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

21–30 of 75 posts

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

#21

Post by warning26 »

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…

This seems like a situation where a crackdown would be likely to produce positive effects, honestly.

It's one thing to enforce some kind of dystopia, but locking up people for breaking into cars seems like it shouldn't be a particularly radical proposal.

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

#22

Post by warning26 »

admiralEyebrows wrote: post #17
landryraccoon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 arr…

I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope.

Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.

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

#23

Post by code_beers »

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.

Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.

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

#24

Post by freedomben »

gnicholas wrote: post #8
PHGamer wrote: post #7

and whats to stop the federal government from doing this. At this point people need to accept everything is being recording in public.

My thoughts exactly. The proposed ordinance would only apply to "city departments", so the feds could do whatever they want. Given my vague recollections of the Supremacy Clause [1] of the Constitution, I don't think a local ordinance like this could have legal effect on the feds, even if it purported to. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

It would be a legal battle for sure, but there's a chance that nullification could win [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constituti...

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

#25

Post by wahern »

warning26 wrote: post #22
admiralEyebrows wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arr…

I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope. Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.

The ACLU, psychiatrists, and other reformers are more culpable than Reagan. Deinstitutionalization started long before 1980. See, e.g.,

  https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
Some amount of reform was needed, but the deinstitutionalization that occurred was too extreme, too rapid, and lacked adequate backstops. Politicians were just doing what they were told by lawyers and psychiatrists, and they were eager to comply because it meant huge cuts in spending.

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

#26

Post by shard972 »

standardUser wrote: post #18
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…

Are you saying that wealthiest state in America, the one that also houses the largest tech companies in the world, doesn't have the competence to buy facial recognition software from amazon?

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

#27

Post by maxxxxx »

shard972 wrote: post #26
standardUser wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you saying that wealthiest state in America, the one that also houses the largest tech companies in the world, doesn't have the competence to buy facial recognition software from amazon?

They have the competence to spend a lot of money on things but not so much competence to do something useful with the stuff they bought.

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

#28

Post by baroffoos »

code_beers wrote: post #23
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.

Fast forward a few months, criminals are just wearing ski masks when they steal cars, and you’ve given up a significant amount of your privacy for absolutely zero benefit. Not a good plan, in my opinion.

Its a much better idea to fix the fact that so many people are in such a shitty situation that they are willing to steal a worthless radio.

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

#29

Post by baroffoos »

warning26 wrote: post #22
admiralEyebrows wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arr…

I wholeheartedly disagree. More toilets won't fix the problem -- I suspect they could even potentially worsen the issue by making the city a more attractive place for the beyond-hope. Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.

So you are saying anyone who can't afford the insane price of having a house with a toilet in SF is mentally ill?

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

#30

Post by baroffoos »

warning26 wrote: post #21
landryraccoon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This seems like a situation where a crackdown would be likely to produce positive effects, honestly. It's one thing to enforce some kind of dystopia, but locking up people for breaking into cars seems like it shouldn't be a particularly radical proposal.

First its locating people breaking in to cars and now the infrastructure is set up its easy to justify it being used to track problem people everywhere they go and then justified to track everyone everywhere they go to identify problem people,.
Post reply on HN