Technology at Risk

Is banning surveillance tech worth it?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ vote to ban the use of facial recognition technology puts the city at risk of not only falling behind on technological innovation, but returning to what one expert described as archaic processes. The board’s 8-to-1 vote on the Stop Secret Surveillance ordinance on May 14 affects more than facial recognition tech, however. It defines surveillance technology as “any software, electronic device, system using an electronic device or a device that is used, designed or primarily intended to collect, retain, process or share” a variety of datasets. Those include thermal, olfactory, visual and biometric data, pushing what encompasses “surveillance technology” to well beyond cameras to include cell site simulators, automatic license plate readers, gunshot detection hardware and services, closed-circuit TV cameras and wearable body cameras.

“For me, this is a bit of an overreach,” said Alison Brooks, research director for smart cities strategies and public safety at IDC. “What San Francisco is doing is, in fact, not allowing for the digital workflow to occur. I think that they want people to go back to, for example, sorting through mug shots archaically, manually, and that doesn’t make any sense from a cost-savings perspective or a work time perspective. It’s just going to cost their police force that much more money to connect all those dots.”

Some places are experiencing success with facial recognition technology. For instance, the Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center has used it to identify criminals in cases involving petty theft and homicides. Additionally, police in Maryland used the technology to identify Jarrod Ramos, who killed five newspaper employees in Annapolis last year, when he refused to state his name.

“It’s not real clear that there’s a good reason for this ban,” said Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. “There are a whole spectrum of uses for facial recognition technology, from very simple organizing photos to trying to identify a suspect or a witness or anyone involved in a crime…. There’s lots of benign uses, uses that are completely in line with the manual activity that police do during the day,” such as manually looking through photos or asking the public to help identify someone.

The San Francisco board’s vote is partially in response to studies that have shown that the technology can be inaccurate and racially biased. For example, a recent test of Amazon’s Rekognition software that the company markets to law enforcement, found that it was more accurate in assessing lighter-skinned faces.

“While surveillance technology may threaten the privacy of all of us, surveillance efforts have historically been used to intimidate and oppress certain communities and groups more than others, including those that are defined by a common race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, income level, sexual orientation, or political perspective,” according to the ordinance. “The propensity for facial recognition technology to endanger civil rights and civil liberties substantially outweighs its purported benefits, and the technology will exacerbate racial injustice and threaten our ability to live free of continuous government monitoring.”

Still, the technology is maturing amid calls for greater accuracy and transparency. The National Institute of Standards and Technology reported in its “Ongoing Facial Recognition Vendor Test” last December that the software has improved significantly since NIST studies of it in 2010 and 2014.

The vote also acknowledges pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union’s West Coast offices, which Brooks said tends to be more protectionist than other locations. Matt Cagle, a lawyer with the ACLU of Northern California, told the New York Times last week that the technology “provides government with unprecedented power to track people going about their daily lives. That’s incompatible with a healthy democracy.”

Part of the problem is that the shortcomings of both the technologies and uses have been conflated, Castro said. For instance, uproar over FBI’s surveillance of protesters in 2015 after the death of Freddie Gray was more about improper or unwarranted surveillance of political protest than of facial recognition technology itself.

“Because there is already such organized opposition to some of this police behavior, the objections are getting tacked on to facial recognition because I think that’s seen as an opportunity to push back on policing in general,” Castro said. “Some of that pushback is completely legitimate, but it’s conflating the technology with the activities, which I think can be separated out.”

A happy medium exists, but more testing and policies are needed to find it. Castro pointed to a pilot test of real-time surveillance in Orlando in which police officers tracked themselves—a good example, he said, of how a police department can start moving forward with the cutting edge of technology before applying it to citizens. (Orlando police ended their pilot program with Rekognition in July).

Indeed, the San Francisco board included a number of exceptions to the ban. For instance, it doesn’t apply to federally controlled facilities at San Francisco International Airport and the city’s port, nor does it restrict business or personal use of the technology. The ordinance also includes calls for policies that address transparency, oversight and accountability measures as well as rules governing the procurement of surveillance technologies.

Similar bans were passed in Oakland, Calif., and Somerville, Mass. Earlier this year, and the House Oversight and Reform Committee held a May 22 hearing on facial recognition software, where committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said lawmakers largely agree that the technology should be regulated.

“I think this is an area where it would be helpful for Congress to be a little more proactive,” Castro said.

This article originally appeared in the October 2019 issue of Security Today.

Featured

  • Accelerating a Pathway

    There is a new trend touting the transformational qualities of AI’s ability to deliver actionable data and predictive analysis that in many instances, seems to be a bit of an overpromise. The reality is that very few solutions in the cyber-physical security (CPS) space live up to this high expectation with the one exception being the new generation of Physical Identity and Access Management (PIAM) software – herein recategorized as PIAM+. Read Now

  • Protecting Your Zones

    It is game day. You can feel the crowd’s energy. In the parking lot. At the gate. In the stadium. On the concourse. Fans are eager to party. Food and merchandise vendors ready themselves for the rush. Read Now

  • Street Smarts

    The ongoing acceptance of AI and advanced data analytics has allowed surveillance camera technology to shift from being a tactical tool to a strategic business solution. Combining traditional surveillance technology with AI-based data-driven insights can streamline transportation systems, enhance traffic management, improve situational awareness, optimize resource allocation and streamline emergency response procedures. Read Now

  • The Progress of Biometrics

  • Next-Gen AI for Smart Cities

    The future of smart city technology is not being shaped in Silicon Valley — it is taking root in Dubuque, Iowa. With a population of about 60,000, this mid-sized city has become a live testbed for AI-driven traffic management thanks to a unique public-private collaboration led by Milestone Systems. Project Hafnia demonstrates how cities can transform urban mobility and safety through Responsible Technology—without costly infrastructure overhauls. Read Now

New Products

  • A8V MIND

    A8V MIND

    Hexagon’s Geosystems presents a portable version of its Accur8vision detection system. A rugged all-in-one solution, the A8V MIND (Mobile Intrusion Detection) is designed to provide flexible protection of critical outdoor infrastructure and objects. Hexagon’s Accur8vision is a volumetric detection system that employs LiDAR technology to safeguard entire areas. Whenever it detects movement in a specified zone, it automatically differentiates a threat from a nonthreat, and immediately notifies security staff if necessary. Person detection is carried out within a radius of 80 meters from this device. Connected remotely via a portable computer device, it enables remote surveillance and does not depend on security staff patrolling the area.

  • Automatic Systems V07

    Automatic Systems V07

    Automatic Systems, an industry-leading manufacturer of pedestrian and vehicle secure entrance control access systems, is pleased to announce the release of its groundbreaking V07 software. The V07 software update is designed specifically to address cybersecurity concerns and will ensure the integrity and confidentiality of Automatic Systems applications. With the new V07 software, updates will be delivered by means of an encrypted file.

  • PE80 Series

    PE80 Series by SARGENT / ED4000/PED5000 Series by Corbin Russwin

    ASSA ABLOY, a global leader in access solutions, has announced the launch of two next generation exit devices from long-standing leaders in the premium exit device market: the PE80 Series by SARGENT and the PED4000/PED5000 Series by Corbin Russwin. These new exit devices boast industry-first features that are specifically designed to provide enhanced safety, security and convenience, setting new standards for exit solutions. The SARGENT PE80 and Corbin Russwin PED4000/PED5000 Series exit devices are engineered to meet the ever-evolving needs of modern buildings. Featuring the high strength, security and durability that ASSA ABLOY is known for, the new exit devices deliver several innovative, industry-first features in addition to elegant design finishes for every opening.