Could that happen? Sure.
But SF Board of Supervisors have SO MANY REALLY BAD PROBLEMS they need to be solving.
Instead they are choosing to be pro-active legislating against tech (because they hate tech, let's admit it). Pro-active legislation is something that should be higher level -- state senate, federal, etc. Local politicians should be listening to their constituents to determine their priorities.
They need to get off their butts and solve our homelessness problem with the $50k per homeless individual they now have in their yearly budget. Why do I still see crap all over the streets? Why do I feel like I'm going to be attacked when I'm in the streets?
Some guy stabbed himself with a knife right buy the Caltrain station last year. If that was an isolated event, I wouldn't have a problem.
Their priorities are so out of whack.
I don't understand how this post caused so many knee jerk reactions to homelessness and housing etc. I swear you bring up _anything_ related to San Francisco and it triggers people. If you hate the city so much how can you stand living there?
There is no excuse for a city with the per-capita wealth of San Francisco to suck as bad as it does, and "overzealous law enforcement" is not even on the list of problems the place actually has.
When a basic level of order is not being maintained, hand-wringing about a hypothetical police state falls flat with members of the public, some of whom are thinking fuck it, moving to Singapore sounds nice right about now.
There used to be an easy solution to this: vote for change. The problem, in my opinion, is that San Francisco has passed the political event horizon of single party rule. There is a monopoly government with no hope for competition and a huge welfare state that keeps the machine moving along. This won’t stop until they run out of other people’s money or Roombas are sophisticated enough to clean up streets. Of course, they’ll ban those too.
I live in one of those cities mentioned and while it has its own problems like any place does, it's quite remarkable how safe it is. You'd have no problem walking alone down some shady alleys as long as you mind your own business.
Some numbers if you want them:
Also Tokyo seems pretty great, but I haven't lived there.
He was in the hospital for quite some time.
Another guy I know was shot 3 times when someone tried to rob him & he ran. He almost lost his ability to walk.
It's a dangerous city.
Lived all over Los Angeles for over a decade and never even witnessed an armed robbery, let alone experienced one. Never had my car or house broken into either.
SF is overrun with dangerous heroin needles, human shit on the streets, burglary, and armed robbery. It's just pathetic and the amount of denial about it is enough to make you think some of the residents are insane.
There were 42 homicides in San Francisco (2018).
There were 184 homicides in Memphis last year (2018), Memphis has roughly 200,000 less people than San Francisco
There were 156 homicides in Indianapolis last year (2018), Indianapolis has roughly the same population as San Francisco
There were 200 homicides in Kansas City (2018), Kansas City is roughly 1/2 the population of San Francisco
If you look at St. Louis and Baltimore you'll realize there are places of similar or smaller population with much more crime
There were 186 homicides in St. Louis (2018), St. Louis is roughly 1/3 the population of San Francisco
San Francisco compared to the rest of the United States is relatively safe and the entire Bay Area is actually getting safer including San Francisco (58 homicides in 2016).
"please remember that there are coalitions of activists advocating multiple issues for civil rights simultaneously, and that a victory in one area (e.g. fighting the surveillance state) is neither mutually exclusive nor to the detriment of another equal or greater social ill (e.g. homelessness)."
oh and "Instead they are choosing to be pro-active legislating against tech..."
While the legislation is pre-emptive (being rolled out before an invasive technology becomes widespread, which, duh), it is in no way pro-active.
This legislation passing is a reaction to years-long, tireless efforts of coalitions of privacy activists, religious/ethnic minority activists, and activists advocating for the undocumented.
By the same token, it doesn't really detract from anything else they should be doing, so using it as a reason to criticize other problems they have doesn't make much sense, unless you assume they can only do one thing at a time, which doesn't seem likely.
I would disagree that "it doesn't detract from anything else they should be doing." Clearly they aren't solving the important problems. What has been done in the last month?
The top thing every week, or perhaps every day, should be how they are solving the important problems. If they are blocked, they should mention how they are blocked and find alternative paths proactively.
Instead they dilute, defer, and distract. These problems have been going on for years, with some of the top-most funding of any city in the country. If nothing is being done, then I think it's safe to assume that they are getting distracted by other things.
Drugs, homelessness, human feces, insane housing prices -- well at least we can solve theoretical facial recognition
(As with many social ills, it's likely a very small number of repeat offenders – so identifying & appropriate addressing them in a prioritized manner is the best way to a solution.)
Just report the poop on 311 and they go clean it up. Yes it works.
We should probably get a resolution on the table banning the use of ED-209s before people get killed.
But can I ask?
- Did you tell any legislators about your opinion? Did they listen to you, or do you just agree with their solution?
- Have you seen any of this tech/tracking anywhere before?
Ultimately I could theorize 100s of laws that would be sensical, but pose no present danger to citizens.
I would suggest that if something appears likely to cause a fire, you can:
a) Wait for the fire to start, put it out, then fix the cause.
b) Preemptively fix the cause, thus preventing the fire from occurring in the first place.
The questions are then "how likely is this to cause a fire" and "how bad would the damage be"? I would estimate that the likelihood for authorities to abuse widespread, centralized facial recognition deployments is approximately 100%, and that in many cases the damage would be extremely high.
I just can't understand why people in District 3 keep re-electing him... even bringing him back after terming out before. I guess his strategy works even while the city has all of these huge problems?
I'd argue the opposite--pro-active legislation is better if it is tried locally first. That way, we can see how different places try different approaches to a given problem to learn what the right approach is to use when later the problem is addressed at the state or national level.
Also- many activist coalitions will simultaneously advocate for legislation through several local and state levels. It’s actually sometimes ineffective to take the ‘one or the other’ approach.
Now you never will.
Do you see a way facial recognition technology would be used to solve the homelessness problem? Like, I'm not sure how you see them being connected, or how banning it will harm efforts to address homelessness.
Isn't this a benefit cause the money saved not doing facial recognition can be used for things that do matter to you?
The reason you see lots of homeless people is because there are lots of poor people who are homeless. Simple as that.
But, as always, the SF supes are entranced by high-viz lo-impact measures. It’s their MO.
But it's undermined by the fact that they're not actually making progress on the actual crises (of which I'd put housing at the top, followed by an overdominant car culture) — so it's more like they're simultaneously failing to walk and failing to chew.