Portland adopts strictest facial recognition ban in nation to date:
City leaders in Portland, Oregon, [Wednesday] adopted the most sweeping ban on facial recognition technology passed anywhere in the United States so far.
The Portland City Council voted on two ordinances related to facial recognition: one prohibiting use by public entities, including the police, and the other limiting its use by private entities. Both measures passed unanimously, according to local NPR and PBS affiliate Oregon Public Broadcasting.
The first ordinance (PDF) bans the "acquisition and use" of facial recognition technologies by any bureau of the city of Portland. The second (PDF) prohibits private entities from using facial recognition technologies "in places of public accommodation" in the city.
Both ordinances hold that facial recognition technology has a disparate impact on underprivileged communities, particularly people of color and people with disabilities, and that those disproportionate effects fall afoul of the city's commitment to "human rights principles such as privacy and freedom of expression." Any framework for city use of facial recognition and other technologies must include "impacted communities and transparent decision-making authority" to ensure that the city does not "harm civil rights and civil liberties."
The city also explicitly recognizes a degree of privacy as one of those rights. "Portland residents and visitors should enjoy access to public spaces with a reasonable assumption of anonymity and personal privacy," the second ordinance reads. "This is true for particularly those who have been historically over-surveilled and experience surveillance technologies differently."
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @01:05PM (14 children)
They came for the AI and i said nothing...
Good luck filming the next george in portland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @01:20PM (9 children)
because stationary, always-on surveillance taping is the same as a person filming something from their hands?
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday September 12 2020, @01:43PM (8 children)
So how large a gap in the "always-on" surveillance do you have to have for it to not count then? A few seconds or so? While some are on 24-7-365 (-some potential maintenance issue) others just take images at set intervals which may or may not just be a set amount of seconds apart but it's still not always on but it's on enough to catch most things.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @04:02PM (7 children)
This is the hill you're going to die on? You're going to de facto defend mass surveillance using silly technicalities? Mass surveillance threatens basic human freedoms and is completely incompatible with democracy; it's time to recognize that.
As for the difference, a gigantic network of surveillance devices recording footage for a single or a few actors (governments, large corporations) is going to be far more pervasive than some guy holding a phone and recording a noteworthy event. Not to mention, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the guy recording something with his phone will then run facial recognition algorithms on the footage. This is completely different from massive surveillance apparatuses that are created with the intention of spying on the populace. The latter can be banned, because it takes significant resources to install a mass surveillance system.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday September 12 2020, @04:16PM (6 children)
I don't plan on dying for it but technicalities tend to be a very common way of getting away with things. So that they'll find someway to dance around whatever legislation that gets put in place is just a matter of time and fact.
Mass surveillance is already fairly common in a lot of democracies so it appears to be quite compatible and working fine. You seem obsessed with filming or image recording tho and while we might not be totally there yet as far as the mass surveillance goes there are already other systems that register more or less everything that happens in you life. Many of those systems are not in the hands of governments, so is there a difference that it somehow becomes better if they are in the hand of private corporations? I think I would rather have all the mass surveillance in the hands of the government than in the hands of private enterprise if I had to chose and since it's not going to go away one might have to chose. I think there is a clear and preferred poison in that regard. Cause it's not going to go away. The Pandora's box is already open in that regard and the lid won't come down again. There is no stepping back. Just moving forward.
Also if you just get enough single guys holding a phone and recording things you don't need to install your own cameras, you could just trawl the net or the devices of everybody that was in the proximity. So in the end what is the difference?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @04:31PM (2 children)
Most so-called democracies are barely democratic at all, and in fact have significant oppression. So no, they are not working fine. The US is not a democracy or even really a representative republic, but functions more as an oligarchy.
If we continue down this path, we'll eventually look more like China. Mass surveillance is incompatible with democracy [gnu.org], because democracy cannot function without whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who challenge power and reveal government wrongdoing.
That's not an excuse to do nothing.
This assumes all the footage is being uploaded to a single source, like it would be with cameras controlled by governments or corporations. This is not the case.
And you're ignoring intent, as is so often the case with these black-and-white arguments. A government or corporation installing numerous surveillance devices to spy on the populace has the intent to conduct mass surveillance on the populace. This, plus the sheer number of devices controlled by a single entity, is what distinguishes it from random people holding phones.
You're letting perfection be the enemy of good, and seemingly arguing that we should do nothing because we can't stop absolutely all forms of surveillance.
False dichotomy. It should be in the hands of neither. Both government surveillance and private surveillance (i.e. surveillance done by businesses and corporations) should be tightly controlled.
This doesn't have to be the case. Installing and maintaining a large surveillance apparatus takes time and money, and is difficult to hide for long. The surveillance devices can be destroyed or uninstalled, and the money used to install them can be taken away. It is absolutely possible to ban this type of mass surveillance.
(Score: 1, Troll) by looorg on Saturday September 12 2020, @05:02PM (1 child)
You seem naive as to how the world actually works and operates and instead insist on it working according to some of your fantasies or ideals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @05:27PM
Well, no one was arguing that banning corporate and government mass surveillance would be easier, just that with enough political will, it would be possible to ban the more egregious, overt forms of it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @12:45AM (2 children)
AC already gave you a great answer. I'll just point out that we don't have a democracy here in the US of A. The US is a republic.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @12:41PM (1 child)
Republics exist in a variety of flavours. Is yours of the democratic flavour, or does it taste like a banana?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:26PM
HINT: You're not supposed to lick it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 12 2020, @02:23PM (2 children)
"Right to film", you say.
