Yves here. We members of the great unwashed public must take our breaks when we find them. The fact that facial recognition software often misidentifies people of color is one of the few reasons that might be deemed sufficient to demand an end to its use in surveillance tools.
Of course, the spying state will keep working on other methods like gait recognition (which can be defeated with a shoe lift) but the longer we preserve what remains of our privacy, the better.
By Matthew Guariglia is a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) working on issues of surveillance and privacy at the local, state, and federal level. Originally published at Common Dreams
Cities and counties across the country have banned government use of face surveillance technology, and many more are weighing proposals to do so. From Boston to San Francisco, Jackson, Mississippi toMinneapolis, elected officials and activists know that face surveillance gives police the power to track us wherever we go. It alsodisproportionately impacts people of color, turns us all into perpetual suspects, increases the likelihood of being falsely arrested, and chills people’s willingness to participate in first amendment protected activities. Even Amazon, known for operating one of the largest video surveillance networks in the history of the world, extended its moratorium on selling face recognition to police.
Now, Congress must do its part. We’ve created a campaign that will easily allow you to contact your elected federal officials and tell them to support the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act.
Police and other government use of this technology cannot be effectively regulated. Face surveillance in the hands of the government is a fundamentally harmful technology, even under strict regulations and if the technology was 100% accurate.Face surveillance disproportionately hurts vulnerable communities. The New York Times published a long piece on the case of Robert Julian-Borchak Williams, who was arrested by Detroit police after face recognition technology erroneously identified him as a suspect in a theft case. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the Detroit police.
The problem isn’t just that studies have found face recognition disparately inaccurate when it comes to matching the faces of people of color. The larger concern is that law enforcement will use this invasive and dangerous technology, as it unfortunately uses all such tools, to disparately surveil people of color.
Williams and multiple other Black men (Michael Oliver, Nijeer Parks, Randal Reid, and Alanzo Sawyer) have garnered the attention of national media after face recognition technology led to them being falsely arrested by police. How many more have already endured the same injustices without the media’s spotlight? These incidents show another reason why police cannot be trusted with this technology: a piece of software intended only to identify investigative leads is often used in the field to determine who should be arrested without independent officer vetting.
This federal ban on face surveillance would apply to increasingly powerful agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Customs and Border Patrol. The bill would ensure that these and other federal agencies cannot use this invasive technology to track, identify, and misidentify millions of people.
Tell your Senators and Representatives they must co-sponsor and pass the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act. It was recently introduced by Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Representatives Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Cori Bush (MO-01), Greg Casar (TX-35), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Barbara Lee (CA-12), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), and Jan Schakowsky (IL-09).
This important bill would be a critical step to ensuring that mass surveillance systems don’t use your face to track, identify, or harm you. The bill would ban the use of face surveillance by the federal government, as well as withhold certain federal funds from local and state governments that use the technology. That’s why we’re asking you to insist your elected officials co-sponsor the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act, S.681 in the Senate and HR.1404 in the House.
Police and other government use of this technology cannot be effectively regulated. Face surveillance in the hands of the government is a fundamentally harmful technology, even under strict regulations and if the technology was 100% accurate.
11 comments
Comments are closed.
“The Electronic Frontier Foundation is only against government surveillance, it’s not against corporate surveillance. In the surveillance debates in which the EFF takes a prominent part, it only takes a principled stand when the government is involved, when it’s the government surveilling Americans or American corporations. It completely recedes from view when the issue is private surveillance, and the need to regulate corporate spying on the internet.” – Yasha Levine
The reliance on facial recognition might offer an interesting device for designing a frame. Frames could be crafted to target innocent members of the public or members of the elite or even police themselves. It might be useful for creating mystery and thriller stories.
But, but how else shall we control the proles? /s
As opposed to having well funded public services and eliminations of rapacious gauging.
France started by implementing it “only for the 2024 Olympics” because there are ‘too many of them running around’. With the current ‘hung’ Assembly, it passed anyhow.
Now they extend the experience for 6 more months, ‘as many tourists will remain after the Olympics’.
The French will keep it forever – especially with the current hard right team hitting anything that moves.
Fairway (where wed gotten D614.G three years ago) can’t make their app, delivery, self check-out or inventory control work. How they gonna play Big Brother? Been there 3 times in 3 years, bought beer ($2 less than Fresh Direct for a 15 pack of something NYC PMC won’t touch). Simply assume your selfie-cam is reading your dour expression & diagnosing, for your emergency wellness appraisal by NYPD™ a leisure service of Brawndo? Presuming, this was what a friend was working on, at CMU 4yrs back. I’m not woried about it, as grad students’ facial recognition defeating glasses are still available for us melanin deficient types, it ain’t about crime, it IS crime?
https://ilovetheupperwestside.com/fairway-using-facial-recognition-technology-on-customers/
I ain’t going there TODAY. But I’m curious to see how my get-up works (we’d used the updated CMU applique, transitions & KF-94) basically invisible in daylight, works. But I don’t do ATM in NYC retail.
https://onezero.medium.com/you-can-fool-a-popular-facial-recognition-systems-with-sunglasses-4905ed3a59b0
Me? I would use those facial recognition cameras as a prompt for adjusting my glasses. With my middle finger.
Outlaw facial recognition? Sure, and then we’re gonna repeal the patriot act and defund the FBI.
While I completely understand the concerns of minorities, I cringe at the focus on that. Those that want it will push along the lines of either fixing it or when it gets better saying it’s now good enough. This is just pure a violation of the 4th amendment.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
When you are in public if SOMEONE, whom you’ve had even the smallest of acquaintances recognizes you that’s reasonable, but using massive computing power to possibly/statistically IDENTIFY you is not reasonable which means it is an unlawful searching of your personhood.
This is a perfect example of why defeating Roe v Wade was so detrimental to every American. There is no clear and specific amendment defining personal privacy. Roe v Wade basically said that the founding fathers IMPLIED personal privacy rights via the 3rd, 4th and 14th amendments. Even if that’s true, which I believe it is, now that R v W is done in and I know I’ve heard here at NC personal privacy is weaker in law than ever!
> “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Our judicial system seems to have confused “papers” with physical paper.
Browsing with a DECwriter can get expensive!