San Francisco May Be the First City in the Nation to Ban Facial Recognition

FortTaylor

n00b
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
32
I wouldn't care about facial recognition, *IF it's not used to track individuals movements once scanned, meaning scan locations are only presented when a hit is confirmed of a wanted individual, this would allow for preservation of the amendments while still gaining the advantages of the security. Once they can prove reliability.
Not that that can't be done but you know it wont be done.
 

badpool

n00b
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
50
San Francisco may be the first city to ban Facial Recognition but its still ok to take a crap on the sidewalks
SF is a shithole for it's wealth gap and NIMBY bullshit, but Facial Recognition / pervasive tracking is creepy as fuck. Keeping this crap out of government is something any privacy-loving person should want.
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
Came to see if people flipped out at the mention of california. Was not disappointed.
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,170
In principle, facial recognition is great. In San Francisco you have criminals brazenly stealing packages, dumping crap, breaking into cars/houses/etc, all caught on camera. Does the police do anything about it? Nah... they're not going to catch anyone is the mentality. Enter facial recognition and wammo there's the guy who stole a package, send cops to apprehend. Ahh... a dream, plus there's literally zero way that facial recognition would be hooked up to a database that checks against known perps in real time.

Unfortunately history has shown us, you can not trust police officers or the government to keep things simple, they use license plate readers all over the place do you think they delete all records as soon as they're checked? NOPE! Keep them until you may need them, same would go with facial recognition, lets keep a record of everyone's comings and going. You're in public so you have no expectation of privacy. Stingray towers... yup you have no expectation of privacy of the phone you use in public. They have shown time and again they can't be trusted with what could be useful technology that could get criminals off the streets, so now no one gets caught with it, and it's all their fucking fault.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,233
In principle, facial recognition is great. In San Francisco you have criminals brazenly stealing packages, dumping crap, breaking into cars/houses/etc, all caught on camera. Does the police do anything about it? Nah... they're not going to catch anyone is the mentality. Enter facial recognition and wammo there's the guy who stole a package, send cops to apprehend. Ahh... a dream, plus there's literally zero way that facial recognition would be hooked up to a database that checks against known perps in real time.

Unfortunately history has shown us, you can not trust police officers or the government to keep things simple, they use license plate readers all over the place do you think they delete all records as soon as they're checked? NOPE! Keep them until you may need them, same would go with facial recognition, lets keep a record of everyone's comings and going. You're in public so you have no expectation of privacy. Stingray towers... yup you have no expectation of privacy of the phone you use in public. They have shown time and again they can't be trusted with what could be useful technology that could get criminals off the streets, so now no one gets caught with it, and it's all their fucking fault.
Actually I dont see how this law could stop the cops from using facial recognition in an offline manner. In your example snap a frame from a video, send it through the algorithim to search for known criminals (honestly shocked if this already isnt done). Easy way to bypass the law: send said pic off to an out of state identification company who uses facial recognition to send back a match for a small fee. Viola. Hmm maybe theres a business opportunity here...
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Actually I dont see how this law could stop the cops from using facial recognition in an offline manner. In your example snap a frame from a video, send it through the algorithim to search for known criminals (honestly shocked if this already isnt done). Easy way to bypass the law: send said pic off to an out of state identification company who uses facial recognition to send back a match for a small fee. Viola. Hmm maybe theres a business opportunity here...
And what can they do with that information? Now they go arrest the person, how do they justify how they found them? If it's based on info obtained through illegal methods, then it should be tossed, just like evidence found via a warrant-less search.


Of course they will, they're a sanctuary city & they need votes. At this point I wouldn't even consider California to be part of the United States.

With all the government corruption there, facial recognition should be the least of their worries.
I hate living in california but you're kidding yourself if you don't think cali would do MUCH better without the US than the US would do without taxifornia...... And this has nothing to do with illegals, who can't vote anyway..... The amount of regurgitated faux news talking points (lies) in this thread is ridiculous. No one should be happy about US slowly turning into a police state and eroding our privacy a little at time.
 
