Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sderk

San Francisco moves toward ban on use of facial recognition technology

Recommended Posts

Quote

SAN FRANCISCO - San Francisco officials on Tuesday voted 8 to 1 to ban the purchase and use of facial recognition technology by city personnel, in a move to regulate tools that local Silicon Valley companies helped develop.

The ordinance, which also would require city departments to submit surveillance technology policies for public vetting, can become final after a second vote next week by the same officials, the city's Board of Supervisors.

 

The action puts San Francisco at the forefront of increasing discontent in the United States over facial recognition, which government agencies have used for years and now has become more powerful with the rise of cloud computing and artificial intelligence technologies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/san-francisco-moves-toward-ban-use-facial-recognition-technology-n1005726

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism is as socialism does....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with it when it comes to looking for suspects in crimes.  If that's what it's being used for, then that's the proper route to take.  It shouldn't be used for spying.  If it is, then that's not the technologies fault, it's the users'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

There's nothing wrong with it when it comes to looking for suspects in crimes.  If that's what it's being used for, then that's the proper route to take.  It shouldn't be used for spying.  If it is, then that's not the technologies fault, it's the users'.

It is extensively used here in china. There are cameras on every street corner. Subway stations. All over the place. You are rarely not on camera.

I dunno. I just don't like this new world where it is nearly impossible to drop off the grid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple thoughts here: 

 

1. They can pass all the laws/rules they want - Once the technology is out there, it's out there.  Hell, retailers are even using it to synch up Social Media with in-store customers. For example, in-store displays showing items similar to things you've bought before - even using YOUR body/face. So far, that's not been rolled out, but it's already been tested and displayed. 

1a) But more to the point; Big Gubmint WILL use it - pointing toward 'exigent threats' and whatnot. 

2. Even now, it's not nearly as good as BG would have you think. It's just not. Look up the case of Radavan Karadich. Sometimes, law enforcement (and vegas for example) 'slow rolls' technology - making you think it's not as good/pervasive/invasive as it is. Other times, they WANT you to believe it's better than it is. - Serves as a deterrent regardless. 

3. The key is what databases they're able to synch with. It's the same thing with Genetic testing companies like 23&me. What's not reported is there's a 3rd party in between. Fine, you have all my unique data points stored up. You can tell if I've visited your store (for ex) before.  - But it's whether than link that data with Driv Lic then to Experian, then to...  that's the real battle. 

4. While everybody's whining about the 1st and 2nd amendments, the Fourth is being completely shredded. Not just by LEO, but more nefariously, by insurance companies, drug makers and other mass commercial enterprises. 

6. If you want to know where Amurica is headed in the next 5-10 years?  Look no further than Singapore: Massive wealth concentration, near total surveillance and huge media censorship.  (even jokes about one's mother in law are verboten as derogatory to the family unit).    - Gee, any of this sound familiar?   

5. And if you want to think REALLY nefariously, well, merge commercially available genetic mapping with the hugely promising (and incredibly dangerous) genetic modification therapy.  

....Makes Orwell look like Mark Twain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

It is extensively used here in china. There are cameras on every street corner. Subway stations. All over the place. You are rarely not on camera.

I dunno. I just don't like this new world where it is nearly impossible to drop off the grid. 

Yeah.  I'm generally not in step with SF city officials, but I agree with this one.  I don't even like traffic light cameras.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vuduchile said:

Yeah.  I'm generally not in step with SF city officials, but I agree with this one.  I don't even like traffic light cameras.  

If it’s just being used for video evidence of a wreck to show who’s at fault I’m fine with it. But those that take a picture of peoples license plates and sending them a ticket in the mail? No I don’t agree with that and think that practice should be banned. Especially since some of those lights turn from yellow to red incredibly fast and to avoid from getting a ticket you have to essentially slam on your breaks which could cause accidents  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

It is extensively used here in china. There are cameras on every street corner. Subway stations. All over the place. You are rarely not on camera.

I dunno. I just don't like this new world where it is nearly impossible to drop off the grid. 

Without surveillance camera's, we wouldn't know that Jussie Smolett is a lying piece of crap.  Like I said, unless it's only being used for criminal activity, then I'm fine with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see it used for sure in certified kidnapping cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

If it’s just being used for video evidence of a wreck to show who’s at fault I’m fine with it. But those that take a picture of peoples license plates and sending them a ticket in the mail? No I don’t agree with that and think that practice should be banned. Especially since some of those lights turn from yellow to red incredibly fast and to avoid from getting a ticket you have to essentially slam on your breaks which could cause accidents  

I don't have a problem with this.  All citizens have the right to call out law breakers... regardless of what the law is, point blank and period.  If you don't like it, then don't break the law.  It really is that simple.  Also, a very little known fact is that lights are supposed to be timed and metered.

