Facial Recognition Bill Would Ban Use By Federal Law Enforcement (nbcnews.com) 56
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., introduced legislation Thursday that seeks to ban the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technology by federal law enforcement agencies. The legislation would also make federal funding for state and local law enforcement contingent on the enactment of similar bans. The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act, is supported by Reps. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. It comes at a time of intense scrutiny of policing and surveillance tools, and widespread protests after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in late May.
The bill would make it unlawful for any federal agency or official to "acquire, possess, access or use" biometric surveillance technology in the United States. It would also prohibit the use of federal funds to purchase such technology. The bill states that this type of surveillance technology could only be used if there was a federal law with a long list of provisions to ensure it was used with extreme caution. Any such federal law would need to stipulate standards for the use, access and retention of the data collected from biometric surveillance systems; standards for accuracy rates by gender, skin color and age; rigorous protections for due process, privacy, free speech, and racial, gender and religious equity; and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act. It also stipulates that local or state governments would not be eligible to receive federal financial assistance under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which funds police training, equipment and supplies, without complying with a similar law or policy.
The bill would make it unlawful for any federal agency or official to "acquire, possess, access or use" biometric surveillance technology in the United States. It would also prohibit the use of federal funds to purchase such technology. The bill states that this type of surveillance technology could only be used if there was a federal law with a long list of provisions to ensure it was used with extreme caution. Any such federal law would need to stipulate standards for the use, access and retention of the data collected from biometric surveillance systems; standards for accuracy rates by gender, skin color and age; rigorous protections for due process, privacy, free speech, and racial, gender and religious equity; and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the act. It also stipulates that local or state governments would not be eligible to receive federal financial assistance under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which funds police training, equipment and supplies, without complying with a similar law or policy.
Lethaliy (Score:2)
Re: I totally agree (Score:2)
That's pretty much the point: you shouldn't be able to have the whole identity and history of a person - of every person, which is exactly what face recognition technology means - available at the push of a button, sometimes even less than that.
As for the racial profiling: that's a false dichotomy. It's not like having one or the other is a law of nature or something. You should abolish both.
This bill is the first step in abolishing the first; it's up to more political and civic work to get rid of the secon
A law can't bind a future government (Score:2)
The bill states that this type of surveillance technology could only be used if there was a federal law with a long list of provisions to ensure it was used with extreme caution.
Unless the future law just overrides this bill. Unless this is a constitutional amendment, there's nothing it can do to stop a future law from doing what it wants.
Re: (Score:3)
To quote "To prohibit biometric surveillance by the Federal Government without explicit statutory authorization". So the US Federal government is not allowed to do facial recognition unless the write a law that say they are allowed to do facial recognition. Why does this law seem like an electioneering stunt. Here's a new law that superficially allows itself to be overruled by another law, making this law, pretty fucking pointless but we expect it to get us some votes, suckers.
The good thing about cheap fac
Re:A law can't bind a future government (Score:5, Interesting)
What this law does is make FR illegal by default. So the FBI or DHS can't just use FR on their own initiative.
If a federal agency wants to use FR, then they need to ask Congress to specifically and publicly authorize it.
The law would not apply to the CIA or NSA operating on foreign soil.
It seems like a reasonable law that moves in the right direction without overreaching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come now, think how much fun we'll have with private, subscription security services.... someone commits a crime, the victim or witnesses submit photo and video evidence to the subscription service, compensated by incentives or real payment. When the 'criminal' walks down the street, doors automatically lock, windows instantly become opaque (but only when the criminal looks at them), banks deny loans. The only way 'criminal' can shop is online, with home delivery. Only the trusted are allowed inside saf
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing this is a gift to friends with companies that can sell the data to the feds on an ongoing basis. The mantra is to "privatize" right?
So all laws are pointless? (Score:3)
*Anything* that Congress does, Congress can undo.
They can ALWAYS pass the opposite law some time in the future.
Therefore *everything* Congress does is pointless?
Honestly I thought that last sentence would illustrate the ridiculousness of that line of thought, but now that I read it ...
"Everything Congress does is pointless" actually doesn't sound that ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Loophole:
The Feds would just buy whatever facial recognition they need from a vendor. The vendor will do the actual "facial recognition" and simply supply the Feds the result(s).
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders if they are up for re-election (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s probably just a moment before they try to ban wanted posters?
If only it were a viable bill... (Score:2)
Of course this won't get passed in the current climate. But I'm really glad to see it on the agenda for some Senators and Representatives. I'm proud to see my rep, Jayapal, supports this bill. I hope this gains traction and becomes part of the national conversation. Each day we ignore the overreach of the executive branch, we step closer to becoming a police state.
