San Francisco considering banning facial recognition

[Techno-Druid]

(Source)

Facial recognition technology is everywhere you look — from unlocking phones to shaming jaywalkers. But should corporations have the power to use it on you without consent?

That’s the question the city of San Francisco is tackling right now. A member of the city’s Board of Supervisors proposed a ban on facial recognition technology for city agencies on Tuesday, Wired reports — potentially forcing tech companies to justify the use of surveillance tools.

San Francisco city board member Aaron Peskin is calling for an approval process for any new surveillance technology purchases by city agencies such as license plate readers, CCTV, and gun-detection systems.

“I have yet to be persuaded that there is any beneficial use of this technology that outweighs the potential for government actors to use it for coercive and oppressive ends,” Peskin told Wired.

Notably, the proposal doesn’t include an approval process for the use of private surveillance tech in public spaces. It also leaves questions about how the bill might affect local law enforcement.

There’s momentum growing around the idea of limiting the use of facial recognition technology — particularly when it comes to law enforcement. Even Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warned of a 1984-like future at a Web Summit in November — despite reports of his company selling facial recognition tech to the government for surveillance.

But the tech might already be so deeply entrenched in society that it’s too late to rip it out of the ground and ban it completely.

I can definitely get behind a ban on facial recognition technology, at least in most circumstances. Although the article raises an extremely valid point, that being how facial recognition may have already become too prominent to heavily regulate.

With tech capable of creating entirely realistic but fictional speeches based on a few videos of someone speaking as well as generating photo-realistic fake faces, I really fear what society could become if the government actively wanted to suppress society.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

well...good.

any step backwards from a police state is a step forward.

[Sky High]

can't wait to hear the deafening silence from the "lol COMMIFORINA!" crowd on this.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Nope, I disagree with this, I can be against needless observance but this has to be legislated and people need to be informed to make that decision this would basically amount to a band aide misguided and would be a waste of time.

[Daedius]

Evil doppelgangers could have gotten people in trouble!

[Kraddark]

I think facial recognition technology should be used. They should regulate it though. I think it could help a lot of innocent people prove they're innocent similar to how DNA freed a lot of wrongfully convicted people.

[Seranthor]

I can definitely get behind a ban on facial recognition technology, at least in most circumstances. Although the article raises an extremely valid point, that being how facial recognition may have already become too prominent to heavily regulate.

With tech capable of creating entirely realistic but fictional speeches based on a few videos of someone speaking as well as generating photo-realistic fake faces, I really fear what society could become if the government actively wanted to suppress society.

Good luck with that California... The train already left that station...

[Brubear]

If it's for personal use like unlocking your phone or computer? Then sure, knock yourself out.

If it's for any sort of official use by a business to recognize employees or government agencies, then I fully support it being banned. The major privacy issues combined with it's major issues with recognizing non-white faces makes it far to unreliable to be used in a law enforcement capacity.

[Seramore]

well...good.

any step backwards from a police state is a step forward.

Yikes, imagine unironically saying "police state."

[Super Kami Dende]

Yikes, imagine unironically saying "police state."

Well he said a step backwards from one, not that it already was one. Since Facial Recognition Databases would be an invaluable tool of a Police State.

[Jinpachi]

Fuck using it to monitor sidewalks and streets. I could see using it for Driver's License/Voter ID verification, but that would be about the extent to which i'd agree to its use.

[Seramore]

Well he said a step backwards from one, not that it already was one. Since Facial Recognition Databases would be an invaluable tool of a Police State.

Or in other words for those who don't sport silver hats all day, facial recognition databases would be an invaluable tool for furthering technology.

[Super Kami Dende]

Or in other words for those who don't sport silver hats all day, facial recognition databases would be an invaluable tool for furthering technology.

How exactly?

[KOUNTERPARTS]

Yikes, imagine unironically saying "police state."

yeah, i said it unironically, are you implying there is no such concept of a police state or one having ever existed in the first place to set a precedent?

[Powerogue]

“I have yet to be persuaded that there is any beneficial use of this technology that outweighs the potential for government actors to use it for coercive and oppressive ends,” Peskin told Wired.

Well obviously the beneficial use is being able to transition further from passwords, instead using harder to forge multi-factor biometric authentication.

Every form of security has the potential for exploiting by a malicious government. You've all seen what China has managed to pull off with a system that had the potential for so much freedom of information, reverse-weaving it into a cage.