
Portland adopts landmark facial recognition ordinances - anigbrowl
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/515772-portland-adopts-landmark-facial-recognition-ordinance
======
dang
All: please don't turn this thread into an ideological flamewar. It's an
interesting story and it's possible to have a curious conversation about it,
so let's do that instead.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
erentz
How does this apply to something like Facebook scanning someone else’s photo
and detecting my face in it?

So for an entity present in Portland they cannot run facial recognition in a
public place in Portland. But what if entity A is partnered with entity B.
Entity B procures images of people in public in Portland city limits and
places them on a server in another state. Entity A, which is conveniently
headquartered elsewhere takes the data from the server and runs facial
recognition. This is clearly facial recognition of persons in public in
Portland. But it’s not by a Portland business and the computing isn’t done in
Portland either.

~~~
jonas21
There's a specific exception for social media applications:

 _> 34.10.040 Exceptions.

> The prohibition in this Chapter does not apply to use of Face Recognition
> Technologies:

> A. To the extent necessary for a Private Entity to comply with federal,
> state, or local laws;

> B. For user verification purposes by an individual to access the
> individual’s own personal or employer issued communication and electronic
> devices; or

> C. In automatic face detection services in social media applications. _ [1]

That seems like it would include what Facebook is doing -- but the ordinance
never defines a "social media application" and also uses face detection and
face recognition interchangeably in some places, so it's hard to say for sure
what it allows.

[1]
[https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff42c/t/5f3ad787ba3fd27776e444af/1597691785249/Ordinance+to+ban+use+of+FRT+in+Places+of+Public+Accommodation+plus+code+amendment+-Final.pdf)

~~~
kortex
It seems unclear whether face detection unto itself is allowed. Eg automated
face blurring. The spirit is definitely the one-to-many searching.

This law could certainly use more clarity.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
I think it's good that it is simple. People are constantly complaining about
the excess of legalese in various contexts. A law that can be understood is
cool and a breath of fresh air. I doubt the judges will have any trouble
parsing between face blurring and face recognition.

Also, the definition excludes the face blurring use case. "'Face Recognition'
means the automated searching _for a reference image_ in an image repository."
Although that detail does mean that if you're not searching for "a reference
image" then you would technically be clear of the law's restriction. What if
you build features based on a reference image then delete the image? Or what
if what you're searching for is a person and the image is not the search
target?

That I suspect would take more effort to parse. But the penalties are pretty
light and the provable damages done by facial recognition are pretty minor, so
if organizations get a lot of value out of facial recognition then they might
want to try rolling the dice.

~~~
nl
_Although that detail does mean that if you 're not searching for "a reference
image" then you would technically be clear of the law's restriction. What if
you build features based on a reference image then delete the image? Or what
if what you're searching for is a person and the image is not the search
target?_

Any reasonable interpertation would find that the representation used during
search doesn't affect what is happening.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Even if the representation isn't an image? The code seems pretty explicit on
that point. The courts seem to only do interpretation where the code is
ambiguous. They don't seem to guess where the law is explicit. That being
said, if there is a problem they can always just change the law. Maybe the
signalling effect will be enough. Companies won't want to adopt expensive
technological workarounds while knowing that the city is motivated to close
loopholes.

~~~
nl
Yes absolutely.

Searching for text uses a TF-IDF or BM25 representation.

The only way to make image search work is to use a non-pixel representation.
No court will find you aren't searching for an image because of that.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
Sure, you have to use a non-pixel representation to make an image search
index. I understand that. However, if the end result of the search is not an
image, then is it the same? For example, you could learn some very basic
features from an image, like "person's skin has this hue, their eyes are this
color, etc." If you wrote that down and made it searchable, with the search
target being a person's unique identifier (SSN or whatever), it would surprise
me if that ran afoul of this rule, even if the features were extracted from an
image. You can't be searching for a reference image if there is no reference
image to search for.

Maybe I'm wrong though. IANAL and honestly it doesn't matter. But if I were
writing this law, I would write that no one would be allowed to use any system
that extracts and searches using or makes searchable information about human
faces. That would seem to cover my proposed workaround, and I doubt it would
hurt any other use case that they meant to protect.

