Current Events > Cops reject reform in Austin and SF

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/18/facial-recognition-law-enforcement-austin-san-francisco/

As cities and states push to restrict the use of facial recognition technologies, some police departments have quietly found a way to keep using the controversial tools: asking for help from other law enforcement agencies that still have access.

Officers in Austin and San Francisco two of the largest cities where police are banned from using the technology have repeatedly asked police in neighboring towns to run photos of criminal suspects through their facial recognition programs, according to a Washington Post review of police documents.

In San Francisco, the workaround didnt appear to help. Since the citys ban took effect in 2019, the San Francisco Police Department has asked outside agencies to conduct at least five facial recognition searches, but no matches were returned, according to a summary of those incidents submitted by the department to the countys Board of Supervisors last year.

SFPD spokesman Evan Sernoffsky said these requests violated the city ordinance and were not authorized by the department, but the agency faced no consequences from the city. He declined to say whether any officers were disciplined because those would be personnel matters.

Austin police officers received the results of at least 13 face searches from a neighboring police department since the citys 2020 ban and appeared to get hits on some of them, according to documents obtained by The Post through public records requests and sources who shared them on the condition of anonymity.

Thats him! Thank you very much, one Austin police officer wrote in response to an array of photos sent to him by an officer in Leander, Tex., who ran a facial recognition search, documents show. The man displayed in the pictures, John Curry Jr., was later charged with aggravated assault for allegedly charging toward someone with a knife, and is currently in jail awaiting trial. Currys attorney declined to comment.

But at least one man who was ensnared by the searches argued that police should be held to the same standards as ordinary citizens.

We have to follow the laws. Why dont they? said Tyrell Johnson, 20, who was identified by a facial recognition search in August as a suspect in the armed robbery of an Austin 7-Eleven, documents show. Johnson said hes innocent, though prosecutors said in court documents that he bears the same hand tattoo and was seen in a video on social media wearing the same clothing as the person caught on tape committing the crime. Hes awaiting trial.

A spokeswoman for the Austin Police Department said these uses of facial recognition were never authorized by department or city officials. She said the department would review the cases for potential violations of city rules.

When allegations are made against any department staff, we follow a consistent process, the spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. Weve initiated that process to investigate the claims. If the investigation determines that policies were violated, APD will take the necessary steps.

The Leander Police Department declined to comment.

Police officers efforts to skirt these bans have not been previously reported and highlight the challenge of reining in police use of facial recognition. The powerful but imperfect artificial intelligence technology has played a role in the wrongful arrests of at least seven innocent Americans, six of whom were Black, according to lawsuits each of these people filed after the charges against them were dismissed.

Bump

So an armed robber was caught by facial rec and hes mad? Theres no expectation of privacy in public. Not jsut from law enforcement. Just assume youre always on camera when you leave the house these days. Casinos use facial rec and a lot of popular tourist shopping areas do as well

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

But they have to break the law to.... enforce the law?

Well yeah, gangs aren't typically known for following the law.

Noname13 posted...

So an armed robber was caught by facial rec and hes mad? Theres no expectation of privacy in public. Not jsut from law enforcement. Just assume youre always on camera when you leave the house these days. Casinos use facial rec and a lot of popular tourist shopping areas do as well

Cops were caught breaking the law.
You don't care?

Noname13 posted...

So an armed robber was caught by facial rec and hes mad? Theres no expectation of privacy in public. Not jsut from law enforcement. Just assume youre always on camera when you leave the house these days. Casinos use facial rec and a lot of popular tourist shopping areas do as well

Do the laws apply to police or not?

I didnt see that paragraph, I see it now. But a city ordnance can be nulled by federal law

Noname13 posted...

I didnt see that paragraph, I see it now. But a city ordnance can be nulled by federal law

Has it been?

Here's what you do, suspend the officers that are going against the city orders.

Not that hard. If nobody comes up, suspend the supervisors or their supervisors.

As soon as you start affecting the money of these people, they'll stop this shit immediately. Same goes for police abuse cases, use money from their pension funds to pay for victims of police brutality and that shit will stop instantly.

Facial recognition software has shown to simply not work.

Well. The workaround is they requested a different agency to do it that wasnt affected by the ordnance. Unless it explicitly states they cant do it, then they didnt actually break a city ordnance. Its like going to a different state where something is legal where your home state its not.

Guess it depends if you are okay with that

Noname13 posted...

I didnt see that paragraph, I see it now. But a city ordnance can be nulled by federal law

1. Why would federal law nullify it?
2. Why would Austin Tx obey a federal law?

Noname13 posted...

Well. The workaround is they requested a different agency to do it that wasnt affected by the ordnance. Unless it explicitly states they cant do it, then they didnt actually break a city ordnance. Its like going to a different state where something is legal where your home state its not.

Guess it depends if you are okay with that

And it sounds like you are........

WingsOfGood posted...

