Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#11

Post by remarkEon »

stickfigure wrote: post #9

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there often for work) that otherwise well meaning people entertain mass surveillance as a solution it might be too late.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#13

Post by sp332 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #6
el_don_almighty wrote: post #3

umm..so no more iPhones????

Dose the iPhone count as government facial recognition?

It does if a department issues iPhones to employees. Or Windows laptops with "Windows Hello" logins, or Samsung phones with facial unlock features, etc. It doesn't specify if "face recognition" includes iris and retina scans.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#14

Post by admiralEyebrows »

remarkEon wrote: post #11
stickfigure wrote: post #9

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there oft…

Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco.

I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#15

Post by landryraccoon »

admiralEyebrows wrote: post #14
remarkEon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I see your point. There’s a point where people’s security concerns start to override other moral programming they’re running. This isn’t really that profound of an observation; it’s perfectly rational. City and state leaders should recognize that reality, and react accordingly. If it gets to the point where the security situation is so bad (I don’t live in SF, but am there oft…

Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the numb…

> a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco.

"Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones.

The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#16

Post by zavi »

stickfigure wrote: post #9

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.

Somebody once broke into my car in the East Cut and stole a bottle of water.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#17

Post by admiralEyebrows »

landryraccoon wrote: post #15
admiralEyebrows wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some amount law breaking is necessary for social change. If everyone followed marijuana laws, there wouldn't be a push for state level legalization. If no cars are broken into because of a perfect facial recognition system, then there might not be a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the numb…

> a strong motive to fix the homeless situation in San Francisco. "Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones. The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil right…

Fix in the context of perfect facial recognition surveillance means being able to locate and arrest all people that commit a crime. People who are not driven to crime because they can afford a financially comfortable and privileged lifestyle will not feel the effects of poverty and homelessness in this scenario. It's like putting a band aid on a festering wound.

On the other hand, if we are not able to locate and arrest whoever defecated on the sidewalk, maybe we'll resort to building more toilets.

edit: I have faith that San Francisco is progressive enough to not allow widespread harsh and cruel punishment for the less fortunate based on group association.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#18

Post by standardUser »

stickfigure wrote: post #9

The third time my car was broken into (to steal - no joke - a crappy stock car stereo from the 90s), I'd have voted for mandatory cameras and facial recognition on every street corner. Maybe sentry guns too. Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.

I still live here. Yes, we need a severe and sustained crackdown to change the dynamics in this city. But some things are harder to undo than others, and major investments like facial recognition would live on indefinitely even if/when crime declined.

Having said that, the San Francisco government has demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are incapable of carrying out even basic functions, let alone implementing a brand new, cutting edge facial recognition system. So a law like this is pointless to begin with.

Re: San Francisco proposal would ban government facial recognition use in the city

#19

Post by tehlike »

mc32 wrote: post #2

But will it yet allow private facial recognition? If so that’s a loophole. Oh, we don’t do FR ourselves, we contract that out! FR isn’t bad in and of itself. What is needed is regulation governing that data.

If it is available, it will be used. Either within stretched legal frameworks, or through illegal surveillance.

Not that we can do much about it. It is going to happen eventually .

Post reply on HN