SwissMiss Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 Second US City Passes Ban on Facial Recognition Tech Somerville, Massachusetts is joining San Francisco, which last month also outlawed facial recognition systems for local government use. Somerville is concerned the technology will chill free speech and invade citizens' privacy. A second US city is banning its municipal government from ever using facial recognition technologies over fears it'll pave the way for mass surveillance. On Thursday, the city council of Somerville, Massachusetts voted 11-0 to pass the anti-facial recognition ordinance, which calls out the technology for its potential to "chill" protected free speech. "The broad application of face surveillance in public spaces is the functional equivalent of requiring every person to carry and display a personal photo identification card at all times," reads the ordinance. The ordinance also points to how facial recognition technologies can misidentify people, particularly women and non-whites. The ordinance adds that "many of the databases to which face surveillance technology is applied are plagued by racial and other biases, which generate copycat biases in face surveillance data." City councilor Ben Ewen-Campen said he proposed the ordinance amid growing public concerns over how new technologies will impact society. "There's just an onslaught of privacy invasions, and there's just this sense that it's increasingly difficult to just be free in society as individuals and as families," he said during yesterday's vote. "This is just a small step, but this is reminder: We are in charge of our society," he added. "We don't have to just sit back and take it." The city is joining San Francisco, which last month also outlawed facial recognition technologies for local government use. Somerville's ordinance prohibits any city agency or official from using and retaining "face surveillance" technology, which it defines as being able to automatically detect someone's identity based on their face. If the ordinance is violated, the city could be taken to court and potentially face damages. Somerville is home to about 81,000 people. The American Civil Liberties Union is hoping more cities and states pass similar laws to regulate the technology. However, companies including Amazon continue to develop facial recognition systems for government use, arguing the technology can help law enforcement stop crime and find missing people. On the Somerville ordinance, ACLU director Kade Crockford said: "The city is sending a bold statement that it won't sit by idly while the dystopian technology further outpaces our civil liberties protections and harms privacy, racial and gender justice, and freedom of speech." Source: Second US City Passes Ban on Facial Recognition Tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlston Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 Moved from General News. (Facial recognition is Privacy related, so better here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp68terr Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 What will stop spying agencies to use this technology anyway? Past showed how much they care about truth and laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikie Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 it should scan for arrest warrants or bad guys so if you haven't paid your parking tickets all your friends will get 35% reward notices to drag your butt into the police station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitorio Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 They ban a State use but they can not do anything to ban federal agencies to use them in their State. In my opinion this is an academic or symbolic ban for all real purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
straycat19 Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 4 hours ago, vitorio said: They ban a State use but they can not do anything to ban federal agencies to use them in their State. In my opinion this is an academic or symbolic ban for all real purposes. Right you are. No local laws, city or state, take precedence over Federal law. Which is why all the cannabis shops could be raided by the Feds any time and all their product and money could be confiscated. Though states may say it is legal, it still violates Federal law. Technology is such today that mobile facial recognition systems can be deployed in vans or suvs in areas that the Feds are interested in searching for people. America is law crazy. Whenever someone sees something they don't like they want to pass another law. There literally millions of laws on the books that are never, and will never, be enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven36 Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 19 hours ago, straycat19 said: Right you are. No local laws, city or state, take precedence over Federal law. Which is why all the cannabis shops could be raided by the Feds any time and all their product and money could be confiscated. Though states may say it is legal, it still violates Federal law. Technology is such today that mobile facial recognition systems can be deployed in vans or suvs in areas that the Feds are interested in searching for people. America is law crazy. Whenever someone sees something they don't like they want to pass another law. There literally millions of laws on the books that are never, and will never, be enforced. Yet California still grows 6 times more weed than they smoke , The other problem with it being legal in some states and not others is the illegal grow business and shipping it in other states is way more profitable than fooling with California state laws and the Government taking all the Pot Farmers money for taxes and for equipment that passes state laws. Legalization hurts pot farmers more than it helps them. People been growing weed up on murder mountain every since the hippies went there in the 60s, 80% of the crop is shipped out of state. Exported cannabis not only escapes taxation or regulation by California but users in other states will pay a much higher price. If they wanted to ruin it and make it non profitable just make it legal in all 50 states like Beer and cigarettes then only Big tobacco would be interested in producing it and would it be worth no more than any other crop. . Just because it legal in the state don't mean it just means you have some who abides by state laws like 20% while the other 80% still grows illegal because thats were the real money is . Its not legal to export weed in California even by state laws so the local police there still make drug bust on illegal grow sites and people just keep on growing it. So the Federal law keeps it a profitable business for outlaws and gangs and causes all the violence that goes along with it . Canada made it legal country wide now Big tobacco is looking to buy it out . There will no longer be no money in growing it in a few years . Its just like Whiskey back during the prohibition everyone sold it because it made a lot of money even the MOB but now its legal and taxed the only people left that makes bootleg aka untaxed whiskey are traditionalist that it was passed down to them from there family from the prohibition . The opposite happen in Canada with cigarettes being taxed so high . it cheaper to go buy them on Res were there not taxed so most smokers get the ones that are illegal if you bring them off the Res . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.