1. Why would federal law nullify it?
2. Why would Austin Tx obey a federal law?

Its pretty common actually. There are a lot of conflicting laws. Like how weed is legal in some states but still federally illegal. Or on different levels. My department banned stopping people for jaywalking but its still legal to stop someone for it. There are times where you use federal jurisdiction(task forces, or more serious charges) federal laws like felons with firearms

Laws on facial recognition will have trouble keeping up with technology. Facial recognition is actually getting to a point now where it's pretty solid even for consumer use. Just 4 years ago when it was banned, it was still pretty awful.

Beside that point, it seems they're skirting a law. I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this. I definitely don't like relying solely on it for arrests, but at this point it may be more reliable than eyewitnesses and the word of cops

I am sick of people saying this is a training issue.

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Beside that point, it seems they're skirting a law.

If I were to skirt a law, what would we call that?

Noname13 posted...

So an armed robber was caught by facial rec and hes mad? Theres no expectation of privacy in public. Not jsut from law enforcement. Just assume youre always on camera when you leave the house these days. Casinos use facial rec and a lot of popular tourist shopping areas do as well

The problem is its faulty technology and leads to false arrests

oh and also its against the law for them to use it

So, this is a really interesting case. I had to look it up. Heres the actual section of what was put out. From what I read, it doesnt seem like its an actual law but rather a policy for the department the city created. I have to keep reading to make sure

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9780fe7f.jpg

Noname13 posted...

So, this is a really interesting case. I had to look it up. Heres the actual section of what was put out. From what I read, it doesnt seem like its an actual law but rather a policy for the department the city created. I have to keep reading to make sure

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9780fe7f.jpg

So they are disobeying the Chief's order or thr Mayor's order. Either way what usually happens when an officer does this? Probably not good.

WingsOfGood posted...

So they are disobeying the Chief's order or thr Mayor's order. Either way what usually happens when an officer does this? Probably not good.

Nothing happens. Cops are immune to just about every form of punishment.

ClayGuida posted...

Nothing happens. Cops are immune to just about every form of punishment.

Mayor and Chief are a bit different here.

If its a policy violation then its the departments responsibility for the discipline/action. The department said at the time it didnt look like there was a violation. Most likely, by requesting an outside agency to do it. Which is not stated in the paragraph there.

its bad optics for sure. I would say, next week this time that will be added into it

Noname13 posted...

So an armed robber was caught by facial rec and hes mad? Theres no expectation of privacy in public. Not jsut from law enforcement. Just assume youre always on camera when you leave the house these days. Casinos use facial rec and a lot of popular tourist shopping areas do as well

Facial recognition isnt just taking a picture, you have 4th amendment protections even when in public. Obviously.

You have 4th amendment protection from unlawful seizures and searches. I dont think facial rec would count as those. What it would fall under, I dont really know

I thought DarkPrince45 got banned from this place?

Won't be super long til he's banned with the the new rules in place lol

Noname13 posted...

You have 4th amendment protection from unlawful seizures and searches. I dont think facial rec would count as those. What it would fall under, I dont really know

It does. If theyre using software to analyze an image and comparing it to other images from a database, that implicates the fourth amendment. Its just like when cops use your ID to run you for warrants and criminal history. They cant legally do that without reasonable articulable suspicion.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

It does. If theyre using software to analyze an image and comparing it to other images from a database, that implicates the fourth amendment. Its just like when cops use your ID to run you for warrants and criminal history. They cant legally do that without reasonable articulable suspicion.

You'd think someone who claims he's a cop would actually know the laws and ammendments

FunWithAFryPan posted...

It does. If theyre using software to analyze an image and comparing it to other images from a database, that implicates the fourth amendment. Its just like when cops use your ID to run you for warrants and criminal history. They cant legally do that without reasonable articulable suspicion.

Is this different than licence plate cameras and databases?

I am not shocked that am I constantly tested by certain members of this board who are adamant on talking to me. Saying I dont know, when youre clearly wrong. A facial rec is not under the fourth amendment. It is not a warrant

https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/the-forum/facial-recognition-technology-a-fourth-amendment-

violation/#:~:text=An%20analysis%20of%20the%20Katz,are%20used%20in%20public%20places.

Noname13 posted...

You have 4th amendment protection from unlawful seizures and searches. I dont think facial rec would count as those. What it would fall under, I dont really know

You are cop and you...don't know. Not surprised.
For the record I don't blame you, this just shows how low the standards are for the typical PD. It is quite sad.

emblem-man posted...

Is this different than licence plate cameras and databases?

Its legally distinct at least. License plates are registered to a vehicle and is owner, not the individual driver.

WingsOfGood posted...

You are cop and you...don't know. Not surprised.
For the record I don't blame you, this just shows how low the standards are for the typical PD. It is quite sad.

I just posted above you, how the 4th amendment doesnt apply here. I dont know, because nobody knows. Why youre tryna to be sarcastic like that I dont know. Its all newer technology that doesnt really have a lot of case law applied to it thats been ruled by the Supreme Court

And in this topic we have Officer DP, who has kindly volunteered to show exactly why police reform cannot be in the hands of police.

I think he's getting butthurt and is on the verge of a meltdown

Thought it was a pretty calm discussion about laws and amendments but I guess not lol

Unfortunately, knowledge of civil rights is not required to be a police officer, nor is it emphasized in their training. In fact, many cops are specifically trained how to violate your rights.