Friday, March 29, 2024

Baltimore may soon ban all but the police from performing facial recognition

Must Read

After many years lose Try to inhibition Monitoring technology, Baltimore is about to issue one of the strictest bans in the country face recognition. But Baltimore’s proposed ban would be very different The law of San Francisco or Portland, Oregon: It will only last for one year, the police will be exempted, and certain private uses of the technology will become illegal.

City Councillor Kristerfer Burnett introduced the proposed ban, which he said was shaped by Baltimore’s nuances, although critics complained that it could unfairly punish or even imprison the use of the Ordinary citizens of technology.

Last year, Burnett introduced a version of the bill that would permanently ban the use of facial recognition in cities. When it failed, he instead introduced this version, with a one-year “sunset” clause built in, and the approval of the board of directors needs to be extended. In early June, the City Council voted in favor with a 12-2 vote; now awaiting the signature of Mayor Brandon Scott.

“It is important to start this kind of dialogue next year to basically figure out what the regulatory framework looks like,” Burnett said.

The proposed law will establish a working group to periodically produce reports on the purchase of newly acquired surveillance tools, describing their costs and effectiveness.Cities such as New York and Pittsburgh have Created something like Task force, but they were ridiculed as “waste” Because members lack resources or execution ability.

Burnett said these reports are critical, because a year from now, the political landscape in Baltimore may be very different.

Since 1860, the Baltimore Police Department has been mainly controlled by the state government rather than the city government. The city council and mayor appoint the chief of police and set departmental budgets, but the city council does not have the power to prohibit the police from using facial recognition.

However, Baltimore residents There will be a chance The vote will return the police department to control of the city as early as next year.Mayor Scott himself Supported This change occurred during his tenure as a city councillor. As the one-year ban is about to expire, local control measures may appear on the ballot, when Burnett and other privacy advocates will benefit from a year of research on the impact of the ban.

The discussion about returning the police to control of the city rekindled The death of Freddie Gray Detained by the police in 2015.The then Mayor Catherine Pugh established a working group to make recommendations on police reform; in 2018, the working group Published a report The warning states that “BPD will never be fully responsible for its residents until full control of the department is returned to the city.”

The revelations used by the police increase efforts to restore local control Social media monitoring Software and facial recognition Monitor protesters After Gray’s death.Burnett said that cities need to consider the appropriate use of surveillance tools, “before we reach a place [surveillance] It is so common that it becomes very difficult to untie it. He said that by contrast, the government is usually “more passive.”

Critics say the proposed ban is an excessive example. The police department and the police brotherhood of the city opposed this measure. A police spokesperson referred to Wired in the department’s letter to the city council, which wrote: “Instead of prohibiting access to any new facial recognition technology, it is better to develop safeguards more carefully.”

Trade groups also oppose the bill, especially the regulations on private use of facial recognition. As written, the bill not only imposes fines on violators, but also criminalizes such violations, punishable by up to 12 months in prison.This is not just a Portland Act Private use of facial recognition is prohibited, which will make the offender bear damages and attorney fees.

Groups like the Security Industry Association believe this may criminalize private business owners, for example, requiring facial verification to enter facilities, or even schools requiring online proctoring using the technology. Congressman Isaac Schleifer listed potential criminal convictions as the main issue in the “veto” vote on the measure.


Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest News

Jacob Zuma election ban: How does it affect South Africa’s election? | News

South Africa’s election authorities have barred former President Jacob Zuma from standing in the country’s May election, heightening...

More Articles Like This