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

Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#21

Post by SmellTheGlove »

dasm wrote: post #7
SmellTheGlove wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement is a touch misleading. Portland's the only thing resembling a city in Maine, so it's going to have a larger government, organized police, etc, compared to the rest of the state. However, I wouldn't describe anywhere in Maine as being remotely authoritarian in the first place. The disclaimer being I haven't really spent any time up north, but I suspect no one is alleging authoritarianism north of Bangor…

I grew up in Maine, and I think the statement is quite accurate. Portland is not authoritarian, but it is by comparison to the northern counties

The northern counties are mostly wilderness, with sparse population and government. Let's be real, anywhere is closer to authoritarian by comparison, but it doesn't make the latter authoritarian.

Just because Portland has zoning laws and historic districts doesn't make it authoritarian. I'd argue Portland is pretty minimally restricted compared to any other US city. Besides not being able to shoot guns in the middle of the old port, and having some red tape preventing you from knocking down the west end to build steel and glass buildings, I'm curious what is remotely authoritarian about the place.

Then again, I'm from a bit south of Portland (and originally from away, which Mainers seem to care about in perpetuity), and moved away to SF a couple years back. My perspective could just be off?

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#22

Post by fitz13 »

lmkg wrote: post #16
fitz13 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true I may not be, but I'm not sure what the material difference is between real-time facial recognition and performing the same analysis on security camera footage after the fact. I should clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of real time facial recognition, I'm just skeptical of this move's efficacy in preventing the same outcome.

With ubiquitous surveillance, you can build a database of the location activity of all citizens. This is problematic for several reasons, with top-of-mind right now being targeting individuals for political reasons, but also stuff like what if the database gets hacked, and general fourth- and fifth-amendment concerns. With a ban in place, the ability to build such a database drops significantly because you need a pre…

Good points, well made. Especially about the hacking.

My only other thought is that a government/organization interested in using/misusing such a database would be willing to invent a pretense.

I'm not sure how heavily to weigh the precedent of government surveillance skirting these kinds of protections. I assume that Portland doesn't have a FISA court rubber-stamp equivalent, but I can't know for sure.

Either way, I think you're right that adding speedbumps to the process is a good thing, especially for data security. I just hope that people don't consider this too much of a victory, although it is definitely a victory.

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#23

Post by SmellTheGlove »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #19
mrguyorama wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because the northern part of Maine feels like it doesn't even have government. Yeah, turns out a functioning city might feel more authoritarian than like the three people who do all the work in your local town office

A city can function just fine with out a bunch of local by-laws controlling what you can and can't do on your own property and proactive enforcement of local codes and minor civil infractions that aren't harming anyone. I live in one such city (of similar size). It's awesome. Portland's problem in my observation is the wealth and cultural norms (not the same thing as the politics) of the tourists who become permanent…

So anywhere with zoning and parking tickets is authoritarian? Come on. What, specifically, is Portland doing that you'd consider to be authoritarian, and what would you propose in its place?

Also, tourists who become permanent residents are just residents. Trying to paint a group of fellow citizens as outsiders is a negative pattern, IMHO.

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#25

Post by mytailorisrich »

liquidise wrote: post #8

Seems people are disregarding this vote based on hypothetical loopholes. Instead, i am focused on the awareness this bill represents. Facial Recognition and Right to Repair improvements both ended up on state ballots and came away with citizen/consumer wins (as opposed to gov/corporate). HN comments are usually quick to point out that "normal people" don't have a clue about these issues. I tend to agree. I for one am…

A plain ban seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction, so not exactly a sign of being "clued up" but rather of succumbing to a sort of hysteria around this new technology.

The technology is a tool and like all tools it may be used positively or negatively. By all means there should be a comprehensive legal framework to control its use but a ban means that benefits cannot be reaped, either.

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#26

Post by kevlar1818 »

SmellTheGlove wrote: post #21
dasm wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in Maine, and I think the statement is quite accurate. Portland is not authoritarian, but it is by comparison to the northern counties

The northern counties are mostly wilderness, with sparse population and government. Let's be real, anywhere is closer to authoritarian by comparison, but it doesn't make the latter authoritarian. Just because Portland has zoning laws and historic districts doesn't make it authoritarian. I'd argue Portland is pretty minimally restricted compared to any other US city. Besides not being able to shoot guns in the middle…

As a southern Mainer (not From Away :P) this is spot on.

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#29

Post by lotsofpulp »

joelhoffman wrote: post #20

Portland, Oregon already passed a similar law. Both of them seem a little ambiguous to me: they both clearly ban the city's use, and ban the city from allowing corporate use in public places, but do they ban the private use of facial recognition by individuals on public property? Does failing to specifically ban this constitute authorization? It's been reported that protesters in Portland OR and other places have bee…

>but do they ban the private use of facial recognition by individuals on public property? Does failing to specifically ban this constitute authorization?

I bet that would easily be considered unconstitutional by the courts.

Re: Portland, Maine passes referendum banning facial surveillance

#30

Post by dmix »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #25
liquidise wrote: post #8

Seems people are disregarding this vote based on hypothetical loopholes. Instead, i am focused on the awareness this bill represents. Facial Recognition and Right to Repair improvements both ended up on state ballots and came away with citizen/consumer wins (as opposed to gov/corporate). HN comments are usually quick to point out that "normal people" don't have a clue about these issues. I tend to agree. I for one am…

A plain ban seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction, so not exactly a sign of being "clued up" but rather of succumbing to a sort of hysteria around this new technology. The technology is a tool and like all tools it may be used positively or negatively. By all means there should be a comprehensive legal framework to control its use but a ban means that benefits cannot be reaped, either.

This is an important question. Are there legitimate positive usecases, either currently or more likely usecases we may never find out about because of bans like this?

One answer to the question is that this is a benefit of federalism. Small states (as opposed to a large country) can experiment and other states can learn from it, whether it's a disaster or not. Just like Oregon decriminalizing hard drugs.

The other side of this is the problem of how outright prohibitions often stick around for far longer than they should, even with plenty of evidence of it being more harmful than good (drug war being the obvious one but there's plenty of harmful regulations written in prior eras where it doesn't make sense).

Again this is where federalism and smaller states may help because it's easier to change the law than end the drug war and all the entrenched interests.

If it was a federal level ban I would be angry about the implications for sure. Now I'm skeptical but also don't really care because I don't know of any positive uses but I do know my local police here in Toronto are already using facial recognition and it scares the shit out of me.

But maaaybe something like in prisons it could be helpful. IDK, much about the subject.

Post reply on HN