Last edited:

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,233
And what can they do with that information? Now they go arrest the person, how do they justify how they found them? If it's based on info obtained through illegal methods, then it should be tossed, just like evidence found via a warrant-less search.
They still have the original video that they can submit and you can compare visually. I would also assume their case doesnt rely solely on facial recognition...there had to be source material for them to use. Also the state cant legislate what an out of state business does.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,806
They are afraid of their own dystopian despot techno AI god coming to haunt them. Do it to everyone else ut exclude thier city.
 

Krenum

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,075
I hate living in california but you're kidding yourself if you don't think cali would do MUCH better without the US than the US would do without taxifornia...... And this has nothing to do with illegals, who can't vote anyway..... The amount of regurgitated faux news talking points (lies) in this thread is ridiculous. No one should be happy about US slowly turning into a police state and eroding our privacy a little at time.
Fox News? What about it? I'm giving you my opinion based on the facts that I have read.

Illegals not being able to vote you say?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...nted-immigrants-vote-school-elections-n893221
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Fox News? What about it? I'm giving you my opinion based on the facts that I have read.

Illegals not being able to vote you say?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...nted-immigrants-vote-school-elections-n893221

what do school elections have to do with this thread/issue? They can't vote in state/federal elections, which is what people in this thread were implying was the reason for this facial recognition.......



They still have the original video that they can submit and you can compare visually. I would also assume their case doesnt rely solely on facial recognition...there had to be source material for them to use. Also the state cant legislate what an out of state business does.
But the state can legislate the tools their local law enforcement can use. Just because they outsourced it to a state without the restrictions, doesn't mean they can legally use that as part of the process here.... I'm sure this will lead to legal battles in the future.
 

Krenum

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,075
what do school elections have to do with this thread/issue? They can't vote in state/federal elections, which is what people in this thread were implying was the reason for this facial recognition.......
Since you brought up the topic that illegals couldn't vote in the thread I supplied a counter point. Its only a matter of time until they will be able to vote in government elections, they really already do. And people seem to be fine with it. Which is sad.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Since you brought up the topic that illegals couldn't vote in the thread I supplied a counter point. Its only a matter of time until they will be able to vote in government elections, they really already do. And people seem to be fine with it. Which is sad.
I don't see school elections as 'voting' in the context of this thread, since there is nothing illegal about that. You are going to have to provide some sources that illegals are voting in state/federal elections (which is illegal) and at what scale. I heard of one case of an illegal voting (mistakenly since they were sent the ballot in the mail), and they got a ridiculous sentence for that mistake. And guess what, no one is fine with it either. Another baseless fact, that sounds really similar to a certain propaganda machine......


And this facial recognition will do nothing about any of that anyway..... We are heading down a real slippery slope if they continue pushing that kind of invasion of privacy.
 

Krenum

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,075
Last edited:

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,233
I don't see school elections as 'voting' in the context of this thread, and you are going to have to provide some sources that illegals are voting in state/federal elections and at what scale. I heard of one case of an illegal voting (mistakenly since they were sent the ballot in the mail), and they got a ridiculous sentence for that mistake. And guess what, no one is fine with it either. Another baseless fact, that sounds really similar to a certain propaganda machine......


And this facial recognition will do nothing about any of this anyway..... We are heading down a real slippery slope if they continue pushing that kind of shit.
Its a mix. They are given drivers licenses with if they check a box saying they can vote automatically grants them registration to vote. So they coudl easly slip through and vote. However the law doesnt explicity grant them the right to vote at the federal level. The san fran law only said school elections.

As for what the cops do with out of state businesses well that out of state biz doesnt have to disclose methods of making a match if its a proprietary system ;)
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
I don't have to provide anything. Do your own research.
I'm not making the claim, it's not my responsibility to back it up with facts. Plus I won't find any info, which is why you resorted to posting about them 'legally' voting in a specific cities school elections......
 

Krenum

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,075
Oh come on...you made the claim its only fair to ask you to back it up. Otherwise you can just make any shit up you want...
Settle down, keep your shirt on, I put a couple of links into my post that you can easily access with a simple google search.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Settle down, keep your shirt on, I put a link into my post.

Last reply since we're probably far enough off topic for a ban. That source doesn't back up your statement. It just says 12 states allow illegals to get drivers licenses, which could be a loophole used to register to vote (intentionally or not). It doesn't have any data or statistics confirming this is happening or what scale, just that is most likely is happening......
 

