San Francisco is the first major United States city to restrict the use of facial recognition technology by government and law enforcement.
San Francisco has become the first major city in America, if not the world, to effectively ban facial recognition technology and other forms of state surveillance.
In an 8-1 vote on Tuesday, the city's Board of Supervisors passed a new ordinance that requires all local government departments – including the police – to follow a series of new policies and get explicit permission from the Board before introducing any new technology that stores information on individuals.
The ordinance also will require all departments to provide a report listing any and all technologies and software in use to "collect, retain, process or share" a person’s data "audio, electronic, visual, location, thermal, biometric, olfactory or similar" within 60 days.
It provides an extensive example list of the sort of technologies included: cell site simulators, license plate readers, closed-circuit television cameras, gunshot detection hardware, body cameras, DNA capture technology, biometric software and so on.
The ordinance makes it plain what the intent and concern is behind the new law by referring to all such efforts as "surveillance technology." After it has reviewed all the reports, the Board will decide which technologies are appropriate and change the ordinance in response.
Going forward any city department will have to go through an extensive multi-step impact and public review process culminating in obtaining final approval from the Board.
The tech-industry-backed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation opposes the ban, while the American Civil Liberties Union supports it.
San Francisco's civil liberties first approach stands in contrast to that taken in other cities such as London which have instead aggressively rolled out such technologies.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by black6host on Wednesday May 15 2019, @07:33AM (9 children)
I hope they change the ordinance so as to give a list of what's allowed, rather than what is not. That would eliminate (to some extent) the threat of as yet undisclosed, or not yet invented, technology/methods being considered legal without further approval. Doesn't mean such tech wouldn't be used...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:13AM (8 children)
The whole thing is bullshit. They didn't ban facial recognition but created a board, which is not under control of the voters, to make decisions on what's allowed or not. In other words, the board can simply agree with whatever law enforcement suggests and nothing has changed except another middleman taking a cut. And now that they have nicely documented all the services they're using, it becomes so much easier to link it all together.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @10:34AM (4 children)
It didn't create a new board, it gives the existing Board of Supervisors authority over surveillance tech. And the Board of Supervisors *is* an elected body.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 15 2019, @12:39PM (3 children)
A citation wouldn't hurt. Just sayin'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @04:42PM
Sure, but I'd say your reply was better suited to the GP. Buncha wacky "gov baaad" users round these parts.
Like everything else in life the government can be good or bad depending on how it is used.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday May 15 2019, @05:38PM
2018 San Francisco Board of Supervisors Election [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @07:05AM
citations? Okay.
about the board: https://sfbos.org/about-board [sfbos.org]
The legislation: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3850006&GUID=12FC5DF6-AAC9-4F4E-8553-8F0CD0EBD3F6 [legistar.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:10PM (2 children)
Except they are elected. In fact, the Board of Supervisors [sfbos.org] in San Francisco is equivalent to the City Council in many municipalities.
Why are you lying, or if not lying, talking out of your ass?
What is your agenda that you ignore the facts and spout off a bunch of bullshit?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @04:40PM (1 child)
How is that a troll? I can see flamebait, with the "talking out of your ass" bit, but troll? Not so much.
OP provided information (with relevant links even!) If I and my brethren had mod points, I could mod this up as informative. More's the pity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2019, @12:28AM
Y'know it is a real human when it can't even tell that the word it is offended by wasn't even there.
Better luck next time, maybe less moonshine?