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