he ended up with the blame.
It was the ACLU who sued to shut down the asylums. How can you imprison people who committed no crime? Ever see "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
Re: (Score:2)
Man the people are hating on the truth today.
Yep, but the other problem is that the ACLU was not entirely wrong either. The problem here is that there is no happy medium. It seems like we can only have it either or... crazies walking the streets or a system that makes it stupid easy to put innocent people into loonie bins.
Even now you can have your life ruined if someone makes the right call at the right time saying you are threatening to kill yourself. Being put on suicide watch is a very mixed bag wher
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't sign anything, then how are you legally on the hook for treatment costs?
Even if you do sign something, you are, by their own admission, not of sound mind at the time. So long as noone you care about is tricked into signing anything, then you should be (legally) fine.
And we can avoid the false dichotomy by doing psychiatric evaluations prior to forcing someone into a mental institution.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really was Reagan.
Reagan defunded the hospitals, not LPS or ACLU. (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe the 'idea' of it, sure, but it was Reagan's "New Federalism" that defunded and put the knife in mental health care in America. Writers didn't accomplish that. President Jelly Bean did.
"It was the ACLU who sued to shut down the asylums. " - Entirely false. They sued on behalf of people who were involuntarily committed to and spent their entire lifetime in mental facilities without legal recourse.
Reagan shut down the asylums via funding, you need to grow an honest bone in your body and stop lying about it because you love Reagan's cock. The LPS act made involuntary commits more legally rigorous and in line with rights.
Honestly when Reagan knee-jerks defend his mistakes it's just kind of obvious how transparently stupid they are, for politics they don't really even understand at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how exactly did Reagan do all this terrible damage to the system by undoing an act that was only 10 months old?
Re: (Score:2)
> How can you imprison people who committed no crime? Ever see "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?
Those patients were all in treatment voluntarily, except for the protagonist who thought it was a clever way to avoid a prison sentence.
Re: (Score:1)
"Joyce Patricia Brown (perhaps better known as Billie Boggs) was a homeless person who defeated New York Cityâ(TM)s efforts to force her into a psychiatric treatment program. Her case set legal precedents for forced psychiatric care which have hamstrung involuntary psychiatric
Re: (Score:1)
You need additional hep to get past your scat obsession.
Re: (Score:2)
Snark is noted, but that's what public restrooms are for. San Francisco barely has any; they even locked restrooms at BART stations 'to save money'. Shit on the sidewalk is what you get for treating the poor like shit.
Re: (Score:2)
What they really need is some poop recognition technology, so they can fine all those fuckers shitting on the sidewalks.
Erm, if people are regularly defecating on the footpath, perhaps your city/country requires more public conveniences. Maybe instead of starting another war in the Middle East you could funnel some of that funding to the construction of lavatories.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop lying. No one is anti-immigrant. Trump is anti-illegal alien. There's a difference.
STOP. FUCKING. LYING.
Ban use by the government... (Score:1)
So they just farm it out. That is the idea right? To privatize everything so the constitution doesn't apply?
I misread the headline (Score:3, Funny)
Won't hamstring the feds? (Score:1)
All that will happen is SF will see federal units sent to perform facial recognition in its place.
Does BART fall under its jurisdiction? If not, most of these people will just get filmed at all the other BART stops, since there are what... 3 (per line?) in SF itself?
While I appreciate what they are doing, without a top to bottom legal choice to ban this, it will get used to make America into a Police State, no doubt about it. Meanwhile it won't protect us from any of the real criminals, because they can pay
Re: (Score:2)
All that will happen is SF will see federal units sent to perform facial recognition in its place.
The proposed ban would also impact "entering into agreement with a non-City entity to acquire, share, or otherwise use Surveillance Technology" and even " any information obtained from Face Recognition Technology". There's a tiny bit of wiggle room for infrequently-obtained facial recognition data that wasn't asked for, but it looks like the ban was written with your scenario in mind....
(Then there's that whole issue of states/cities can't force federal law enforcement to do things for it, and the feds a
Re: (Score:2)
The proposed ban defines "Face recognition technology" as meaning "an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying or verifying an individual based on an individual's face". An all-organic brain doing the facial recognition would legally be defined as a "manual" process...
Why allow businesses to do it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Why allow businesses to do it? (Score:1)
One word: constitution.
They said it's going to get passed. That means it's not virtue signaling as they are actively doing something.
But you knew that, you flew the coup a long time ago. Just another white conservacuck that's gonna bite the dust. We own this world now, get used to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Four words: Silicon Valley libertarian horseshit
Re: (Score:1)
Even you seem to recognize that facial recognition is a discrete identifiable process. Your 'what next' sentence tacked on the end makes it clear that it's a specific kind of algorithm that will be disallowed.
Did you have any kind of real point to make?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise (Score:2)