------
OzCrimson
I'm listening to this podcast about the ban and it's loaded with concerns.
[https://xraypod.com/show/banned-in-pdx/biz-and-tech-
groups-a...](https://xraypod.com/show/banned-in-pdx/biz-and-tech-groups-
across-the-country-fight-portland-s-facial-recognition-ban)

For one, the lobbyists and pro-tech groups that are against the ban, have
nothing to say about what happens when the tech is wrong. They're painting a
perfect world where the tech is solid and used for things like identifying
missing children.

The podcast describes the high level of false positives in the algorithms.
They say "top performing" algorithms are pretty good, but generally speaking
... no. Not good.

And there's the implementation. How does this get rolled out? Who's
responsible for breaches? Who can access the data? Will anyone be able to sell
access to the data?

But I always come back to: what happens when it's wrong? And I don't expect
perfection. KNOWING that this tech is flawed, it's important to ask "what
level of flawed is acceptable?"

~~~
colpabar
> _Will anyone be able to sell access to the data?_

This is an extremely concerning point, and one that a lot of people (myself
included) wouldn't even think about. If you search for "dmv" on this site,
there are several posts within the last year about DMVs all over the country
selling personal info. I really doubt police departments wouldn't do the same
with this data.

------
stjohnswarts
I can certainly get behind anything that lowers the amount of surveillance
that is happening. Good on Portland for respecting the rights of regular
everyday people instead of over-policing government and corporate entities.

~~~
cactus2093
Does this have that big an impact on surveillance though? You can still set up
all the cameras you want to record in public spaces (which i think is a good
thing, I.e. this allows people to film police just as much as it allows
always-on surveillance that can be used by police).

I don’t really understand why the law needs to take such a strong form. If it
said something like “you cannot convict someone on purely a facial recognition
match”, that would be a reasonable law and protect against the kind of bias in
AI that people are rightly worried about. You still need a human witness, or
need the whole jury to agree that the face in a video is the suspect. Maybe
the law can even make sure that a facial recognition match in a video is not
even admissible evidence in a trial.

But really facial recognition is just an automation tool. So this is a law
that says you’re not allowed to make use of a more efficient tool to solve
problems. Instead of doing an automated scan of available video footage to
look for a suspect’s face, we’ll just pay police officers for a hundred hours
of overtime to pour over footage manually until they find a match. (And of
course, if bias is the concern, there will continue to be bias in which cases
the police and DA feel are worth investing those resources in, and in manually
identifying a match).

I just don’t see how this kind of law that basically says “everyone must
pretend this ubiquitous technology doesn’t exist at all” is such a clear win.
And of course enforcing it as it becomes more and more ubiquitous will be near
impossible.

~~~
stjohnswarts
It has to start somewhere :) . I think cameras should be banned wholesale for
any use other than watching -your- property. No police cams, no public street
cams, etc. There is just too much potential for government abuse. It is the
job of police, FBI, NSA etc to do everything they can to capture/stop crooks
(of their various areas of interest). The Constitution (and general common
sense human rights) gets in the way of that and they will use every tactic
they can to get around it and stay legal or in a gray zone. This just gives
more incentive to them abuse their mandates. This is why there needs to be a
hard well defined wall against public surveillance by any government entity
without a very very specific warrant. This includes them using anything
obtained from a business. I mean down to the crime/individual/specific area of
the street. As it stands they want a web of cameras with auto identification
and tracking of everyone "just in case". That goes against any sense of
liberty to live your life as you see fit as long as you aren't breaking the
law. You really should not have to worry -at all- that big brother is
watching, listening, recording, or any of that until you start breaking the
law.

------
kebman
_Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind._ [1] 'Tis but
the first overture in the Butlerian Jihad.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(franchise)#The_Butlerian...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_\(franchise\)#The_Butlerian_Jihad)

~~~
AniseAbyss
Ix is descended from the US.

------
jMyles
This is absurd. If taking a photograph in a public place is protected 1st
amendment activity (and it is), then this amounts to telling me how I am
allowed to think about what data I already have a right to have.

