San Francisco could be first US city to ban facial-recognition technology (apartment, rent)

[Tulemutt]

Interesting that SF is first ...

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

[TrueTTig]

Yeah this is super odd. Not something you expect to stem from Silicon Valley itself.

[DeanoSF]

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?

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by DeanoSF

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’.

[DeanoSF]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

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.

[BOORGONG]

They'll never pick me out of a crowd. I have one of those irredeemably nondescript physiognomies

[davdaven]

Originally Posted by TrueTTig

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.

[veritased]

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.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by veritased

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:

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:

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?

[veritased]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

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.