U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-14-2019, 08:52 AM
 
Location: On the water.
12,898 posts, read 7,526,427 times
Reputation: 10356

Advertisements

Interesting that SF is first ...
Quote:
San Francisco(CNN Business) 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.

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.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/05/14/t...ban/index.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2019, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Golden Horseshoe
8 posts, read 1,370 times
Reputation: 20
Yeah this is super odd. Not something you expect to stem from Silicon Valley itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Pac Heights San Francisco
282 posts, read 113,496 times
Reputation: 316
Isn't the genie already out of the bottle on this?

My iPhone has facial recognition technology. If the technology is ubiquitous at the worldwide consumer level, it's impossible to legislate this with any teeth at the local level, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 09:22 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
2,258 posts, read 504,513 times
Reputation: 1130
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanoSF View Post

My iPhone has facial recognition technology. If the technology is ubiquitous at the worldwide consumer level, it's impossible to legislate this with any teeth at the local level, right?
It’s taking a stand against potential abuse/error (surveillance) - and applies to city agencies/police. It does not apply to businesses or individuals i.e. ‘consumer level’.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2019, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Pac Heights San Francisco
282 posts, read 113,496 times
Reputation: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
It’s taking a stand against potential abuse/error (surveillance) - and applies to city agencies/police. It does not apply to businesses or individuals i.e. ‘consumer level’.
I understand, but wouldn't such proliferation of the technology among businesses and individuals make such a law virtually impossible to legitimately enforce among city agencies and police?

For example, couldn't the police use a recording of a business's facial recognition records to bring a suspect to trial, even though the law would prevent the courts from implementing such technology to prosecute a crime themselves?

In essence in this example, the city is is still using the technology, just indirectly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 03:03 AM
 
Location: Montreal
181 posts, read 89,076 times
Reputation: 202
They'll never pick me out of a crowd. I have one of those irredeemably nondescript physiognomies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Richmond, CA
521 posts, read 507,180 times
Reputation: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueTTig View Post
Yeah this is super odd. Not something you expect to stem from Silicon Valley itself.
This is completely consistent with Bay Area politics of the past 50 years, which value the protection of potentially persecuted people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2019, 05:57 PM
 
Location: AZ
555 posts, read 158,418 times
Reputation: 822
Yes, we wouldn't want to help police catch criminals, would we?

No, of course not, it's a sanctuary city. Remember, the city that pardoned the murderer of Kate Steinle and granted him keys to the city, 5 years free rent in a one bedroom apartment and free college tuition?

Don't worry... all that video that is being hoovered up on existing and new cameras... that video can simply be farmed out to other areas that aren't so pro-crime as San Francisco. Face recog algorithms can be run anywhere at any time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2019, 02:05 PM
 
583 posts, read 306,329 times
Reputation: 1598
Quote:
Originally Posted by veritased View Post
Yes, we wouldn't want to help police catch criminals, would we?

No, of course not, it's a sanctuary city. Remember, the city that pardoned the murderer of Kate Steinle and granted him keys to the city, 5 years free rent in a one bedroom apartment and free college tuition?

Don't worry... all that video that is being hoovered up on existing and new cameras... that video can simply be farmed out to other areas that aren't so pro-crime as San Francisco. Face recog algorithms can be run anywhere at any time.
Has no one here read 1984? Or We? Or Darkness at Noon? Or . . .?

Here's a few lines on the plot from the wikipedia page on the British writer George Orwell's 1984:

Quote:
In the year 1984, civilization has been damaged by war, civil conflict, and revolution. Airstrip One (formerly Britain) is a province of Oceania, one of the three totalitarian super-states that rule the world. It is ruled by the "Party" under the ideology of "Ingsoc" and the mysterious leader Big Brother, who has an intense cult of personality. The Party stamps out anyone who does not fully conform to their regime using the Thought Police and constant surveillance through devices such as Telescreens (two-way televisions). . . .
and here's a few lines on the plot from the wikipedia page on the Russian writer Yevgeny Zamyatin's
We, which was written in 1922:
Quote:
One thousand years after the One State's conquest of the entire world, the spaceship Integral is being built in order to invade and conquer extraterrestrial planets. Meanwhile, the project's chief engineer, D-503, begins a journal that he intends to be carried upon the completed spaceship. Like all other citizens of One State, D-503 lives in a glass apartment building and is carefully watched by the secret police, or Bureau of Guardians. . . .
Even if you like whomever you think is in control now (Trump? Putin? Zuckerberg?) there's no guarantee that you will always be acceptable to them.

Silicon Valley is making Foucault's Panopticon a reality. It makes sense that discerning people will try to resist it. I agree with them. I doubt they will succeed already. Reading this thread only increases my doubt. Why are so many self-proclaimed smart people so short-sighted that they cannot discern the slowly closing grip of the fist around their and their children's necks foretold nearly 100 years ago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2019, 01:52 PM
 
Location: AZ
555 posts, read 158,418 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SocSciProf View Post
Silicon Valley is making Foucault's Panopticon a reality. It makes sense that discerning people will try to resist it. I agree with them. I doubt they will succeed already. Reading this thread only increases my doubt. Why are so many self-proclaimed smart people so short-sighted that they cannot discern the slowly closing grip of the fist around their and their children's necks foretold nearly 100 years ago?
My retort is why do so many self-proclaimed smart people outsmart themselves with a fictional worldview, concocted from so-so fiction pieces. Think for yourself.

California's answer, under the DNC supermajority fist, is to simply blanket BAN anything that doesn't align perfectly with their progressive worldview. Could there be intelligent legislation on the facial scan data, what is done with it, yes, but that would require thinking. Democrats just prefer to outright ban it all, that's so much easier, and there's the added benefit of never getting their face put into the database as they enter the illegal massage parlour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top