San Francisco supervisors on Tuesday voted to ban the use of facial recognition software by police and other city departments, becoming the first US city to outlaw a rapidly developing technology that has alarmed privacy and civil liberties advocates. The ban is part of broader legislation that requires city departments to establish use policies and obtain board approval for surveillance technology they want to purchase or are using at present.
Government agencies across the US have used the technology for more than a decade to scan databases for suspects and prevent identity fraud.
However, recent advances in artificial intelligence have created more sophisticated computer vision tools, making it easier for police to pinpoint a missing child or protester in a moving crowd, or for retailers to analyze shoppers’ facial expressions as they peruse store shelves.
Illustration: Mountain People
Efforts to restrict its use are getting pushback from law enforcement groups and the tech industry, although it is far from a united front. Microsoft, while opposed to an outright ban, has urged lawmakers to set limits on the technology, warning that leaving it unchecked could enable an oppressive dystopia reminiscent of George Orwell’s novel 1984.
“Face recognition is one of those technologies that people get how creepy it is,” said Alvaro Bedoya, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology. “It’s not like cookies on a browser. There’s something about this technology that really sets the hairs on the back of people’s heads up.”
Without regulations barring law enforcement from accessing driver’s license databases, people who have never been arrested could be part of virtual police lineups without their knowledge, skeptics of the technology say.
They worry people will one day not be able to go to a park, store or school without being identified and tracked.
Already, a handful of big box stores across the US are trying out cameras with facial recognition that can guess their customers’ age, gender or mood as they walk by, with the goal of showing them targeted, real-time ads on in-store video screens.
After San Francisco adopted a ban, other cities, states or even the US Congress could follow, with lawmakers from across party lines looking to curtail government surveillance and others hoping to restrict how businesses analyze the faces, emotions and gaits of an unsuspecting public.
The California Legislature is considering a proposal prohibiting the use of facial ID technology on body cameras. A bipartisan bill in the US Senate would exempt police applications, but set limits on businesses analyzing people’s faces without their consent.
Legislation similar to San Francisco’s is pending in Oakland, California, and on Thursday last week, another proposed ban was introduced in Somerville, Massachusetts.
Bedoya said a ban in San Francisco, the “most technologically advanced city in our country,” would send a warning to other police departments thinking of trying out the imperfect technology.
However, Daniel Castro, vice president of the industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said that the ordinance is too extreme to serve as a model.
“It might find success in San Francisco, but I will be surprised if it finds success in a lot of other cities,” he said.
San Francisco is home to tech innovators such as Uber, Airbnb and Twitter, but the city’s relationship with the industry is testy. Some supervisors at San Francisco City Hall are calling for a tax on stock-based compensation in response to a wave of companies going public, including Lyft and Pinterest.
At the same time, San Francisco is big on protecting immigrants, civil liberties and privacy. In November last year, nearly 60 percent of voters approved a proposition to strengthen data privacy guidelines.
The city’s proposed ban is part of broader legislation aimed at regulating the use of surveillance by city departments. The legislation applies only to the San Francisco government, and would not affect companies or people who want to use the technology. It also would not affect the use of facial recognition at San Francisco International Airport, where security is mostly overseen by federal agencies.
San Francisco police say that they stopped testing face recognition in 2017.
Police spokesman David Stevenson said in a statement that the department looks forward to “developing legislation that addresses the privacy concerns of technology while balancing the public safety concerns of our growing, international city.”
San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin acknowledges that his legislation, called the “Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance,” is not very tech-friendly, but public oversight is critical given the potential for abuse.
The technology often misfires. Studies have shown error rates in facial-analysis systems built by Amazon, IBM and Microsoft were far higher for darker-skinned women than lighter-skinned men.
Even if facial recognition were perfectly accurate, its use would pose a severe threat to civil rights, especially in a city with a rich history of protest and expression, said Matt Cagle, attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
“If facial recognition were added to body cameras or public-facing surveillance feeds, it would threaten the ability of people to go to a protest or hang out in Dolores Park without having their identity tracked by the city,” he said, referring to a popular park in San Francisco’s Mission District.
However, local critics of San Francisco’s legislation worry about hampering police investigations in a city with a high number of vehicle break-ins and several high-profile annual parades. They want to make sure police can keep using merchants and residents’ video surveillance in investigations without bureaucratic hassles.
Joel Engardio, vice president of grassroots group Stop Crime SF, wants the city to be flexible.
“Our point of view is, rather than a blanket ban forever, why not a moratorium so we’re not using problematic technology, but we open the door for when technology improves?” he said.
Such a moratorium is under consideration in the Massachusetts Legislature, where it has the backing of Republican and Democratic senators.
Often, a government’s facial recognition efforts happen in secret or go unnoticed. In Massachusetts, the motor vehicle registry has used the technology since 2006 to prevent driver’s license fraud, and some police agencies have used it as a tool for detectives.
“It is technology we use,” Massachusetts State Police Lieutenant Tom Ryan said, adding that “we tend not to get too involved in publicizing” that fact.
Ryan and the agency declined to answer further questions about how it is used.
Massachusetts Senator Cynthia Creem, a Democrat and sponsor of the moratorium bill, said she worries about a lack of standards protecting the public from inaccurate or biased facial recognition technology.
Until better guidelines exist, “it shouldn’t be used” by government, she said.
The California Highway Patrol does not use face recognition technology, spokeswoman Fran Clader said.
California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) spokesman Marty Greenstein says that facial recognition technology “is specifically not allowed on DMV photos.”
California Department of Justice (DOJ) spokeswoman Jennifer Molina said her agency does not use face ID technology, and policy states that “DOJ and requesters shall not maintain DMV images for the purpose of creating a database” unless authorized.
Legislators also sought a face recognition moratorium this year in Washington, the home state of Microsoft and Amazon, but it was gutted following industry and police opposition.
Microsoft instead backed a lighter-touch proposal as part of a broader data privacy bill, but deliberations stalled before lawmakers adjourned late last month.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath