I live in Portland. This legislation is an obvious no-brainer; we've known since Philip K. Dick that this sort of technology is primarily meant to harm and control the populace.
As a nice side benefit, the sort of neoliberal surveillance-advertising monolith that we see in "Minority Report" is also banned.
Edit: So many downvotes! Do y'all want to use your words? It's starting to seem like HN users want to build panopticons and they're upset that we legislated that possibility away.
I've advocated for mass-surveillance and facial recognition for policing on here so many times, and every time I voice my opinion on it I get downvoted. The HN crowd is most certainly pro-privacy when it comes to this topic.
Sure. Do you want to explain why you believe that we need more police? Right now our nation is in the middle of a massive consideration: Maybe we have had too many police. This comes on the heels of police evolving from slave patrols [0], police torturing the populace [1], etc.
I guess you could say I'm wanting more enforcement/prosecution, not necessarily more physical police presence. One could make the case that the reason more policing was advocated/promoted in the first place and grew to this level was because we had a problem of enforcement and conviction.
Better and more automated enforcement might reduce the amount of police we want/need and the amount of police interactions we have as well. The quicker we get there, the quicker we can actually decide which laws are non-sense and perhaps just require fines instead of physical jail time.
Imagine a hypothetical perfect scenario whereby we have a non-corruptible AI that watches security-camera footage that is next to ubiquitous in public areas. Suppose it has really good facial recognition capabilities too and can clearly detect + see who committed an assault/rape/murder. Have a bit of "manual" vetting by prosecutors (add double-blind + other steps to prevent bias) before proceeding, and voila you have N-amount less need of having police patrolling around to "deal" with this specific crime that can be automatically picked up.
Even being able to automatically pick up on a murder/assault/rape happening and automatically and immediately dispatching police can save lives, so many lives. Just this simple scenario is one that should be so powerful to convince people of the benefits, yet hypothetical "big brother", "privacy" and "potential abuse" counter-arguments are somehow more important than peoples' lives.
Face detection != face recognition. They don't really spell out if face detection without recognition is kosher, but face ID by advertisers is explicitly verboten.
It doesn't call out advertisers directly but it does call out the Minority Report style ad serving.
IANAL but sec. A: defines FRT as "comparing the facial features of a probe image with the features
of images contained in an image repository (one-to-many search)."
"Private Entity shall not use Face Recognition Technologies in Places of Public Accommodation"
"John Anderton, you could use a Guinness right now!" style targeted advertising requires matching features of the face (eyes) to a repository to get the name.
Right, but if that was part of a social media app (say a hypothetical "Instagram display advertising" product) then it is explicitly included in the language: "Exceptions. The prohibition in this Chapter does not apply to use of Face Recognition Technologies:... In automatic face detection services in social media applications."
While I understand the difference between detection and recognition I think an exception naming both recognition and detection is likely to be viewed by a court as permissive.
Otherwise what does that exception mean? I'm not aware of any detection functionality in any social media application that isn't tied to recognition.
As a nice side benefit, the sort of neoliberal surveillance-advertising monolith that we see in "Minority Report" is also banned.
Edit: So many downvotes! Do y'all want to use your words? It's starting to seem like HN users want to build panopticons and they're upset that we legislated that possibility away.