Krenum

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
16,075
Last reply since we're probably far enough off topic for a ban. That source doesn't back up your statement. It just says 12 states allow illegals to get drivers licenses, which could be a loophole used to register to vote (intentionally or not). It doesn't have any data or statistics confirming this is happening or what scale, just that is most likely is happening......
Yes, we should change topics. Scale doesn't really matter, but you can bet money its happening / happened.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
If San Francisco can do it, being home to so many tech companies that evangelize this shit, we should all be able to do it.

Say no to big brother.

Except that this doesn't stop, or even reduce surveillance efforts. It only drives a shift to other technologies, because if there exists a "requirement" to conduct surveillance, then this legislation does nothing to eliminate that requirement, it only restricts one method of conducting said surveillance.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,233
Except that this doesn't stop, or even reduce surveillance efforts. It only drives a shift to other technologies, because if there exists a "requirement" to conduct surveillance, then this legislation does nothing to eliminate that requirement, it only restricts one method of conducting said surveillance.
I dont have a problem with survelliance in and of itself. I do have a problem with it when its unwarranted (not in the legal sense) and intrusive. If the cops want to use facial recognition to search a known database of criminals I am cool with that. If they want to setup cameras and run facial recognition on everyone walking down the street? Fuck no. Now if they want to do that on a specific address for a specific period of time in order to catch a specific person who has comitted a crime then as long as that specified period of time is REASONABLE (i.e. days not weeks or years) then I could get behind that. Provided of course the innocent faces scanned would not be retained in any way since they were not the target.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
But you know it will not work that way. Next thing you know you are getting a j-walking ticket sent to your house.

That isn't tracking a person. It's performing a specific function, at a specific location, regarding a specific infraction, conducted by an individual.

Now, before you jump to a conclusion and start thinking that I am A OK with this, let me say that I am not.

In the same manner as I believe traffic cams are a poor use of law enforcement funding, I also see this as the same sort of thing. A city can spend funds and put up cameras to do a few things very well, at a few locations, and they might even make the city some money. But that camera can't do any of the other things an actual officer can do for the people of the city, and these cameras usually require dedicated officers to sit and review camera footage so it's really wasteful and does little for the community that they are supposed to be supporting.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I dont have a problem with survelliance in and of itself. I do have a problem with it when its unwarranted (not in the legal sense) and intrusive. If the cops want to use facial recognition to search a known database of criminals I am cool with that. If they want to setup cameras and run facial recognition on everyone walking down the street? Fuck no. Now if they want to do that on a specific address for a specific period of time in order to catch a specific person who has comitted a crime then as long as that specified period of time is REASONABLE (i.e. days not weeks or years) then I could get behind that. Provided of course the innocent faces scanned would not be retained in any way since they were not the target.

Well we do come back to my primary stance on so many of these issues, the laws need to be rewritten.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,642
Except that this doesn't stop, or even reduce surveillance efforts. It only drives a shift to other technologies, because if there exists a "requirement" to conduct surveillance, then this legislation does nothing to eliminate that requirement, it only restricts one method of conducting said surveillance.
Fair. We need to tackle it at a higher level, making ALL dragnet style surveillance illega, regardless of which private company of three letter agency you happen to represent.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
Of course they will, they're a sanctuary city & they need votes. At this point I wouldn't even consider California to be part of the United States.

With all the government corruption there, facial recognition should be the least of their worries.

While CA has a boat load of stupid shit in it and SF especially..that doesn't make this not a good law.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,687
San Francisco may be the first city to ban Facial Recognition but its still ok to take a crap on the sidewalks
Gotta make sure they protect the rights of people to take a dump and not be identified.
I don't disagree with your general premise, but I do have to ask... are we really all that advanced to be using facial recognition?

Things like fingerprints are much more well established - but I'm not aware of a finalized facial recognition being completely 100% accurate.
Why do you think it needs to be 100% accurate, it doesn't its just evidence.

