By Janet Phelan
The city of San Francisco has banned facial recognition technology from the city by the bay.
Or has it?
According to media reports, “The emerging technology will not be allowed to be used by local agencies, such as the city’s transport authority, or law enforcement.”
The BBC article goes on to say that “Some campaigners unsuccessfully urged for the measures not to apply to local police. While San Francisco’s officers do not currently use facial recognition technology, a number of other police forces across the US do.”
This, however, may be disingenuous, at best. Facial recognition technologies have become pervasive, and include not only smartphone applications but also could be embedded in a nationally marketed mirror, used in government restrooms and multiple fast food outlets.
According to San Francisco Police Department spokesman Michael Andraychak,
The San Francisco Police Department’s mission must be judiciously balanced with the need to protect civil rights and civil liberties, including privacy and free expression. We welcome safeguards to protect those rights while balancing the needs that protect the residents, visitors and businesses of San Francisco.
While we were happy to see some of our concerns addressed in the legislation, until the policy is put into practice, it is unclear what the full impact will be on department operations.
When it was pointed out to Sgt. Andraychak that the restroom in his own police department very likely featured a mirror with an FR system, Andraychak cut off communication.
As the SFPD has been reported as stating it does not use facial recognition systems, one might want to know, if this were the case, what one is doing in the department’s restroom.
The sponsor for the bill, Supervisor Aaron Peskin, was also contacted with questions about the enforceability of this new legislation. Numerous calls to the Supervisor went unanswered and when his office was contacted with questions via email, they failed to answer them, referring this reporter to the City Attorney.
San Francisco’s new law has been heralded by civil rights proponents as a safeguard to protect civil rights. Matt Cagle, a lawyer with the ACLU of Northern California, was quoted as stating that the San Francisco law “is really forward-looking and looks to prevent the unleashing of this dangerous technology against the public.”
The question remains unanswered, however, as to how to enforce a law that prohibits undisclosed and hidden systems and technology. Pandora’s box has been flung open and this technology is not going to be stuffed back in easily-- particularly when covert systems remain in place and unacknowledged.
In an era where news stories are of necessity scrutinized for misleading or false content, it would behoove us to ask what San Francisco has actually accomplished by this alleged ban, other than to lull its citizens into a delusion of privacy that no longer exists.
Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist and author of the groundbreaking exposé, EXILE. Her articles previously appeared in such mainstream venues as the Los Angeles Times, Orange Coast Magazine, Long Beach Press Telegram, etc. In 2004, Janet "jumped ship" and now exclusively writes for independent media. She is also the author of two collections of poetry—The Hitler Poems and Held Captive. She resides abroad. You can follow her on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012703457651
Image credit: Pixabay
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds, Twitter, Steemit, and SoMee.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.