I have a lot of respect for Hardesty (and I vigorously volunteer in PBEM NET,
a department she oversees), but I also notice that this comes on the heels of
local efforts to use facial recognition tech to identify abusive police
officers, who have been authorized (!) to cover their badge numbers here.

~~~
alex_young
How does the first amendment protect your right to photograph others, and even
if it does somehow, how does it protect your doing whatever you want with that
photo?

If you take a photo of someone and don’t obtain their permission to use it
aren’t you violating their right to privacy, which is clearly secured by the
forth amendment?

~~~
jMyles
> How does the first amendment protect your right to photograph others

I'll leave you to read the numerous SCOTUS rulings (and, for the purposes of
freedom in other jurisdictions, analogous court rulings) instead of trying to
explain myself.

In short: the fact that a photon bounces off of your face does not entitle you
to control every person who might capture it, in perpetuity, throughout time
and space.

I was born with eyes capable of a materially identical task as a CMOS sensor:
must I look away any time you I see you in public? Must I refrain from
remembering that I saw you? If I testify that you shot my friends and
neighbors with impact munitions - a nightly occurrence in this city - will it
be as reliable as if I had photographed you and compared your face to an index
of known violent repressive forces in Portland?

I find this logic to be the maximal case for ego: to believe it, you have to
believe that light itself is made for you alone.

> how does it protect your doing whatever you want with that photo

Do you generally dispute that people have a right to think about and process
data however they wish? Must I cover my ears if a state secret is uttered by a
journalist or friend? Must I refrain from thinking critically about whether it
implicates a powerful person in criminal activity?

Well, isn't it the same if we, the people of Portland, seek to compile
photographs of police officers who have been repeatedly abusing and
terrorizing us and use them to recognize their faces?

> their right to privacy, which is clearly secured by the forth amendment?

I know of no such plausible argument being made about the faces of people
appearing in public, and certainly no actual jurisprudence in the Western
legal tradition.

When in public, you can be reported on. You can be photographed and recorded.
If you decide to spray chemical weapons at people, you can be held
accountable.

~~~
michaelmrose
Just because your eyes are sort of like a cmos sensor and your brain sort of
like a recording device doesn't mean its exactly the same they very clearly
banned a process on an external computer. You are free to run your brains
built in facial recognition on anything you photograph and write them down in
pen.

What you aren't allowed to do is feed a stream of data to a computer and run
facial recognition over the stream.

It's pointless to pretend these activities are legally or literally equivalent
when this just isn't so. Additionally the first amendment seems to only apply
in this context if it pertains to freedom of the press. Presumably you would
have to argue that the inability to ask the computer to guess the identity of
all and sundry materially impaired your ability to report on current events.

Most of the people likely targeted by this law are apt to be neither
professional press nor citizen journalists and wont be able to take advantage
of this argument. Whereas citizens photographing cops would likely be able to
make this argument.

~~~
Reelin
> Additionally the first amendment seems to only apply in this context if it
> pertains to freedom of the press.

That wasn't my understanding. I thought that SCOTUS had repeatedly ruled that
you had absolutely no expectation of privacy when in a public location? It
seems weird to me to have a legally protected right to make recordings that
doesn't extend to their use (at least for personal purposes).

Even so, I suppose the ordinance might be legal because I've never heard of a
"right to use of facial recognition technology" or anything that would
otherwise imply that. That being said, I find the idea a bit disquieting. I
value privacy highly and have serious concerns about the current state of
affairs, but specific algorithms being disallowed on the level of an
individual person is highly concerning to me.

Isn't it only large actors (ie corporations and governments) where abuse
becomes a serious concern due to their geographic reach and available
resources?

~~~
michaelmrose
You having no expectation of privacy means that the person being photographed
has no constitutional rights as far as the constitution to protect. Conversely
the photographer has no first amendment right to take a picture save freedom
of the press.

If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow
citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this
scenario.

If both of these things are true this law creates a new right not to be
subject to facial recognition which if it doesn't contravene state or federal
legislation is perfectly legal.

Do you have a legal theory as to why this law would be problematic? The first
amendment seems like a dead end but if you would like to argue it could you
please expand on the matter?

