California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition
We can still say no to mass surveillance.

San Francisco became in May the first jurisdiction to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition technology. Civil libertarians persuaded the city's Board of Supervisors to pass the measure on the grounds that the government could abuse the technology and make the country more of an oppressive surveillance state.
That same month, the California State Assembly passed a less comprehensive bill that would simply ban law enforcement use of realtime body camera facial recognition technology. Here are the bill's chief justifications for the ban:
The use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance is the functional equivalent of requiring every person to show a personal photo identification card at all times in violation of recognized constitutional rights. This technology also allows people to be tracked without consent. It would also generate massive databases about law-abiding Californians, and may chill the exercise of free speech in public places.
Facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technology has been repeatedly demonstrated to misidentify women, young people, and people of color and to create an elevated risk of harmful "false positive" identifications.
Facial and other biometric surveillance would corrupt the core purpose of officer-worn body-worn cameras by transforming those devices from transparency and accountability tools into roving surveillance systems.
The California Senate's Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing on the bill for next week.
At the federal level, the House Oversight Committee has held two hearings so far on police use of facial recognition surveillance. Among other things, our representatives learned that the FBI already has a database consisting of more than 640 million photographs, including driver's license photos from 21 states.
"People believe that it's inevitable that there's going to be more and more surveillance, more and more police state power, and technology is going to keep creeping into our lives," Brian Hofer, chairman of Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission, tells the Los Angeles Times. "But we still have the freedom and ability to say no."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I will not be surprised if within the next 24 months, everyone who was for body cameras will be against them, and everyone who was against them will be for them.
DR(P): As the bill notes: Facial and other biometric surveillance would corrupt the core purpose of officer-worn body-worn cameras by transforming those devices from transparency and accountability tools into roving surveillance systems.
Except that even sans facial recognition, they can still be interpreted as tools of the surveillance state.
I was against the mandatory use of them before and this is just more justification. I figured that one way or another footage would be used to convict people for out of context actions. This just adds to the abuse that can be inflicted from the police side
Recording our memories should be everyone’s right to protect ourselves.
This ban is a red herring while remote facial recognition technologies are implemented in public places. In this scenario, the government, not you controls what is recorded and how it is used.
The real danger to real-time facial recognition cameras is the false positives. I doubt it will ever get better than 99% correct in our lifetimes. How big a database is it going to compare with? How many millions of records? The only way to reduce false positives to a low level is with a small database -- like the 100 most wanted. And then it's going to find false positives among the thousands of people it scans every day, the cops are going to go full retard a dozen times every shift, and there will be more justifiable homicides to paper over.
I doubt it will ever get better than 99% correct in our lifetimes.
I'm doubting it will ever get anywhere near 99% accurate in our lifetimes. We'll be lucky if it ever gets 20% accurate in our lifetimes.
It would be best as a preliminary step in deciding who gets to come in a door, where there are only a few people allowed in. won't be very many people trying to get in, and all those "recognized" are further scrutinized after, by a human, fingerprint reader, retina reader, password, etc.
That "best" wont be very good by any other standard.
Maybe hundreds of years from now with far better computers and programmers, and multi-frequency cameras, and uninvented tech, facial recognition will get better. But never with today's tech.
It would be best as a preliminary step in deciding who gets to come in a door, where there are only a few people allowed in.
Yes, facial recognition will probably do very well where the people on camera WANT to be recognized. Stand up straight, comb your hair, take off the hat, remove the sunglasses and stare straight into the camera for 5...4...3...2...
I've been watching this with some interest for several decades. My personal experience has been that even using Mark I Eyeball and the human brain, you get false positives all the time. Filter that through a computer program that measures a finite (if large) number of posts and compares against photographs (which can look very different from the live person) and you have an ever-flowing fountain of false arrests. That was the opinion I formed in the 1990's, and I have seen no information that makes me judge differently. The high rates of accuracy I see reported are quite often under very controlled conditions, and in the hands of people expert in both programming and graphic manipulation. Often very specifically expert in the program under test. Put the software in the hands of bored GS 7s and the accuracy is likely to decline precipitously.
Ideally, as the possibility of a Surveillance State becomes greater, the government will have laws imposed on it to limit what it is allowed to know. Yes, it will HAVE the information, but it will still need a court order and probably cause to examine it.
Yeah, I know it's a pipe-dream.
What will probably actually happen is that Authoritarian ninnies from all over the political spectrum will rush to embrace the surveillance state for all manner of highly moral sounding reasons. And when they all get shipped out to the Gulags because the thugs they helped place in power consider them to be obvious troublemakers, they will have the nerve to be surprised.
The use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance is the functional equivalent of requiring every person to show a personal photo identification card at all times...
Let's not be drama queens about it. This is a passive violation of your constitutional rights, which from California law enforcement is the very best you can ever hope for. You're lucky the surveillance doesn't take the form of facial imprints on active-scanning nightsticks.
Jason Bourne wouldn't have been able to slip away if he was being watched on Arktan Systems Cameras
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59NckPsegN0
Will CA ban then on CCTV systems? I'm guessing no.
"Facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technology has been repeatedly demonstrated to misidentify women, young people, and people of color ...."
And there it is. If it was just men, it's all good.
that doesn't mean they respect our privacy rights though. their angle is that facial recognition is racist, and might be used unfairly against minorities and illegal immigrants. their second angle is that it might make the heroic unionized government cops look bad.
[…] California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition 4 by pseudolus | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]
[…] California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition 4 by pseudolus | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]
[…] California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition 4 by pseudolus | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]
[…] California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition 4 by pseudolus | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]
[…] California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition 4 by pseudolus | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]
[…] Article URL: https://reason.com/2019/06/07/california-considering-a-ban-on-realtime-police-body-camera-facial-rec… […]
[…] Source: reason.com […]
I agree with the dangers of a surveillance state, but find it peculiar that a state burdened with so many Progressive state intrusions into our lives finds only one area of state activity which to object.
[…] https://reason.com/2019/06/07/california-considering-a-ban-on-realtime-police-body-camera-facial-rec… […]
Real time body worn facial recognition is the appropriate use of the technology.
We should all have the right to record our memories everywhere we go for our own protection, applying technology to our memories should be legal also.
Why do people expect privacy in public?
I do recognize a human need to be alone which is why I oppose most remote surveillance, except to protect valuable property.
[…] what must be done? A bill in California would ban police use of realtime facial recognition technology; that seems a good […]
[…] what must be done? A bill in California would ban police use of realtime facial recognition technology; that seems a good […]
[…] Committee, AB 1215 would then head to the Senate Floor for approval. [ACLU of Northern California | California Considering a Ban on Realtime Police Body Camera Facial Recognition | California considers ban on facial recognition’s new frontier: police body […]