Can I phone a friend? How cops circumvent face recognition bans
- Reference: 1716221585
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/05/20/cops_circumvent_facial_recognition/
- Source link:
It's not immediately clear how widespread such side-stepping of facial recognition restrictions in the US may be. According to the Washington Post's review of police documents in Austin, Texas, and San Francisco, California, however, it's definitely something that's gone on in at least two major US metropolitan areas.
WaPo [1]reported over the weekend that SFPD and APD have both sought help from neighboring cop shops on occasion, though with different levels of success. San Francisco cops have reportedly sought facial recognition searches from other agencies on five occasions since 2019, but never got a match back; Austin police, on the other hand, have sent at least 13 searches since 2020.
[2]
"Some" of the searches from APD returned hits, and multiple suspects in Austin have been arrested and charged as a result of the searches, WaPo said.
[3]
[4]
The Register hasn't heard back from either department, but spokespeople for both the SFPD and APD told The Post that the face recognition searches were done without department authorization.
SFPD also noted that it hasn't faced any consequences from the city, but declined to share details about officer discipline. APD officials said the department would look into violations of city ordinances.
[5]
[6]Clearview , whose facial recognition tool is used widely by law enforcement throughout the US, including in the Austin-adjacent city of Leander, where APD turned for face recognition searches, explicitly [7]prohibits the sharing of facial recognition data with "individuals from other government agencies." The Register asked Clearview to comment, but didn't hear back.
Surely that evidence wouldn't be admissible?
Chesa Boudin, a former San Francisco district attorney, spoke to WaPo on the matter, saying that many officers deny using facial recognition despite evidence to the contrary. Such bad behavior has led to prosecutors being wary of filing charges in a case that could have used it.
Boudin even said that he'd seen evidence of SFPD using "be on the lookout" flyers distributed between departments as plausible deniability for sharing photos that could be run through facial recognition software.
Regardless of justification, a case predicated on the use of such technology could presumably be tossed from court – especially if it became clear from records that police sought to use it in direct violation of local rules.
[8]TSA wants to expand facial recognition to hundreds of airports within next decade
[9]Facial recognition tech has outpaced US law – and don't expect the Feds to catch up
[10]Deepfake attacks can easily trick live facial recognition systems online
[11]Microsoft doesn't want cops using Azure AI for facial recognition
Facial recognition also has a [12]known bias issue (one of the major reasons advocates have pushed for a ban) that only makes the matter of its improper application a bigger concern for privacy and racial justice advocates.
Even in instances where police have taken facial recognition systems offline due to bias – like in London, England – and have returned them to service after improvements, said improvements have been limited. The facial recognition tech of the English capital's police force, the Metropolitan Police, came back with a false positive rate of around one in 6,000 – quite high considering the number of Londoners who may walk in front of a camera on any given day.
Facial recognition bans exist in around two dozen jurisdictions in the US. Around half of federal agencies with law enforcement responsibilities use some form of facial recognition technology.
[13]
It's not immediately clear what share of police departments in the US use facial recognition, but a look at a [14]map of usage and bans around the US shows that hundreds of departments are using it, and countless more have [15]partnerships with Amazon Ring to provide footage for law enforcement and public safety purposes. ®
Updated to add
San Francisco police confirmed the above reporting, for what it's worth.
"It is unlawful for SFPD to obtain, retain, access or use information obtained from facial recognition technology from city or non-city entities unless very narrow exceptions apply," a police department spokesperson told us.
"SFPD found that facial recognition technology was used in four cases four years ago, shortly after the policy to ban it was passed. No matches were received in any of the cases. These incidents were thoroughly investigated by the SFPD, which made them public in a report to the Board of Supervisors."
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/18/facial-recognition-law-enforcement-austin-san-francisco/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZkvIAxcu22yZfvU05E1PpQAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZkvIAxcu22yZfvU05E1PpQAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZkvIAxcu22yZfvU05E1PpQAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZkvIAxcu22yZfvU05E1PpQAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/10/clearview_ai_alcu/
[7] https://www.clearview.ai/terms-of-service#:~:text=Sharing%20of%20Content%20from%20the%20Products%20and%20Services%20Information
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/03/tsa_facial_recognition_airport/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/17/face_recognition_tech_us/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/22/ai_in_brief/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/04/microsoft_cloud_facial_recog/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/25/facial_recognition_system_used_by/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZkvIAxcu22yZfvU05E1PpQAAAEQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/map/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/14/amazon_gave_police_unauthorized_doorbell/
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Maybe
If you go on a cop binge on YouTube, there's plenty of videos where people won't identify themselves. They'll either give a false name or no name at all. In those cases I don't see why facial recognition shouldn't be used. Is the reason the person is being evasive is due to having a warrant out on them for a serious crime? That's often the case but there's enough instances where they are just being "persecuted" and "detained for no reason"/"rayciss". I just watched a couple of compilations with people that talked themselves into being arrested when they could have been polite and been excused in less than a minute. One claimed she was studying to be an attorney. Good luck with that as they don't issue licenses to people with criminal backgrounds.
There might also be a need to find out who somebody is if they are seriously injured or dead. It's a question of how the system is being used. If people are being arrested in their homes at 4:30am based on nothing more than facial recognition from carp CCTV footage, that's a problem. That piece of information might be useful when combined with other evidence, but it shouldn't be taken as gospel.
Re: Maybe
Unless it is a situation where people are legally required to identify themselves to cops, why should the cops have a workaround? If they've committed a crime, arrest them and then you'll get your identification one way or another. If they haven't committed a crime, let them the fuck alone and go to a donut shop or something!
Re: Maybe
We've had facial recognition in everyday use for literally hundreds of years. We know it as "the identity parade". Its not foolproof so defenders have to be on their toes to make sure that tenuous identities aren't the sole evidence in a criminal case, just one piece of a puzzle. Machine based recognition -- which isn't always facial -- is just an extension of this process and like the manual parade is prone to shortcomings and bias so this should be taken into account. (...and, surprise, the larger the field the more likely false positives)
The danger is bamboozling juries to believe that just because "the computer said so" that its output is unimpeachable. Its not. Especially if it uses secret algorithms or other magic tricks unavailable to be tested by a defense. (So forget AI -- nobody knows how it works!)
"I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here."
"Your winnings, sir."
"Oh, thank you very much."