~~~
jMyles
> Conversely the photographer has no first amendment right to take a picture
> save freedom of the press.

Why do you say this?

> If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their
> fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in
> this scenario.

Even if free press is the only basis for protection of the practice of
photography under the constitution, there is no requirement that press
activities be exclusively for the purpose of "information their fellow
citizenry", and no requirement that the person in question be part of the
"citizenry" in the first place.

Someone taking photographs in public is not required to disclose all
photographs in order for this activity to be protected. Press generally covers
not only publication, but documentation, research, and other press activities.
If I take a photo in public, the subsequent activities of performing research
and analysis of that photo are also protected activities.

~~~
michaelmrose
I would say this because the literal text is

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Wherein do you construe taking a picture to be a first amendment situation
save where it constitutes an act of communication? Press in current context
could be stretched broadly enough to fit basically anyone with a cell phone
but in order for it to be protected it has to be capturing something to share
with your fellow man.

A person taking a picture to share with their fellow man or even using facial
recognition to enrich that communication with more info could well be
protected but an org feeding a video stream into facial recognition to blanket
gather info on your fellow man would be apt to be disallowed.

~~~
jMyles
> I would say this because the literal text is

Isn't this statement _exactly_ what the 9th amendment says not to do when
interpreting the first 8?

> A person taking a picture to share with their fellow man or even using
> facial recognition to enrich that communication with more info could well be
> protected

...well, that's what's prohibited by this law.

> an org feeding a video stream into facial recognition to blanket gather info
> on your fellow man would be apt to be disallowed

...and that's _not_ prohibited by this law.

That's what we're dealing with here in Portland.

I hate to be an RTA guy, but did have you taken the opportunity to read the
ordinance?

~~~
michaelmrose
From TFA

> The first bars all city bureaus from acquiring or using the controversial
> technology with minimal exceptions for personal verification.

> The second blocks private entities from using the software that scans faces
> to identify them in all public accommodations.

Firstly the city isn't allowed to use facial recognition save for identifying
its own personnel. Second private entities ie everyone else including
individuals and corporate personages aren't allowed to use it in all "public
accommodations"

Here is a legal definition of public accommodations

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181)

7E is (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping
center, or other sales or rental establishment;

Here is a "private entity"

> (6) Private entity

The term “private entity” means any entity other than a public entity (as
defined in section 12131(1) of this title).

I originally just read the article but reading the full text of the law
doesn't change my perception now that I have read it.

It absolutely would forbid walmart from streaming their cams to facial
recognition software and while in theory citizen journalism could be
negatively effected it seems trivially arguable that any usage that serves the
interest of citizen journalism is already covered by the first amendment.

If you wonder WHY people want to ban facial recognition realize it is
notoriously inaccurate when applied to a large corpus of data especially with
bad photos wherein missidentification can trivially lead to the total
destruction of people's lives. Case in point.

[https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p...](https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-
pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/)

~~~
jMyles
I notice that you conveniently decided to exclude, among the exceptions
listed, "In automatic face detection services in social media applications." I
wonder why?

~~~
michaelmrose
I didn't choose to copy and paste the entire article into this discussion I
presume this means that people can post photos to facebook and facebook can
automatically tag people.

I'm assuming this exception is to preserve what a lot of people regard as
desirable functionality.

------
jxcole
I'm curious how laws like this would handle jurisdiction. If I take a photo in
Portland and send the data to Morocco where facial recognition is used and the
results are sent back to Portland, have I violated anything?

~~~
coolspot
iANAL, but I would imagine local laws are applied locally.

For example, I can buy an AR-15 without a pistol grip in California, travel to
any free state and attach a pistol grip to that rifle. Doing that I would not
violate California law, even though AR-15 with pistol grip is illegal in CA.

