SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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) 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.