Facial Recognition Technology Could Potentially Be Banned, For Police, In This City

San Francisco is on track to become first U.S. city to ban use of facial recognition by police and or city ncies, reflecting a growing backlash against a techlogy that’s creeping into airports, motor vehicle departments, stores, stiums and home security cameras. 

Government ncies around U.S. have used techlogy for more than a dece to scan databases for suspects and prevent identity fraud. But recent vances in artificial intelligence have created more sophisticated computer vision tools, making it easier for police to pinpoint a missing child or protester in a moving crowd or for retailers to analyze a shopper’s facial expressions as y peruse store shelves. 

Efforts to restrict its use are getting pushback from law enforcement groups and tech industry, though it’s far from a united front. Microsoft, while opposed to an outright ban, has urged lawmakers to set limits on techlogy, warning that leaving it unchecked could enable an oppressive dystopia reminiscent of George Orwell’s vel “1984.” 

“Face recognition is one of those techlogies that people get how creepy it is,” said Alvaro Bedoya, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Privacy and Techlogy. “It’s t like cookies on a browser. re’s something about this techlogy that really sets hairs on back of people’s hes up.” 

Without regulations barring law enforcement from accessing driver’s license databases, people who have never been arrested could be part of virtual police line-ups without ir kwledge, skeptics of techlogy say. 

y worry people will one day t be able to go to a park, store or school without being identified and tracked. 

Alrey, a handful of big box stores across U.S. are trying out cameras with facial recognition that can guess ir customers’ , or mood as y walk by, with goal of showing m targeted, real-time s on in-store video screens. 

If San Francisco opts a ban, or cities, states or even Congress could follow, with lawmakers from both parties looking to curtail government surveillance and ors hoping to restrict how businesses analyze  faces, emotions and gaits of an unsuspecting public. 

California Legislature is considering a proposal prohibiting use of facial ID techlogy on body cameras. A bipartisan bill in U.S. Senate would exempt police applications but set limits on businesses analyzing people’s faces without ir consent. 

Legislation similar to San Francisco’s is pending in Oakland, California, and on Thursday ar proposed ban was introduced in Somerville, Massachusetts. 

Bedoya said a ban in San Francisco, “most techlogically vanced city in our country,” would send a warning to or police departments thinking of trying out imperfect techlogy. But Daniel Castro, vice president of industry-backed Information Techlogy and Invation Foundation, said ordinance is too extreme to serve as a model. 

“It might find success in San Francisco, but I will be surprised if it finds success in a lot of or cities,” he said. 

San Francisco is home to tech invators such as Uber, Airbnb and Twitter, but city’s relationship with industry is testy. Some supervisors in City Hall are calling for a tax on stock-based compensation in response to a wave of San Francisco companies going public, including Lyft and Pinterest. 

At same time, San Francisco is big on protecting immigrants, civil liberties and privacy. In vember, nearly 60% of voters approved a proposition to strengn data privacy guidelines. 

city’s proposed face-recognition ban is part of broer legislation aimed at regulating use of surveillance by city departments. legislation applies only to San Francisco government and would t affect companies or people who want to use techlogy. It also would t affect use of facial recognition at San Francisco International Airport, where security is mostly overseen by federal ncies. 

Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on bill Tuesday. 

San Francisco police say y stopped testing face recognition in 2017. Spokesman David Stevenson said in a statement department looks forward to “developing legislation that dresses privacy concerns of techlogy while balancing public safety concerns of our growing, international city.” 

Supervisor Aaron Peskin ackwledges his legislation, called “Stop Secret Surveillance Ordinance,” isn’t very tech-friendly. But public oversight is critical given potential for abuse, he said. 

techlogy often misfires. Studies have shown error rates in facial-analysis systems built by Amazon, IBM and Microsoft were far higher for darker-skinned women than lighter-skinned men. 

Even if facial recognition were perfectly accurate, its use would pose a severe threat to civil rights, especially in a city with a rich history of protest and expression, said Matt Cagle, attorney at ACLU of rrn California. 

“If facial recognition were ded to body cameras or public-facing surveillance feeds, it would threaten ability of people to go to a protest or hang out in Dolores Park without having ir identity tracked by city,” he said, referring to a popular park in San Francisco’s Mission District. 

Local critics of San Francisco’s legislation, however, worry about hampering police investigations in a city with a high number of vehicle break-ins and several high-profile annual pares. y want to make sure police can keep using merchants and residents’ video surveillance in investigations without bureaucratic hassles. 

Joel Engardio, vice president of grassroots group Stop Crime SF, wants city to be flexible. 

“Our point of view is, rar than a blanket ban forever, why t a moratorium so we’re t using problematic techlogy, but we open door for when techlogy improves?” he said. 

Such a moratorium is under consideration in Massachusetts Legislature, where it has backing of Republican and Democratic senators. 

Often, a government’s facial recognition efforts happen in secret or go unticed. In Massachusetts, motor vehicle registry has used techlogy since 2006 to prevent driver’s license fraud, and some police ncies have used it as a tool for detectives. 

“It is techlogy we use,” said Massachusetts State Police Lt. Tom Ryan, ding that “we tend t to get too involved in publicizing” that fact. Ryan and ncy declined to answer furr questions about how it’s used. 

Massachusetts Sen. Cynthia Creem, a Democrat and sponsor of moratorium bill, said she worries about a lack of standards protecting public from inaccurate or biased facial recognition techlogy. Until better guidelines exist, she said, “it shouldn’t be used” by government. 

California Highway Patrol does t use face recognition techlogy, spokeswoman Fran Cler said. 

California Department of Motor Vehicles spokesman Marty Greenstein says facial recognition techlogy “is specifically t allowed on DMV photos.” State Justice Department spokeswoman Jennifer Molina said her ncy does t use face ID techlogy, and policy states “DOJ and requesters shall t maintain DMV ims for purpose of creating a database” unless authorized. 

Legislators also sought a face recognition moratorium this year in Washington, home state of Microsoft and Amazon, but it was gutted following industry and police opposition. Microsoft inste backed a lighter-touch proposal as part of a broer data privacy bill, but deliberations stalled before lawmakers journed late last month.