An "Act establishing a moratorium on face recognition..."

[treee]

"... and other remote biometric surveillance systems"

Check out this Moratorium effected by the Massachusetts legislative branch:

Quote:WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that government use of face recognition poses unique and significant civil rights and civil liberties threats to the residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that face recognition technology has a history of being far less accurate in identifying the faces of women, young people, and dark skinned people, and that such inaccuracies lead to harmful “false positive” identifications.

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that many of the databases to which face recognition technology is applied are plagued by racial disparities and other biases, which generate copycat biases in face recognition data.

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that the broad application of face recognition in public spaces is the functional equivalent of requiring every person to carry and display a personal photo identification card at all times, which constitutes an unacceptable mass violation of privacy.

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court is likewise concerned about the deployment of other biometric surveillance systems, including gait and voice recognition, which raise similar concerns as face recognition.

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that the public use of biometric surveillance systems can chill the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech and association.

WHEREAS, the Massachusetts General Court finds that the benefits of using biometric surveillance systems, which are few and speculative, are greatly outweighed by their harms, which are substantial.

THEREFORE, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 4 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting at the end of section 13, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following:-

Section 14.

(a) Definitions. As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:

“Face recognition”, an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying an individual or capturing information about an individual based on the physical characteristics of an individual’s face, or that logs characteristics of an individual’s face, head, or body to infer emotion, associations, activities, or the location of an individual.

“Other remote biometric recognition”, an automated or semi-automated process that assists in identifying an individual or capturing information about an individual based on the characteristics of an individual’s gait, voice, or other immutable characteristic ascertained from a distance, or that logs such characteristics to infer emotion, associations, activities, or the location of an individual; provided, however, that other remote biometric recognition shall not include recognition based on DNA, fingerprints, or palm prints.

“Biometric surveillance system,” any computer software that performs face recognition or other remote biometric recognition.

“Commonwealth of Massachusetts”, any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose.

“Massachusetts government official”, any officer, employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose.

(b) Moratorium on government use of biometric surveillance.

Absent express statutory authorization, it shall be unlawful for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any Massachusetts government official to acquire, possess, access, or use any biometric surveillance system, or acquire, possess, access, or use information derived from a biometric surveillance system operated by another entity.

Statutory authorization for government use of a biometric surveillance system shall describe with particularity:

(i) the entities permitted to use the biometric surveillance system, the purposes for such use, and prohibited uses;

(ii) standards for use and management of information derived from the biometric surveillance system, including but not limited to data retention, sharing, access, and audit trails;

(iii) auditing requirements to ensure the accuracy of biometric surveillance system technologies, standards for minimum accuracy rates, and accuracy rates by gender, skin color, and age;

(iv) rigorous protections for due process, privacy, free speech and association, and racial, gender, and religious equity; and

(v) mechanisms to ensure compliance.

© Until such time as the General Court enacts an authorizing statute in accordance with subsection (b), the following provisions shall be in force:

(i) Admissibility. Except in a judicial proceeding alleging a violation of this section, no information obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible by the government in any criminal, civil, administrative or other proceeding.

(ii) Cause of Action. Any violation of this Act constitutes an injury and any person may institute proceedings against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or writ of mandamus in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this Act, and shall be entitled to recover actual damages and additional damages of an amount equal to $100 for each violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater. A court shall award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to a plaintiff who is the prevailing party in an action brought under this section.

(iii) Training. Violations of this Act by any Massachusetts government official shall result in consequences that may include retraining, suspension, or termination, subject to due process requirements.

It's good that some states are recognizing the potential issues with facial recognition and associated technologies. The penalties in their bill seem a bit soft to me though.



Source: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S1385

[Au165]

(01-24-2020, 08:51 PM)treee Wrote: "... and other remote biometric surveillance systems"

Check out this Moratorium effected by the Massachusetts legislative branch:


It's good that some states are recognizing the potential issues with facial recognition and associated technologies. The penalties in their bill seem a bit soft to me though.



Source: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/S1385

This is interesting as the roll out of facial recognition in airports is coming hard and fast. While the Mass. government won't be able to use it there won't be any slowing down the federal government based on some conversations I have been having with other industry professionals. People should prepare themselves because it's coming to corporations too, in fact some are already using it without anyone really noticing. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I'm all on board with facial recognition not being allowed in the US. It's probably a good tool for our military to use overseas against our enemies, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used in the US and on US citizens.