When you get your drivers license, you had to pass a written test, didn't you?  Do you remember what the driving test says about "following distance"?  It says that you are are supposed to take the speed limit and divide by 10.  That number is how many (average), car lengths you should be behind the car in front of you.  That "formula" is the exact same one that is applied to traffic lights... for this very reason.  Take the speed limit and divide by 10.  That number is the amount of seconds it takes for the light to go from yellow to red.  By law, that has to be 100% accurate.  So, if the speed limit of the road you are traveling on is 35 mph, then 100% of the time, the traffic light on that road must take 3.5 seconds to go from yellow to red.  If that's not the case, you can fight the ticket and win.  Here's the thing.  You have the right to go out and test that yourself (with video evidence), and in 100 occurrences, if the light turns red ONE time in less than 3.5 seconds, you win your case.

Any light that turns "from yellow to red incredibly fast" is not timed properly and your ticket can be fought and won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate technology and wish we still had flip phones so I'm not totally up to snuff with facial recognition. How does this technology work on blacks and asians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about body mechanic recognition? Based off my height and my walking pattern I can be tracked without my face. Especially in places like Chicago where they have 32k cameras (jussy) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I don't have a problem with this.  All citizens have the right to call out law breakers... regardless of what the law is, point blank and period.  If you don't like it, then don't break the law.  It really is that simple.  Also, a very little known fact is that lights are supposed to be timed and metered.

When you get your drivers license, you had to pass a written test, didn't you?  Do you remember what the driving test says about "following distance"?  It says that you are are supposed to take the speed limit and divide by 10.  That number is how many (average), car lengths you should be behind the car in front of you.  That "formula" is the exact same one that is applied to traffic lights... for this very reason.  Take the speed limit and divide by 10.  That number is the amount of seconds it takes for the light to go from yellow to red.  By law, that has to be 100% accurate.  So, if the speed limit of the road you are traveling on is 35 mph, then 100% of the time, the traffic light on that road must take 3.5 seconds to go from yellow to red.  If that's not the case, you can fight the ticket and win.  Here's the thing.  You have the right to go out and test that yourself (with video evidence), and in 100 occurrences, if the light turns red ONE time in less than 3.5 seconds, you win your case.

Any light that turns "from yellow to red incredibly fast" is not timed properly and your ticket can be fought and won.

Exactly but then that costs you both time and money. It’s a waste, a hassle, and an abuse imo. Say for instance someone is pulling a trailer and the light turns yellow with them coming up to it. It would be almost impossible for them to stop even by slamming on breaks. Light turns red, camera snaps a picture, and bam. They are slapped with a ticket. Those things are horrible and should not be allowed. Luckily I’ve never gotten a ticket from those but I whole heartedly believe they should be outlawed cause all they are is a money grabbing scheme 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Djgb13 said:

Exactly but then that costs both you time and money. It’s a waste, a hassle, and an abuse imo. Say for instance someone is pulling a trailer and the light turns yellow with them coming up to it. It would be almost impossible for them to stop even by slamming on breaks. Light turns red, camera snaps a picture, and bam. They are slapped with a ticket. Those things are horrible and should not be allowed. Luckily I’ve never gotten a ticket from those but I whole heartedly believe they should be outlawed cause all they are is a money grabbing scheme 

It does cost you time, but not money.  The camera only goes off if you are NOT already in the intersection when the light turns red.  If you're pulling a trailer, that's not going to get you a ticket.  Your trailer is an extension of your vehicle, it is not a separate entity.  If they send you a ticket, they send you photos.  Using that same information, you can send it back to them and say that the photo's are evidence that you were already in the intersection when the light turned from yellow to red and they will drop the ticket.

If you have to get proof for yourself and prove that you are innocent, then the only cost is time.  You are not responsible for any court fees or fines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

Socialism is as socialism does....

how is this socialism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

It does cost you time, but not money.  The camera only goes off if you are NOT already in the intersection when the light turns red.  If you're pulling a trailer, that's not going to get you a ticket.  Your trailer is an extension of your vehicle, it is not a separate entity.  If they send you a ticket, they send you photos.  Using that same information, you can send it back to them and say that the photo's are evidence that you were already in the intersection when the light turned from yellow to red and they will drop the ticket.

If you have to get proof for yourself and prove that you are innocent, then the only cost is time.  You are not responsible for any court fees or fines.

