Instead I moved out of SF. Good luck, folks.
Having said that, the San Francisco government has demonstrated beyond all doubt that they are incapable of carrying out even basic functions, let alone implementing a brand new, cutting edge facial recognition system. So a law like this is pointless to begin with.
The fact that people are forced into such awful situations strengthens the message of helping the downtrodden: Everybody is entitled to the necessities of life, so as to never be placed in such a predicament.
You seem to negate the fact that the costs are burdened by law-abiding citizens to have them in jail/prison, anyway.
Certainly, the costs of social structures for those people are far less than a for-profit system of incarceration; which, as it is currently structured, only benefits from a minimum volume of people being maintained in the incarceration system, itself?
You admit that there's different classes of people who commit the petty crimes, so that - in and of itself - demonstrates that each class would require specific redress for their situation.
Finally, since they are petty crimes, in and of themselves, wouldn't facial recognition be rough the equivalent of dropping a bomb on an ant hill? The scope of the effect far-outweighs the supposed benefits.
There is a cost yes, but the possibility of jail and all of its restrictions is also a big disincentive for would-be criminals. Right now, the ability of this subset of folks to live in SF on their own terms, appropriating public property, committing crimes, and not facing consequences, is a big incentive for them to become more brazen, and for others like them to come to SF to live that lifestyle (since they would face no consequences).
My point is that it isn't necessarily true that the same number would be jailed, and so the cost tradeoffs are unclear.
> Certainly, the costs of social structures for those people are far less than a for-profit system of incarceration
I'd need to see data on that. But I also think we could reduce the standards at jails to reduce costs further, if needed. And the additional benefit of containment has many benefits that confer utility on other citizens (not having to constantly be alert or think about the heightened risk of crime).
> Finally, since they are petty crimes, in and of themselves, wouldn't facial recognition be rough the equivalent of dropping a bomb on an ant hill? The scope of the effect far-outweighs the supposed benefits.
I feel like this is implicitly adopting a fallacious slippery slope argument. I'm talking about using facial recognition to more regularly identify/track/detain criminals. This would be accomplished by utilizing feeds from public spaces, where it is already legal to record, and simply being more efficient in the processing and analysis of those feeds, which humans already are able to access and view manually.
In the same way that our _existing_ police forces have not turned into some dystopian social negative, the addition of facial recognition to their tools is unlikely to turn into the same. I agree that there is a line that can be crossed, and we should be cognizant of that, but am just saying that I don't think we are there. In adopting facial recognition for local law enforcement, we wouldn't be changing the laws or expanding the legal rights that govern how police operate or removing the processes/avenues against police abuse. We're simply using an existing technology to make them more effective.
Coddling addicts (by possibly excusing/overlooking any associated criminal actions) because it is a struggle in a later stage of addiction seems like a removal of the disincentives that keep people from going down that path in the first place. Also, I really am not for social support or a different (relaxed) enforcement of the law for addicts _above_ the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property.
In 1999, I sold the stock radio from my 2000 Dodge Neon on eBay for $40!
This is correct :) I bought the 2000 model in October or November of '99.
I am sure this idea is not new, but I think it is important to keep it in the conversation as the number and capability of sensors dramatically increases over the next decade.
"Fix" has a lot of potential meanings. If your goal is a more humane solution this is going to backfire. If the majority of the city becomes incensed at the homeless because of crime and security concerns they'll be hardened and in favor of harsher, crueler solutions rather than compassionate ones.
The most successful protests (I'm thinking civil rights movement) were peaceful and didn't involve harming people.
It's one thing to enforce some kind of dystopia, but locking up people for breaking into cars seems like it shouldn't be a particularly radical proposal.
On the other hand, if we are not able to locate and arrest whoever defecated on the sidewalk, maybe we'll resort to building more toilets.
edit: I have faith that San Francisco is progressive enough to not allow widespread harsh and cruel punishment for the less fortunate based on group association.
Fixing the mental heath system that Reagan dismantled would be a far better approach, and a persistent camera + facial recognition system could allow for more effective identification of those that would benefit from commitment.
True, that would be the real solution, and then we wouldn't need those pesky bandages. No pathogens in the air, no risk of infection. Leaving wounds open also helps bystanders feel the problem, and probably motivates some to go into medical research or to work harder at it.
But "visible infections will motivate the end of disease" is a batshit insane public health program, and "car break-ins will motivate the end of capitalism" works about as well as an anti-poverty strategy.
Seems quickly solvable with a few honeypot cars. AFAIK isn't not entrapment if you don't ask them to do it. I imagine it's a relatively small number of people doing it. A month or two of honeypot cars would clear up that issue
But also, that would mean you could assume in a row of cars, the ones with tinted windows were most worth breaking into (which would also defeat the traditional “keep expensive things out of sight” mechanism).
My current car had really dark tint (maybe 5-15% VLT) when I bought it, and didn't really notice because I was interested in the vehicle. After I bought it, I realized that the tint isn't even legal. However, I've had the car for several years now and haven't been pulled over for it, and also haven't been broken into. Truthfully, I think tint is a detractor, because the purp can't see much, so they don't chance a B&E for nothing. I've become a fan of dark tint and I'm planning on putting it on all my vehicles.
FR isn’t bad in and of itself. What is needed is regulation governing that data.
Not that we can do much about it. It is going to happen eventually .
There is a common pattern I've noticed in discussions about San Francisco.
Person A: San Francisco should implement <solution that provides relief in the near-future>.
Person B: That's just a bandaid over the problem. It's better to just fix <problem that has plagued humanity for all of history>.
Usually, the solution to <problem that has always plagued humanity> requires large changes to our economic system or society that would take decades, if not lifetimes. I'm not opposed to such changes, but it seems naive to me to not do quality-of-life improvements because they would be unnecessary if our society was massively different.
If this is how the city is managed, it's no surprise that it's a mess.
Personally I don't agree, but I can see why a person would think that way.
Increased surveillance would have made zero difference. For whatever reason the activity was simply tolerated.
Even someone who obeys the speed limit would get dozens of tickets per year.
1. It can only identify people it already has facial recognition for. So that means people who are already in the system - who you already have fingerprints as well.
2. Can facial recognition provide cause for a warrant? If it can, what happens if its accuracy is biased (see the numerous studies showing “accurate” facial recognition systems are in the order of 15%-20% less accurate at identifying women of color than white men). Seems like that would be reason to get the warrant dismissed and subsequent evidence removed - based on my years of legal experience watching tv ;)
3. Can this be used to identify wanted people randomly on the street, or is it just retroactive (eg there was a crime, identify the person in the picture). The latter is significantly less of a problem (imo) than continuous live identification.
4. How long is this data archived? Who is responsible when it leaks?
What I'd rather see is twofold:
1.) A right to wear a mask. Both legally and for it to become socially acceptable. We should have a right to protect our privacy, when we want it.
2.) Open data when it comes to this. Otherwise I feel that power will centralize with governments and larger private orgs. By opening the data set, the system can be used for good. This would have to include some sort of authentication system as well - possibly something like 2fa where an alert comes to your phone that you have to authorize before an entity can query your facial recognition stats.
Given my vague recollections of the Supremacy Clause  of the Constitution, I don't think a local ordinance like this could have legal effect on the feds, even if it purported to.