Stop the spies with the facial recognition

If, like us, your initial and overriding opinion of sweeping electronic surveillance of literally everyone by law enforcement is that it is bad — bad to the bone — your attitude about a proposed state law putting a few limits on the practice is, well, mixed.

On the one hand, it’s better to dampen down a bit the ability of police agencies to peer ever more deeply into the actions of anyone who goes out into the world than it is to encourage law enforcement to just go ahead and electronically spy on everyone all of the time.

But you get the dilemma. To fiddle around the edges of creating what is more and more a surveillance state is to more than tacitly acknowledge that the surveillance state is inevitable and also OK.

It is not. There are too many cameras and too many microphones in our lives as it is. Citizens of other countries seem to have given in to the fact of government CCTV cameras on every urban block — suburban block, country-road block — 24/7. Citizens of this country should not.

Any more than they should capitulate to demands that anyone walking to the corner store, or doing anything at all, should always be carrying government-issued ID because — well, your papers, please.

Residents of other nations are resigned to such regulation being the law of the land. Residents — citizen and otherwise — of this land never should get resigned to that.

So, are two new bills in the California Legislature dealing with facial recognition technology worth supporting? The proposed laws are AB 642 by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-san Francisco, and AB 1034 by Assemblywoman Lori D. Wilson, D-suisun City.

The first one nibbles around the edges and should be viewed by the Legislature and the governor with extreme skepticism; the second one amends and continues the restrictions of another current law that essentially forbids police from using facial recognition software randomly, and should be considered much more favorably.

The first bill, AB 642, would require “a law enforcement agency that operates facial recognition technology (FRT) to meet specified requirements ... only FRT systems with algorithms that have been evaluated under the National Institute of Standards and Technology Face Recognition Vendor Test Program and have demonstrated an accuracy score of at least 98% true positives within two or more datasets relevant to investigative applications on a program report could be used.”

So, in other words, your friendly neighborhood cop could park on the corner and aim a device at every passerby that would show who they are, just on general principles, the same as walking up to them and demanding ID, but only if the electronics used were really, really good instead of crummy.

The bill would also mandate that specifically trained officers be the ones spying on you, and that department managers be assigned to supervise the spying.

The second bill, AB 1034, takes the correct view that “widespread use of facial recognition on police body cameras would be the equivalent of requiring every Californian to show their photo ID card to every police officer they pass. This new mass surveillance system would suppress civic engagement and inspire fear.”

It also boldly states the bottom line for attempting to nip these new intrusions on daily life in the bud: “the only appropriate standard for facial recognition on body cameras continues to be a prohibition on its use.”

Additionally, the bill “would prohibit a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera.

In addition to any other sanctions, penalties, or remedies provided by law, a person may bring an action for equitable or declaratory relief in a court of competent jurisdiction against a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer that violates this section.”

A free society demands such restrictions. Tight controls must be imposed over the use of facial recognition by the state.