Cambridge, Massachusetts Moves To Ban Facial Recognition (gizmodo.com) 36
Citing threats to free speech and civil rights, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts on Tuesday moved to prohibit local government from using facial recognition. Three other cities in the country have already instituted such bans over concerns that the technology is biased and violates basic human rights. Gizmodo reports: In December of last year, the Cambridge City Council passed the Surveillance Technology Ordinance which requires the council's approval prior to the acquisition or deployment of certain surveillance tech, which included facial recognition software. The order was passed on Tuesday by the council and will next be sent to the Public Safety Committee, Mayor Marc McGovern and Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui both confirmed to Gizmodo in an email. This marks one step closer to banning the city's use of the tech altogether.
The amendment, sponsored by Cambridge Mayor Marc McGovern and two city councilmembers, argued that, given recent reports, it's evident this tech can discriminate against women and people of color. They also argued that facial recognition technology violates a person's civil rights and civil liberties. "The use of face recognition technology can have a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech, with the technology being used in China to target ethnic minorities, and in the United States, it was used by police agencies in Baltimore, Maryland, to target activists in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death," the amendment states.
The amendment, sponsored by Cambridge Mayor Marc McGovern and two city councilmembers, argued that, given recent reports, it's evident this tech can discriminate against women and people of color. They also argued that facial recognition technology violates a person's civil rights and civil liberties. "The use of face recognition technology can have a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech, with the technology being used in China to target ethnic minorities, and in the United States, it was used by police agencies in Baltimore, Maryland, to target activists in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death," the amendment states.
Re: (Score:1)
The President is a criminal, dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
You're only a single bad idea from being a criminal yourself dude.
Nice ironic sig.
Not really a ban (Score:4, Informative)
The actual surveillance is provided by companies like Palantir, and the local or regional law enforcement subscribes to their service. What these bills really do is to eliminate cities from building their own system, eliminating competition. As an example, Palantir monitors over 8 million people in California, and 300 cities subscribe to their service.
Re: (Score:1)
Recording in a public area for any reason is completely legal, so no one would introduce such a bill.
Re: (Score:1)
Um, right. What public area do you have an expectation of privacy?
Great news for private sector (Score:1)
Awesome opportunity for a private company to step in, set up a bunch of cameras around the city, and sell Face ID'd surveillance images to the police for a juicy premium.
Re: (Score:2)
Already done: https://www.schneier.com/blog/... [schneier.com]
So, no more facebook at the PD? (Score:2)
Facebook uses facial recognition software, so using FB would require council approval, right?