Brookline Votes To Ban Face Surveillance (eff.org) 32
The town of Brookline, Massachusetts, became the fifth municipality in the nation to ban its government agencies from using face surveillance. The passage of Article 25 comes as a new study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that many of the world's top facial recognition algorithms are biased along lines of age, race, and ethnicity. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports: Brookline joins nearby Somerville as the two Massachusetts municipalities to have banned face surveillance. The two Metro-Boston area municipalities have chosen to protect their residents now, rather than wait for the passage of state-level protections. Massachusetts is poised to become the first state in the nation to enact a state-level moratorium on all use of the technology.
Brookline's State Senator Cynthia Stone Creem sponsored a bill (S.1385) that would impose a moratorium on government use of the technology throughout the commonwealth. That moratorium would remain in place until state lawmakers enact an authorizing statute that clearly outlines what agencies are permitted to use the technology, requires audits, protects civil liberties, and establishes minimum accuracy rates to prevent disparate impact against women, people with darker skin, and young people. Polling from the ACLU of Massachusetts has indicated high levels of support for the statewide moratorium, with 79 percent of likely Massachusetts voters voting in favor.
Brookline's State Senator Cynthia Stone Creem sponsored a bill (S.1385) that would impose a moratorium on government use of the technology throughout the commonwealth. That moratorium would remain in place until state lawmakers enact an authorizing statute that clearly outlines what agencies are permitted to use the technology, requires audits, protects civil liberties, and establishes minimum accuracy rates to prevent disparate impact against women, people with darker skin, and young people. Polling from the ACLU of Massachusetts has indicated high levels of support for the statewide moratorium, with 79 percent of likely Massachusetts voters voting in favor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Meh, completely and utterly pointless legislation, virtue signalling legislation, "It shall be unlawful for Brookline or any Brookline official" which of course means any private, state of federal government institution or individual is fully allowed too. All that did was ban Brookline staff from using mobile devices that use face recognition to unlock devices. So it does nothing, technically less than nothing because it makes it look like it is doing something. So people, do not buy that particulate matter
Re: In a related article (Score:1)
It's a symbolic move, for sure. The city council of a tiny, albeit quite rich, suburb has little real power. The idea is to make a political statement, that dystopian cybernetic totalitarianism is not wanted by the people of this town. I think they have achieved that modest goal.
Re: In a related article (Score:2)
It stops the local city police -- the most active law enforcement agency operating in the area -- from using face recognition...
Since state, federal, and private agencies are likely to seek help from the locals, I'd say this meaningfully reduces the likelihood of the average person from being face matched while in the town.
Re:In a related article (Score:4, Interesting)
Why would it increase because a relatively new technology was *not introduced*?
I think there's something going on here like the hygiene hypothesis -- the idea that allergy rates go up when childhood exposure to pathogens drop. Crime rates -- both violent and property -- have generally dropped since the 1970s. In fact they have done so dramatically. Yet people are more paranoid about crime.
I love being a Masshole (Score:1)
Always exciting times. Boston is at the forefront of so much, between civil policy, the tech sector, and the schools.
I love my state, and the rest of you can fuck off. (Massholes will understand that telling someone to fuck off is basically the same as saying, "I love you.")
Just Faces (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does seem like they aren't going far enough. Besides, if the surveillance data is there, what's stopping some unelected bureaucrat from running facial imagery scans on the data anyway? All he has to do is avoid getting caught.
It's a good first step, but eventually, there have to be bans on public cameras (including traffic ticket cams) and hard limits on what can be done with private camera systems.
Re: (Score:1)
Federal? Mil? State? City?
Who in the USA made this vast facial imagery database for "unelected bureaucrat" to use?
The facial imagery would be from criminals reported in the city, state who are under investigation... ie criminals, illegal migrants.
The "unelected bureaucrat" would have no exisiting database to look at, just a list of reported criminals.
Adding a face of a person who is not a criminal?
Could an "unelec
Re:Just Faces (Score:4, Insightful)
Re "unelected bureaucrat from running facial imagery scans " against what database?
Federal? Mil? State? City?
Who in the USA made this vast facial imagery database for "unelected bureaucrat" to use?
Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cameras are there, the data will be stored. Storage is cheap Data can be moved and shared.
You really think these cameras are there to catch criminals?