Maybe if enough states follow their lead, there will be a federal level enactment. Probably would include provisions that they could use it in airports and government buildings, but so long as it's out of the public, I can live with that as a compromise.

[Au165]

(01-27-2020, 12:34 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm all on board with facial recognition not being allowed in the US. It's probably a good tool for our military to use overseas against our enemies, but I don't think it should be allowed to be used in the US and on US citizens.

Maybe if enough states follow their lead, there will be a federal level enactment. Probably would include provisions that they could use it in airports and government buildings, but so long as it's out of the public, I can live with that as a compromise.

This is going to come across like I am all about big brother, but why is a facial recognition checking you against a crime database different then a cop sitting on a street corner flipping through wanted posters trying to match faces? It's more accurate in reality even with the current flaws (which will get better over time) but even beyond that we have always held that there is no expectation to privacy in a public place so I'm not sure where the issue is other than it's just too good at doing what it does. Should a positive identification be treated as a conviction? No. Officers should then continue on their normal investigative procedures to ensure the person is who the system believes they are and if in question should yield on the side of caution. 

Cops already have licenses plate readers where they drive around parking lots or even down roads and they scan all license plates in seconds and can tell you any warrants that are out for the owner of the vehicle. Red light cameras and speeding cameras are a less sophisticated version of all this where they send the pictures of the offense back and they are checked against DMV registrations and then citations issues. Really most people's issues with these things are that they feel like if no one (actual people) are there to catch them breaking the law then they should be able to. Now there is some research in the U.S. around accidents being caused by people trying to avoid these as well as some corruption to their application, however the general reasoning behind them really shouldn't be contested if people truly believe laws should be enforced. 

Where people should be scared is the commercial uses of facial recognition. Google Glass for instance had a lot of concerns about real time facial recognition matching people on the street to their social media pages. While again this would be in public with no expectation of privacy, the issue is people approached their online behavior historically with a false assumption of future anonymity but that isn't the case. There is a whole generation of amateur nude models/ porn actresses or actors who don't realize within the next five years you will essentially be able to google their faces and within seconds know exactly who they are based on all their other social media interactions or online pictures or media. 

[fredtoast]

People do not have any expectation of privacy while out in public. There are already cameras everywhere.

Facial recognition gets a bad name because oppressive regimes are using it for "security" purposes, but there is really nothing wrong with the technology.

You can't keep a good technology down just because it could be abused by a tyrannical government. Pretty soon you will be paying for purchases by looking into a camera.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-27-2020, 01:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is going to come across like I am all about big brother, but why is a facial recognition checking you against a crime database different then a cop sitting on a street corner flipping through wanted posters trying to match faces? It's more accurate in reality even with the current flaws (which will get better over time) but even beyond that we have always held that there is no expectation to privacy in a public place so I'm not sure where the issue is other than it's just too good at doing what it does. Should a positive identification be treated as a conviction? No. Officers should then continue on their normal investigative procedures to ensure the person is who the system believes they are and if in question should yield on the side of caution. 

Cops already have licenses plate readers where they drive around parking lots or even down roads and they scan all license plates in seconds and can tell you any warrants that are out for the owner of the vehicle. Red light cameras and speeding cameras are a less sophisticated version of all this where they send the pictures of the offense back and they are checked against DMV registrations and then citations issues. Really most people's issues with these things are that they feel like if no one (actual people) are there to catch them breaking the law then they should be able to. Now there is some research in the U.S. around accidents being caused by people trying to avoid these as well as some corruption to their application, however the general reasoning behind them really shouldn't be contested if people truly believe laws should be enforced. 

Where people should be scared is the commercial uses of facial recognition. Google Glass for instance had a lot of concerns about real time facial recognition matching people on the street to their social media pages. While again this would be in public with no expectation of privacy, the issue is people approached their online behavior historically with a false assumption of future anonymity but that isn't the case. There is a whole generation of amateur nude models/ porn actresses or actors who don't realize within the next five years you will essentially be able to google their faces and within seconds know exactly who they are based on all their other social media interactions or online pictures or media. 

