|
> I’m trying to use as neutral language as possible There's a framing problem here, on both sides. Notice how the EFF article starts off talking about how the recently enacted ordinance requires the police to get pre-approval permission to use facial recognition. But all that actually happened was the policed looked at live CCD footage from cameras not on the pre-approved list. The article is framing the debate by making the rules seem reasonable and the police seem sinister. At the same time, presumably the reason you felt the need to qualify "disturbance" is because you recognize that on the other side of the debate are people who try to frame these protests in a negative light, with an insinuation (if not explicit assertion) that they inevitably descend into looting and violence. Neither narrative is realistic, though in San Francisco the former group absolutely controls the narrative, and likes to play off the counter-framing about inevitable violence. In any event, there's no real debate here: just FUD on both sides. When several weeks ago Mayor Breed said that the 2019 ordinance needed reforming, one of the drafters wrote an op-ed that said there's no need for it; that it doesn't restrict the police in any meaningfully way, and Breed's claim were groundless. That op-ed likewise tossed around the specter of facial recognition. But not once did they address the most obvious issue, which is that the police are severely limited in their ability to perform real-time surveillance of spontaneous and fluid situations, such as peaceful protests, riots, etc. The 2019 and earlier ordinances basically presume a context of continuous, 24 hour surveillance, access thereto, or after-the-fact evidence gathering. For example, requests to put up cameras on corners with high rates of crime or to deploy license plate scanners on patrol cars. Activists on the left have lost all credibility, trailing right behind the right. Even the EFF has gone too far. The debate has become unhinged. It's become so adversarial that nobody even tries address the legitimate concerns of the other side, and facts simply take a back seat. There aren't any adults in the room. Perhaps that's because there isn't a room anymore--the entire conversation, even among the elected and professional classes (scholars, journalists, etc), has shifted over to social media, where success simply equates to spreading your memes (i.e. narratives, baseline assumptions, [poor] statistics, etc). |
I definitely agree with everything that you wrote but real-time continuous facial recognition is going to be here sooner rather than later. In the context of reforming this ordinance, it makes sense to just assume it's available. To me anyway.