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

  • Video Surveillance Trends to Watch

    With more organizations adding newer capabilities to their surveillance systems, it’s always important to remember the “basics” of system configuration and deployment, as well as the topline benefits of continually emerging technologies like AI and the cloud. Read Now

  • New Report Reveals Top Trends Transforming Access Controller Technology

    Mercury Security, a provider in access control hardware and open platform solutions, has published its Trends in Access Controllers Report, based on a survey of over 450 security professionals across North America and Europe. The findings highlight the controller’s vital role in a physical access control system (PACS), where the device not only enforces access policies but also connects with readers to verify user credentials—ranging from ID badges to biometrics and mobile identities. With 72% of respondents identifying the controller as a critical or important factor in PACS design, the report underscores how the choice of controller platform has become a strategic decision for today’s security leaders. Read Now

  • Overwhelming Majority of CISOs Anticipate Surge in Cyber Attacks Over the Next Three Years

    An overwhelming 98% of chief information security officers (CISOs) expect a surge in cyber attacks over the next three years as organizations face an increasingly complex and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital threat landscape. This is according to new research conducted among 300 CISOs, chief information officers (CIOs), and senior IT professionals by CSC1, the leading provider of enterprise-class domain and domain name system (DNS) security. Read Now

  • ASIS International Introduces New ANSI-Approved Investigations Standard

    • Guard Services
  • Cloud Security Alliance Brings AI-Assisted Auditing to Cloud Computing

    The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA), the world’s leading organization dedicated to defining standards, certifications, and best practices to help ensure a secure cloud computing environment, today introduced an innovative addition to its suite of Security, Trust, Assurance and Risk (STAR) Registry assessments with the launch of Valid-AI-ted, an AI-powered, automated validation system. The new tool provides an automated quality check of assurance information of STAR Level 1 self-assessments using state-of-the-art LLM technology. 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.

  • Luma x20

    Luma x20

    Snap One has announced its popular Luma x20 family of surveillance products now offers even greater security and privacy for home and business owners across the globe by giving them full control over integrators’ system access to view live and recorded video. According to Snap One Product Manager Derek Webb, the new “customer handoff” feature provides enhanced user control after initial installation, allowing the owners to have total privacy while also making it easy to reinstate integrator access when maintenance or assistance is required. This new feature is now available to all Luma x20 users globally. “The Luma x20 family of surveillance solutions provides excellent image and audio capture, and with the new customer handoff feature, it now offers absolute privacy for camera feeds and recordings,” Webb said. “With notifications and integrator access controlled through the powerful OvrC remote system management platform, it’s easy for integrators to give their clients full control of their footage and then to get temporary access from the client for any troubleshooting needs.”

  • HD2055 Modular Barricade

    Delta Scientific’s electric HD2055 modular shallow foundation barricade is tested to ASTM M50/P1 with negative penetration from the vehicle upon impact. With a shallow foundation of only 24 inches, the HD2055 can be installed without worrying about buried power lines and other below grade obstructions. The modular make-up of the barrier also allows you to cover wider roadways by adding additional modules to the system. The HD2055 boasts an Emergency Fast Operation of 1.5 seconds giving the guard ample time to deploy under a high threat situation.