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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US