Yes but you still lose money from not working. Hence, the “it costs you money” part. It’s a major hassle and one that you should not have to deal with imo. Which is why I’m against them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

how is this socialism?

San Francisco is the epicenter of socialist policy in the US, they have been and remain at the fore of this push.  To include, and perhaps especially, their approach to city mangement that has resulted in a booming homeless population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

San Francisco is the epicenter of socialist policy in the US, they have been and remain at the fore of this push.  To include, and perhaps especially, their approach to city mangement that has resulted in a booming homeless population.

San Francisco does have Stephanie Judith Tanner, though. :wub:

 

She grew up to be a giant titttied doll baby. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Djgb13 said:

Yes but you still lose money from not working. Hence, the “it costs you money” part. It’s a major hassle and one that you should not have to deal with imo. Which is why I’m against them 

Yeah, that's true, that definitely can happen.  Though, their are courts that offer day and evening sessions in most cases.  You are allowed to reschedule, generally, for a more convenient time.  Also, if the information is mailed to you, and you're wrongfully accused, the information probably has your exoneration with it.  Like in the example you described about the trailer.  The information will show a picture of the "trailer" going through the red light, not your vehicle.  Meaning, you were already in the intersection.  You can just mail that back to them and tell them that and 99% of the time, they'll drop the charge and you won't be required to appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

San Francisco is the epicenter of socialist policy in the US, they have been and remain at the fore of this push.  To include, and perhaps especially, their approach to city mangement that has resulted in a booming homeless population.

that still doesn't make removing facial recognition socialist.  if anything, its a libertarian stance.  though Timmy Smith is right, it ain't going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

if anything, its a libertarian stance. 

this is true.  I have said before that only thing the left and right agree upon is that they hate libertarians.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herbivore said:

that still doesn't make removing facial recognition socialist.  if anything, its a libertarian stance.  though Timmy Smith is right, it ain't going away.

I disagree.  Socialism historically has been touted as the means to empower the people and socialists typically dont hope to create impoverished, oppressive disasters. In 1917 the  Bolsheviks took over,  the gulags were not their endgame.  They don’t set out to be oppressive and economically inefficient, it just works out that way every single time.

A big reason.... the failure to take human nature into account.  Socialism from below seems great, but always ends in oppression from above.  China uses a system to control people, kind of like a credit rating system, for behaviors.  Cameras, and constant monitors are key to it.  No....this is a standard socialist move to control the people and erode freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

I disagree.  Socialism historically has been touted as the means to empower the people and socialists typically dont hope to create impoverished, oppressive disasters. In 1917 the  Bolsheviks took over,  the gulags were not their endgame.  They don’t set out to be oppressive and economically inefficient, it just works out that way every single time.

A big reason.... the failure to take human nature into account.  Socialism from below seems great, but always ends in oppression from above.  China uses a system to control people, kind of like a credit rating system, for behaviors.  Cameras, and constant monitors are key to it.  No....this is a standard socialist move to control the people and erode freedoms.

but they're banning the cameras and constant monitors...right?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

but they're banning the cameras and constant monitors...right?  

Let me know if/when that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

Let me know if/when that happens.

the op?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vuduchile said:

Yeah.  I'm generally not in step with SF city officials, but I agree with this one.  I don't even like traffic light cameras.  

6 hours ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Good. That's creepy 1984 sh!t. 

:thumbsup:

I rarely agree with anything coming out of San Francisco. This is one time that I do. I realize that I have no expectation of privacy when I'm in public but that doesn't mean I want the .gov recording me everywhere I go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 5-Points said:

:thumbsup:

I rarely agree with anything coming out of San Francisco. This is one time that I do. I realize that I have no expectation of privacy when I'm in public but that doesn't mean I want the .gov recording me everywhere I go. 

Seriously.  How’s a guy supposed to enjoy a glory hole knowing the eye in the sky has a video of him going in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vuduchile said:

Seriously.  How’s a guy supposed to enjoy a glory hole knowing the eye in the sky has a video of him going in?

Right? Or enjoy an afternoon at a geek's mom's house if they can record me errrrrr... him ducking out the back door after throwin her one?  :unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, kilroy69 said:

How about body mechanic recognition? Based off my height and my walking pattern I can be tracked without my face. Especially in places like Chicago where they have 32k cameras (jussy) 

I heard ears are the new fingerprints. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

The future is going to suck. Glad I'll be too old or dead to care. Anonymity is disappearing. 

Dude, right now, I mean RIGHT now?

- Is Yesterday's Future.

 

 

Mind.

 

Blown. 💥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×