Citizens have rights. Governments, not so much. Governments enjoy powers and authority. Governments have no "rights" over the citizenry. Junior governments have rights in regards to superior governments, but governments don't have "rights" over junior governments and/or citizens.
Citizens have the right to film anytime, anywhere, in public. Governments may have authority to record under certain conditions - and it is the citizens who have the right to establish those authorities and those conditions.
This "right to film" is not the discussion we should be having here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @09:39PM (1 child)
That's not a human right! You don't even have the right to LOOK anywhere, anytime, in public, let alone record! Peeping Tom laws exist, and following someone while staring at them is probably harassment most places.
Thanks for policing our discussion, comrade. /s
Whether I should have the right to record you in public is in fact an interesting topic. Where I live, we have laws that say that as long as you don't /hide/ it, only one recorded party has to consent to the recording. But there's no right to film - the laws we have give it through negative space, by only making illegal cases where no recorded person has consent, or where the recording is being hidden, or where it would violate other (peeping tom, harassment, natsec, etc) laws.
If you think we have an innate "right to film" the world at large has not come around to your ways, and human rights violations are more common than without that. Do you think that we should have right-to-film NGOs the way that we have right to birth control, right to schooling, right to freedom of religion, etc?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 12 2020, @10:11PM
So, you didn't even have a point to make, did you? You just felt the need to make some noise, to interrupt the signal.
It has been established, in various court cases, that we do, indeed, have the right to record anything that is visible from publicly accessible places. You might get something of an education, just by visiting Youtube, and searching for terms such as 1st amendment audit or 2nd amendment audit or watching the watchers or copwatch.
You make some stupid reference to peeping Toms, who aren't viewing people in public, but are peeping inside of private places, like people's homes. That is a crime, always has been, always will be. No, you can't drill a hole in a wall so that you can record women using the facilities, you pig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @08:40PM
Holy hell, the edge lords are becoming so stupid they could be replaced by a shitty PERL script.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 12 2020, @02:05PM (5 children)
Portland has done virtually everything wrong in dealing with rioters for the past several months. But, in this case, they get something right. 24/7 surveillance of the population is just WRONG. It is unethical and immoral, and it should be illegal. But, the only people at any level of government who seem to recognize that fact are liberal weenies who have no respect for law.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 12 2020, @02:30PM (4 children)
:-) Kinda chatty today, aren't we, Mr. Carlson?
Try to do like Readers Digest and condense your, er... "stuff" down to one post
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 12 2020, @02:36PM (3 children)
Do you see the vertical pice of hemp? How far up the hemp can you urinate?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 12 2020, @08:12PM (2 children)
How far you trying to go, babe? Any higher, and my ears will pop
The camera loves ya! Cheeeeze!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 12 2020, @08:42PM (1 child)
I hope you brought a towel with you . . .
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 12 2020, @09:28PM
What, you're not gonna swallow this time?
C'mon, people, we're losing light here, chop, chop!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 12 2020, @02:27PM (2 children)
Can't see through the smoke anyway.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @05:56PM
When thousands of $DEITY-fearing folk in Oregon prayed to be delivered from the plague of protests, $DEITY sent them the smoke. Not many protesting now. Behold the power of $DEITY.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Saturday September 12 2020, @06:32PM
Personally, I'm waiting for the rains next week. The forecasts look good.
That is all.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Saturday September 12 2020, @02:47PM (2 children)
But the facial recognition ban does nothing against owning all the smartphones of the rioting wealthy Marxists and recording intimate details of everywhere they go and everything they say or text. Eat it, Portland!
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @08:45PM
How does Trump's cock taste? Did you french the fat bastard? Was there still a hint of semen and vodka on his breath?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 12 2020, @09:42PM
The old word still works, "bourgeoisie". But contrary to popular belief, the rioters serve the republicans' rant about 'law and order', no help to the democrats at all
Why not? It's already cooked.
I wonder if the animals come back after a fire and eat some charred remains, and thinks, "Yummy". Maybe the bears are lighting the fires. Don't call 'em "Smokey" for nothing...
These "bans" are feel good bullshit. The "Pinkerton Detective Agency" will be running the show in facial recognition, with no public oversight of any kind. Their data will have more value as contraband, just like drugs, but much easier to hide and transport anywhere in the world in a split second.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Troll) by zion-fueled on Saturday September 12 2020, @03:00PM (1 child)
of having the local government support the insurrection. Now that it's being used on their operatives instead of YOU it's a huge privacy violation and has to be banned. Same with gun control, not a peep about that when communist "freedom fighters" need the firepower.
Mandatory vaccination isn't looking so hot either, on another note. Whaddya know?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @04:09PM
and these neo bolsheviks' useful idiots only banned it in order to virtue signal about NOC (Niggers of Color) being disproportionately affected. These communist dupes are so dumb they think the anti-racism they've been brainwashed with since they started "school" is some sort of revolutionary movement. In a sense it is, but not in the way these suicidal spoiled brats think.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Saturday September 12 2020, @08:09PM (1 child)
From what I understand facial recognition doesn't work well with black faces, is that the disproportionate effect? Or are they saying blacks commit more crime and need special protection from law enforcement? I have no idea how this affects the disabled. I don't think you would need any kind of program to pick out the guy in a wheel chair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 12 2020, @08:43PM
To be clear I don't think you SHOULD die in a fire, but it would make the world a better place.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:25AM
...the city's commitment to "human rights principles such as privacy and freedom of expression."
So, how about an equal commitment to the human right to be secure in your person and property??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.