Council weakens police tech protection

‘Probable cause’ language stripped from resolution targeting arrests made on facial recognition match

A resolution designed to protect Hartford residents against arrest on the basis of facial recognition technology was weakened Monday by the city council.

The updated language removes a resolved clause in the resolution that “identification through facial recognition technology is not probable cause to arrest.”

The resolution was agreed upon by both the Hartford Police Department and corporation counsel. The revised language came out of the Quality of Life and Public Safety Committee, which voted to refer the matter to the council.

Sgt. Chris Mastroianni of the Hartford Police Department said the department felt that the probable cause language surrounding FRT belonged in the department’s policy and not in the resolution.

“So that our policy governing our use of it and what we can do with it would reflect this language,” Mastroianni said at last month’s Quality of Life and Public Safety Committee meeting.

Hartford Police Department currently does not have a policy in place for FRT and Mastroianni cited the resolution as forcing the department to create language around it.

“This resolution forces us to create a policy governing the use of it,” Mastroianni said. “Currently we do not have that product or anything like that and we do not have a policy.”

Hartford Lt. Aaron Boisvert said the Hartford Police Department doesn’t currently have facial recognition software and he does not know of plans to acquire it.

“The policy is now in place to ensure if the technology is ever utilized, it is done lawfully and governed by a written policy,” Boisvert said.

The approved resolution only includes one resolved clause — that “facial recognition technology, if adapted, it is to be used as an investigative tool only.”

Councilman Josh Michtom said he has concerns that stripping the probable cause language from the resolution leaves open the possibility that FRT can be used to make arrests.

“I like the language we had before because it actually had some teeth to it as it would direct the police department not to make an arrest solely on the basis of a facial recognition match,” councilman Josh Michtom said. “That is telling the police department you got to follow up and you got

to do the next thing. While I know they mostly do that, it provides a substantive recognition of the fallibility of FRT. Without that, all we’re saying is sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. We’re not changing anything or protecting anyone from a wrongful arrest.”

Councilman Nick Lebron, who introduced the original resolution back in January, said it would protect residents, as well as the city, from lawsuits that could stem from misidentification.

“FRT is a tool that is skewed, it isn’t perfect. The hope of this resolution is that it gives assurance to the people we serve and allowance to police so we’re not prone to any kind of litigation and that we’re going to use software that is accurate,” Lebron said at the committee meeting. “So the goal is to provide as much transparency as possible.”

But Michtom fired back saying that the resolution doesn’t have the ability to constrain the use of the technology in making arrests.

“This is a resolution without substance,” Michtom said. “What’s the point of it?”

Lebron said at the council meeting on Monday that the resolution does provide oversight and is a “do something resolution” in protecting citizens from an often “racist” and “biased” technology.

Facial technology has repeatedly been shown to misidentify women and people of color at higher rates than white men.

One of the ‘whereas clauses’ in the resolution provides that “facial recognition data require guidelines and human oversight to narrow the margin of error and bias.”

Lebron told the council it’s important to look at the language in the entire resolution and not focus on just the one clause.

“I want for clarity that the resolution does state that FRT would be used as an investigative tool only,” Lebron said.

The measure passed 7-1. Michtom voted against approving the resolution citing concerns it does not limit the scope on how it can be used.

“The real issue here is that the legality of police conduct is often judged by courts based on laws and regulations on the books. HPD and corporation counsel recognize that a resolution that constrains what HPD can use facial recognition for exposes the department to slightly more liability if they misuse it.”