They're there to watch YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
_Bulk_ storage, and keeping it indexed, do add up. It's what JSTOR gets paid for and why they're so useful.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true. I would expect trimming of footage with no movement/no target. It really depends on who wants the footage and for what. The NSA has a lot of storage on tap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Would both be looking for the same person at work?
One would report the other for the wrong domestic use of a global spy network.
Its not like both of the NSA buddy team working on the same project would act like one "unelected bureaucrat" in a US city?
Re: (Score:2)
> One would report the other for the wrong domestic use of a global spy network.
Oh? This is exactly what Edward Snowden reported internally, and after his notifications were ignored, reported to the world. He is charged with treason for reporting just such large scale criminal activity by the NSA.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA can and will absorb information from whatever source they can. They're just one potential customer. Who do you think would feed them such data? Elected, publicly-accounted officials? Or people who have been working for the local Department of Surveillance for years through multiple different administrations?
And please tell me you don't think the NSA is accountable to anyone for anything. They aren't.
Re: (Score:1)
To get around all domestic US laws? The other 5 eye nations
PRISM showed the how and method... the global why the US needs the world wide collection would got back to around 1900.
Oh no, you found the loophole for every law. (Score:3)
All he has to do is avoid getting caught.
Oh no, you found the loophole for every law.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the "unelected bureaucrat" part. It's much easier to avoid attention when nobody really knows who you are or why you have your job (aside from some elected officials who do not like making these details public). It's much much easier when various elected officials find what you are doing to be conveniently illegal yet highly desirable. They get plausible deniability if you ARE caught. Lovely for them.
Re: Just Faces (Score:1)
"eventually, there have to be bans on public cameras"
Yup. The only effective measure against the dystopian surveillance state is a hard ban on public-facing surveillance equipment. Regardless whether it is owned by the State or by private entities.
Cybernetic totalitarianism is already here, in its early stages. I'd we don't kill it now we're going to lose _all_ the freedoms it took our ancestors countless generations to win. These are dark days but all hope is not yet lost.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, Facial Recognition & License Plate Scanner techs are immensely beneficial for law enforcement & common good of general public!
Imagine a future world where/when law enforcement can quickly find & catch any wanted criminals! Imagine a future world where/when criminals can no longer walk or drive around @ public places/streets! Would not these be immensely beneficial for law enforcement & common good of general public?
(License Plate Scanners could also detect drivers who did not pay fines/fees/insurance etc.)
(By the way, IMHO, electronic license plates should/must never be allowed to be legal anywhere, because they can be easily reprogrammed later, to defeat License Plate Scanners, by displaying fake license plates!)
Facial Recognition tech can also be used for ticketless public transportation & shopping etc, w/o needing to carry money or card etc.
Also, Facial Recognition & License Plate Scanner techs are bad/evil, just because, they can do the same job, better (cheaper & more accurately & immensely faster) than any law enforcement people can?
What about privacy?
IMHO, general public is not really obsessed about privacy, unlike self-appointed "privacy advocates" (like ACLU & EFF) always claim/pretend! IMHO, the only people who are always really obsessed about "privacy" are criminals & their tireless supporters (like ACLU & EFF)!
You've been watching too much TV. You're imaging law enforcement as pure and honest. You're imagining everyone labeled "criminal" as a violent rapist. In reality cops include corrupt people who shoot first and ask questions later. Cops include Officer Michael Brelo who fired 47 rounds into a car after jumping on the roof of the car into two passengers who were unarmed. The crime they were guilty of was their car backfired and the "professional" law enforcement assumed it was a gun. Criminals include people
Cities and crime (Score:1)
Wonder why not?
Why are criminals and illegal migrants so protected?
CCTV that is networked will be able to track reported crimes.
The criminals get found.
"Women" and "young people" get to work, travel, shop, get educated in a low crime city.
Why should the poor, working poor, middle class and wealthy have to live in crime due to the lack of police tech?
Another few decades of crime? For political virtue signaling? To protect criminals and il
Re: (Score:2)
These cameras will not be used to track illegal immigrants. They're too useful to people with money.
Erosion is undetectable in real time. (Score:5, Insightful)
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
What about booty surveillance? (Score:3)
Did they ban booty surveillance too? It is well known that booty surveillance can be used for identification purposes and is of the same or better accuracy than face surveillance.
As the saying goes, "I may forget a face, but I'll never forget that ass" ...