------
hirundo
"What makes Portland's legislation stand out from other cities is that we're
prohibiting facial recognition technology use by private entities in public
accommodations,"

Prohibition is too strict. Better would be to allow opt in, so that my hotel,
gym, uber, pizza parlor, etc., could recognize me and customize their service
accordingly if I consent.

~~~
kstrauser
As a practical matter, how could opt in work? Suppose you've opted in and I
haven't. We both walk into the pizza parlor. How does the system know that
you've opted in without attempting to recognize both of us?

~~~
stbtrax
It will try to recognize you but you will not be in the database, so it will
say match not found. Presumably nothing would be stored about you in that
interaction

~~~
TooCleverByHalf
> Presumably nothing would be stored about you in that interaction

Given how prevalent the tracking of users is, anonymous or otherwise, I'd be
extremely pessimistic about this assumption.

~~~
kstrauser
Same here. I don't want the system to even _try_ to recognize me. No one's
doing this stuff on site, which means that they'd be uploading my face to a
cloud provider and using their system, which means they'd be doing the things
people are having a problem with in the first place.

------
kepler1
What qualifies as part of the facial recognition chain? Does source video
count?

Because I could see an interpretation in which people filming police
activities and the people they arrest as no longer being allowed.

What about that?

~~~
nl
If they are running automatic facial recognition on the video then yes, it's
banned.

~~~
jackinloadup
The social media loophole seems ripe for exploit. As long as the destination
of the content goes to a social platform it's all free game.

I wonder what they will consider a social platform as people develop new
systems to get around this law. Cuz logic and unknown reasons.

~~~
Reelin
A lot of the comments here seem conflicting, to say the least. The article
has:

> use by private entities in public accommodations

Which still doesn't fully explain it for me. In an HN comment someone linked
what appears to be the ordinance in question:
([https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff...](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff42c/t/5f3ad787ba3fd27776e444af/1597691785249/Ordinance+to+ban+use+of+FRT+in+Places+of+Public+Accommodation+plus+code+amendment+-Final.pdf))

That says (§34.10.020 D) that a place of public accommodation is a "place or
service" offering various things. I'm not quite sure how to interpret the
wording "advantages, facilities, or privileges" though. In addition to public
businesses, I'm assuming that would include city parks (they seem like
facilities), but what about roads and sidewalks? I guess those offer
"advantages" and "privileges", at least?

But regarding the context of the earlier comments in this chain, it seems like
intent would be the key factor. Recording video with the intent to run facial
recognition against it, whether it was to be done by you or someone else,
would presumably qualify as a violation.

So what about recording large quantities of video without intending to run
facial recognition, for example a dash cam, but then later running it against
a specific segment in response to an incident?

~~~
nl
_Recording video with the intent to run facial recognition against it, whether
it was to be done by you or someone else, would presumably qualify as a
violation._

It seems to me quite clear that the act of running facial recognition is the
problem.

~~~
Reelin
I'm not clear on your meaning?

In context, an earlier comment asked about the legality of filming police
activities under this ordinance. I was pointing out that intent typically
matters to the courts.

~~~
nl
What's unclear? The law is written about the act of running facial
recognition. Videoing isn't banned, writing facial recognition software isn't
banned etc.

Sure - intent matters - but it's the act of running the facial recognition
software that is banned.

If you start videoing police and were stopped by police and the police could
show you were intending to run it through facial recognition then the court
_might_ find them stopping you was legal based on this.

But if you are filming police and live broadcasting it on Twitter or something
then it's pretty unlikely a court would find stopping you was legal under this
law. But if you streamed it to someone else having previously organised for
them to run recognition then stopping might be legal.

------
throwawaysea
This seems unconstitutional. It amounts to blocking photography in public
spaces and using those photos as you see fit.

It also seems very untimely. Portland is exactly the type of city that needs
surveillance, to identify and arrest criminals who are committing property
damage, theft, and arson as part of daily riots.

~~~
kstrauser
Where's your constitutional right to photograph me and use my photo on your
billboard if you see fit? If you don't believe that's OK, and it's clearly
not, then we can agree that there _are_ limits to your right to use
photographs you've taken of someone.

Also, I've heard approximately zero people _from Portland_ calling for more
police presence, even if it would cut down on the non-Portlanders traveling
there to start problems. From what I can tell, they're not asking for or
welcoming of that kind of "help".