That is a bit too much and shouldn't be allowed unless the person has agreed that they can be matched up to public facial recognition software. The Fed I consider private. It is dangerous as well. If a thief finds out your daily schedule then they know exactly when you are not home and how long you will be gone. Not a good idea for Google to have access to and release that info

[Au165]

(01-27-2020, 08:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That is a bit too much and shouldn't be allowed unless the person has agreed that they can be matched up to public facial recognition software. The Fed I consider private. It is dangerous as well. If a thief finds out your daily schedule then they know exactly when you are not home and how long you will be gone. Not a good idea for Google to have access to and release that info

Again, I can walk down the street and take your picture right now and it's perfectly legal. I can then take your picture and search through Facebook until I find you. People actually do this now online with social media celebrities, it's called doxing. The reality is these systems aren't doing anything unique or special they are simply doing a process a human could do but at a million times the speed. My issue with trying to limit technology is it creates a dangerous precedent that starts with simple technologies that people think are "creepy" and then start applying to technologies that disrupt markets of large lobbyists.

Side note here, google actually killed the ability for this to work because of their fears of someone using it to stalk someone. That said these things should be left up to the companies. When they release these kinds of devices they are assuming the liability that could potentially be established because of their use. The market will kind of steer what is or isn't acceptable and we should avoid trying to legislate away technology.

It's actually funny once upon a Universal Studios (along with other studios) tried to essentially kill the VCR via lawsuits. They claimed that the device was a pirating tool that would essentially kill their industry. 30 years later the studios are still alive and pirating has just taken on a new form. The funny thing about technology is it will always be ahead of legislation and the ones who are looking to use it for nefarious activities are usually at the forefront of those technologies. Look at deep fakes and such. Some of the most common early usages of it was in the fake porn industry where hey used it to generate celebrities into porn content. Main stream people are just kind of catching on to deep fakes but they have been around for years.

[Benton]

I don't see any issue with it in public places.

As Au said, it's no different than a cop walking through a public place and recognizing a criminal. Except it's more cost effective, potentially safer and faster.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-28-2020, 08:59 AM)Au165 Wrote: Again, I can walk down the street and take your picture right now and it's perfectly legal. I can then take your picture and search through Facebook until I find you. People actually do this now online with social media celebrities, it's called doxing. The reality is these systems aren't doing anything unique or special they are simply doing a process a human could do but at a million times the speed. My issue with trying to limit technology is it creates a dangerous precedent that starts with simple technologies that people think are "creepy" and then start applying to technologies that disrupt markets of large lobbyists.

Side note here, google actually killed the ability for this to work because of their fears of someone using it to stalk someone. That said these things should be left up to the companies. When they release these kinds of devices they are assuming the liability that could potentially be established because of their use. The market will kind of steer what is or isn't acceptable and we should avoid trying to legislate away technology.

It's actually funny once upon a Universal Studios (along with other studios) tried to essentially kill the VCR via lawsuits. They claimed that the device was a pirating tool that would essentially kill their industry. 30 years later the studios are still alive and pirating has just taken on a new form. The funny thing about technology is it will always be ahead of legislation and the ones who are looking to use it for nefarious activities are usually at the forefront of those technologies. Look at deep fakes and such. Some of the most common early usages of it was in the fake porn industry where hey used it to generate celebrities into porn content. Main stream people are just kind of catching on to deep fakes but they have been around for years.

Ofc you can, but it's not instant and by the time you figure all of that out. You have no idea where I am anymore, unless of course your stalking me.

Some of the chat apps have location finders in them. Used to be set "on" by default, but I could look up anyone really and find out where they were at any given time and follow their daily timeline. Google time line does this already. I keep mine turned off. Default on most tracking apps now is "off", you have to turn it on to track now. Which is fair, cause you accept that choice. I don't.

EDIT:
Maybe I wasn't clear in my first post. I have no problem with Authorities having access to it, but the common person should not.

[*michaelsean*]

I think just because you don't have a right to privacy in a public place it doesn't mean we should do everything we can to eliminate it.

[NATI BENGALS]

Looks like the cat is already out of the bag. Solid attempt by a state to look out for a person's rights. But too little too late.

One of the reasons I like Yang as a candidate. He at least has the brains and balls to acknowledge where we are and the route we have already selected.

Most of us have been walking around with a camera, microphone, and location device in our pocket for years.

[treee]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ryanmac/clearview-ai-fbi-ice-global-law-enforcement?__twitter_impression=true