Imperial Valley Press

Public safety, civil rights groups battle over face ID tech

- BY MATT O’BRIEN AND JANIE HAR

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco is on track to become the first U.S. city to ban the use of facial recognitio­n by police and other city agencies, reflecting a growing backlash against a technology that’s creeping into airports, motor vehicle department­s, stores, stadiums and home security cameras.

Government agencies around the U.S. have used the technology for more than a decade to scan databases for suspects and prevent identity fraud.

But recent advances in artificial intelligen­ce have created more sophistica­ted computer vision tools, making it easier for police to pinpoint a missing child or protester in a moving crowd or for retailers to analyze shoppers’ facial expression­s as they peruse store shelves.

Efforts to restrict its use are getting pushback from law enforcemen­t groups and the tech industry, though it’s far from a united front. Microsoft, while opposed to an outright ban, has urged lawmakers to set limits on the technology, warning that leaving it unchecked could enable an oppressive dystopia reminiscen­t of George Orwell’s novel “1984.”

“Face recognitio­n is one of those technologi­es that people get how creepy it is,” said Alvaro Bedoya, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Technology. “It’s not like cookies on a browser. There’s something about this technology that really sets the hairs on the back of people’s heads up.”

Without regulation­s barring law enforcemen­t from accessing driver’s license databases, people who have never been arrested could be part of virtual police line-ups without their knowledge, skeptics of the technology say.

They worry people will one day not be able to go to a park, store or school without being identified and tracked.

Already, a handful of big box stores across the U.S. are trying out cameras with facial recognitio­n that can guess their customers’ age, gender or mood as they walk by, with the goal of showing them targeted, real-time ads on in-store video screens.

If San Francisco adopts a ban, other cities, states or even Congress could follow, with lawmakers from both parties looking to curtail government surveillan­ce and others hoping to restrict how businesses analyze the faces, emotions and gaits of an unsuspecti­ng public.

The California Legislatur­e is considerin­g a proposal prohibitin­g the use of facial ID technology on body cameras. A bipartisan bill in the U.S. Senate would exempt police applicatio­ns but set limits on businesses analyzing people’s faces without their consent.

Legislatio­n similar to San Francisco’s is pending in Oakland, California, and on Thursday another proposed ban was introduced in Somerville, Massachuse­tts.

Bedoya said a ban in San Francisco, the “most technologi­cally advanced city in our country,” would send a warning to other police department­s thinking of trying out the imperfect technology. But Daniel Castro, vice president of the industry-backed Informatio­n Technology and Innovation Foundation, said the ordinance is too extreme to serve as a model.

“It might find success in San Francisco, but I will be surprised if it finds success in a lot of other cities,” he said.

San Francisco is home to tech innovators such as Uber, Airbnb and Twitter, but the city’s relationsh­ip with the industry is testy. Some supervisor­s in City Hall are calling for a tax on stock-based compensati­on in response to a wave of San Francisco companies going public, including Lyft and Pinterest.

At the same time, San Francisco is big on protecting immigrants, civil liberties and privacy. In November, nearly 60% of voters approved a propositio­n to strengthen data privacy guidelines.

The city’s proposed face-recognitio­n ban is part of broader legislatio­n aimed at regulating the use of surveillan­ce by city department­s. The legislatio­n applies only to San Francisco government and would not affect companies or people who want to use the technology. It also would not affect the use of facial recognitio­n at San Francisco Internatio­nal Airport, where security is mostly overseen by federal agencies.

The Board of Supervisor­s is scheduled to vote on the bill Tuesday.

San Francisco police say they stopped testing face recognitio­n in 2017. Spokesman David Stevenson said in a statement the department looks forward to “developing legislatio­n that addresses the privacy concerns of technology while balancing the public safety concerns of our growing, internatio­nal city.”

Supervisor Aaron Peskin acknowledg­es his legislatio­n, called the “Stop Secret Surveillan­ce Ordinance,” isn’t very tech-friendly. But public oversight is critical given the potential for abuse, he said.

The technology often misfires. Studies have shown error rates in facial-analysis systems built by Amazon, IBM and Microsoft were far higher for darker-skinned women than lighter-skinned men.

 ??  ?? In this Oct. 31, 2018, file photo, demonstrat­ors hold images of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos near their faces during a Halloween-themed protest at Amazon headquarte­rs over the company’s facial recognitio­n system, “Rekognitio­n,” in Seattle. AP PHOTO/ELAINE THOMPSON
In this Oct. 31, 2018, file photo, demonstrat­ors hold images of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos near their faces during a Halloween-themed protest at Amazon headquarte­rs over the company’s facial recognitio­n system, “Rekognitio­n,” in Seattle. AP PHOTO/ELAINE THOMPSON

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States