Frankly it's hard to argue that we're not a police state already.
Re: (Score:2)
The US should continue leading the world in disallowing tools of dictatorships to form. Let the others whistle past the graveyard thinking democracy can safely wield censorship and other such things.
Say no to the creation of roboticized panopticon data gathering.
While I can appreciate the intent, it may be.... (Score:1)
For example, human beings can recognize faces... clearly that is not prohibited by this bill.
But is also only a matter of time until we can make computers that are just as sophisticated as the human brain, eventually even surpassing it... and yet, because of this bill, could still not be allowed to be used to recognize faces. Why?
Why can we forgive a human mistaking so
Re: (Score:2)
Only until we start having computer-brain interfaces that provides direct access to network content merely by thinkiing about it.
Yes, this is still pretty far off at the moment, but it won't always be. Frankly, I think we'll be there before the end of this century.
And as I said, I'm sure that y2k seemed pretty far off to the programmers who thought that using 2 digits to hard code the year was a good idea too.
The existence of the database endangers us (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as the database exists, it is only a matter of time before it is abused. I am glad that this law is being considered. But ideally the database should be destroyed. Same applies to the data stored in the giant NSA data center in Utah.
I know. It is not going to happen. But I still have to bring it up every once and a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A database of DL pictures by itself is not so bad. But when you have petabytes of stored camera footage to run it against, then it is somewhat bad. If you routinely run facial recognition on millions of cameras across the nation and log every hit, then that is the worst of all. I suppose to be fair the problem is the stored imagery more so than the database of drivers license pictures.
It is similar to car license plates. Of course we have car license plate databases. But we also have many cameras all over t
Re: (Score:2)
If enough of us keep bringing it up every once in a while, and voting accordingly, maybe eventually we'll reach a point where enough decent people get elected (left and right...this shouldn't be a partisan issue) to get a win.
Even if the tech is perfected ..... (Score:3)
...it is still unacceptable and (gun control is another example) the modest losses vs preserving individual freedom are well worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that gun control is an acceptable trade off or that it's too great a loss of personal freedom? I honestly can't tell and both arguments are used.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you saying that gun control is an acceptable trade off or that it's too great a loss of personal freedom? I honestly can't tell and both arguments are used.
No - the premise is that anything that restricts your ability to do whatever you want is bad.
This is a small to no government idea. Starting with removing the ability of the nation to remove social control.
I really thought the Cyberpunk 2020 was outlandish. Yet here we are. except no Clones and no Cybernetic body part replacements.
If you think that a law will stop them using this (Score:2)
then I have this oceanfront property in Austria that might interest you.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it up to code and built with parallel construction?
But Not State Police (Score:3)
This is all just fancy wordplay for something that wasn't going to happen anyway. Feds don't want to fork over all that precious cash for a facial recognition system. They can let the states pay for and install it then just request the recordings.
Re: (Score:2)
We should ban the use of cars. (Score:1)
...I mean, they've been used to do all sorts of heinous things. In fact, they were probably used to bring in this unjustly-arrested man!
One stupid police dept using facial recognition IN SUBSTITUTION for, I dunno, actual brains, police procedure, normal investigative process shouldn't condemn one of the TOOLS they used.
A bill that requires another bill? (Score:2)
Why not just introduce a bill to create that law instead? Or at least at the same time. Or in the same bill. They clearly know what they want it to include, why not just write it down and walk it to the floor?
Stupid... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh dear, that's just soo stupid.. You should not ban usage of Facial recognition by lawenforcement, all you need to do is set stricter rules in following up on the recognition, so at least two different humans should also check the result of the recognition. It's exactly the same as was done in the past with a human going through a lot of footage/photo's and hoping to identify the person they're looking for.
If you rely on the system as it always being right, and not even check, well, yeah, you're stupid as
Re: (Score:1)
you have too much faith in police.
anybody appointed by law enforcement will simply become a rubber stamp. law enforcement will simply find a way around this. black people, brown people, and anybody in bad light photographed with a dirty lens will get screwed because the goal of law enforcement isn't to catch wrongdoers, it is simply to be seen to be exercising power, so as to keep it.
they don't care if you're not the guy. someone who looks vaguely like you will do something vaguely criminal in view of a cam
Comment (Score:2)
Why Facial Recognition is needed: (Score:2)
Investigators have a hard time solving crimes now, only about 1/3 of property crimes are solved. That is with using various software.
Traditional investigations often involve an investigator sending out the image to beat cops saying “does anyone know this guy”, or “if anyone sees this guy, get me his info”. Which leads to move encounters between BIPOC and police officers. FR
--What does FR do---
Feed it a picture or video (say ring surveillance of a package being stolen) and it provides