~~~
markkanof
I live in Portland. I don’t live downtown where most of the videos you see are
coming from, but I do live in a neighborhood very close to downtown. Over the
past few months there have been a bunch of smashed windows (and presumably
theft) at many of the businesses on the main street, graffiti is out of
control, theft appears to be increasing as well. This is all just in my
neighborhood. There are also the fires being set downtown and other violence
between various battling groups. I can’t say for sure that putting more police
on the streets would solve all these problems, but we need to do something. We
are not headed on a good trajectory but for whatever reason it seems like our
political leaders are in support of this destruction. We do need help.

~~~
salmon30salmon
We must live near each other. For privacy I won't say where, but I am within
two miles of downtown East of the river. The neighborhood has changed for the
worse in the past 6 months by an insane amount. I don't feel safe and I'm a
fit young male.

~~~
markkanof
Yup, sounds like we are in pretty much the same neighborhood. I wouldn't yet
say I feel unsafe, but it sure doesn't seem like the city is moving in a
positive direction. It makes me sad because I love this city and maybe I'm
naive but I would like to believe that there are ways that we can address
injustices that have been perpetrated against some of our neighbors without
burning everything to the ground.

~~~
salmon30salmon
Unsafe is relative. I don't think I'll be assaulted, but I do think I could be
robbed, or my property stolen. There is also the constant risk of folks in
mental health crises or high as fuck being unreasonable or aggressive.

Stay safe, Portland is a good town at times, just it's 2020 you know?

------
markovbot
This is excellent, and remarkable! I'm hopeful that similar legislation will
be considered by other cities.

It is unfortunate that providing people such basic protections from some of
the worst evils of surveillance capitalism.

------
randallsquared
It won't be this year, or next, but fairly soon these laws are going to
implicitly restrict people who are using Neuralink 2030 from opening their
eyes.

~~~
markovbot
Probably a pretty good reason not to get whatever the hell a "Neuralink 2030"
is

~~~
hombre_fatal
We're living in the gold ages before everything we do within eyeshot of anyone
is recorded like that Black Mirror episode anyone can review/share anything
they've seen with their own eyes.

And it's going to be very interesting, to say the least. This facial
recognition war is just the start of our attempt to engineer ethics for the
new era.

I mean, just imagine how sex will be different in this world.

~~~
alexwennerberg
> We're living in the gold ages before everything we do within eyeshot of
> anyone is recorded like that Black Mirror episode anyone can review/share
> anything they've seen with their own eyes.

I very much doubt that. Just because it may be technically possible to some
degree at some point doesn’t mean that anyone would be interested in it. It’s
technically possible today to wear a mic and record everything you hear and
say for your entire life, but no one does that, and most people would find
anyone that did very weird.

~~~
Reelin
> It’s technically possible today to wear a mic and record everything you hear
> and say for your entire life, but no one does that, and most people would
> find anyone that did very weird.

I suspect that is largely due to technical limitations. Devices only recently
became small enough, and battery life would still be a limiting factor for
(say) your phone meaning you would need to carry a second device. Then there's
the issue with placement - modern microphones still don't seem to work when
obstructed by (for example) your pocket.

Contrast this with the (hypothetical) option to record everything using your
phone, without meaningfully impacting its battery life, while it was still in
your pocket. I think most people would actually opt to do that, even if it was
technically illegal in their jurisdiction. There's just not really any
downside and a whole bunch of potential upsides from the perspective of an
individual.

~~~
alexwennerberg
> Contrast this with the (hypothetical) option to record everything using your
> phone, without meaningfully impacting its battery life, while it was still
> in your pocket. I think most people would actually opt to do that, even if
> it was technically illegal in their jurisdiction. There's just not really
> any downside and a whole bunch of potential upsides from the perspective of
> an individual.

I think we have fundamentally different views on what non-tech people look for
out of technology, because I definitely disagree that “most people” would want
to do that.

------
Areading314
If you're looking for tech that will change the world, a good signal is when
people try to ban it.

~~~
triceratops
Not all "change the world" developments are for the better.