Lets say they use it to catch a criminal, but they get the wrong person, that person gets a lawyer and proves they are not the same. People like to worry so much about abuse they forget about all the good these systems can do. An example is DNA identification people wrote about all sorts of horror scenarios, OMG people will be able to identify me. But what has DNA based evidence really done? Its made society and the law more accurate. It has exonerated many many people for crimes they did not commit because DNA evidence could prove reasonable doubt and that was HELLA better than the accuracy of Juries. Science and evidence are not one way streets it pushes in both directions its just it tends to push the accuracy bar higher. That doesn't mean its never wrong, it just tends to be wrong less than the old ways things were done.

I don't live in a paranoid black and white world, my view is that these technologies can be used for good and should be used for good, and at the same time they should be monitored and enforced to keep them as such. Sure they will be abused from time to time but the good out weighs the bad.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,442
these cameras usually require dedicated officers to sit and review camera footage so it's really wasteful and does little for the community that they are supposed to be supporting.
Are you basing this claim on common sense or direct knowledge? Because I think common sense would tell us this is how it *should* be, but it is not how it *is* in my experience. Every camera system I have direct knowledge about is certified by 3rd parties--not local law enforcement. Here's an article regarding red light cameras and outsourcing from 2011
http://www.governing.com/report-outsourcing-red-light-cameras-puts-profits-before-public-safety.html
Given what I know, and what you probably know to be true, if that was the state of affairs in 2011 it's even more ubiquitous now barring specific legislation making it unlawful to contract with 3rd parties for these duties.

So that's a whole nother ball of problematic wax in regards to this conversation :\
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
19,125
imagine that another thing they do to aide criminals... soon they are going to have to ban poo recognition as well
 

Guarana [BAWLS]

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2001
Messages
1,865
I don't have to provide anything. Do your own research.

Here, you get one freebie,
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/416225-the-truth-about-illegal-voting

Alright I'll play, here's another
https://cis.org/Huennekens/Aliens-and-Voter-Fraud
One opinion piece, and a second piece that hinges on 'tracking over 400 cases of voter fraud' (Note: That the 400 cases spans over 15 years... so.... 25ish cases a year on average?)

Clearly voter fraud is the biggest issue we're facing. /sarcasm
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Fair. We need to tackle it at a higher level, making ALL dragnet style surveillance illegal, regardless of which private company of three letter agency you happen to represent.

I see the word "ALL" as too much and perhaps self defeating. Let me give two examples and see if you see a difference in them.

The first, cameras on every corner, data stored, cops can go "back in time" and check who was at the corner of this and that to help solve crimes and catch bad guys, frequently long after a crime was reported. They can also put a "suspect's" name in the search box and pull up everywhere he has gone in a given time frame, his face, his license plates, his credit cards and bus tokens, all of it. They can almost lay out his complete life in order to prove guilt, probably with a court order, a warrant, but the data is all there for use if/when needed.

The second, search terms, names, facial recognition data, etc, are loaded into "recognition profiles" for wanted criminals. All of the same sensors, cameras, license plate readers, cell tower tracking, etc, are all in place just like in the first example. But in this case, the bad guy walks past the camera, or drives past a reader, and the data is captured, checked, and if there isn't a match, immediately deleted. It's not retained, it's not analyzed, compared, or stored unless there is a hit on a wanted person.

I can see the second for domestic use in the USA, but the first is more like what the US does for Intelligence collection on foreign targets. We grab all we can and make use of what we can. I wouldn't want #1 used on citizens by Law Enforcement. I wouldn't even want #1 used on Intelligence Targets inside the US, over kill for surveillance on specific targets, better to be more focused.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Are you basing this claim on common sense or direct knowledge? Because I think common sense would tell us this is how it *should* be, but it is not how it *is* in my experience. Every camera system I have direct knowledge about is certified by 3rd parties--not local law enforcement. Here's an article regarding red light cameras and outsourcing from 2011
http://www.governing.com/report-outsourcing-red-light-cameras-puts-profits-before-public-safety.html
Given what I know, and what you probably know to be true, if that was the state of affairs in 2011 it's even more ubiquitous now barring specific legislation making it unlawful to contract with 3rd parties for these duties.

So that's a whole nother ball of problematic wax in regards to this conversation :\

It's what was "reported" (by local news article, small town), for our city, Sierra Vista, the 3rd party company was RedFlex I believe. Our city has since made traffic camera law enforcement illegal and these cameras have been taken down.
 
Top