San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined

By: IPVM Team, Published on May 14, 2019

San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few weeks, there is more to it for the surveillance industry.

What has been largely ignored is that the same legislation increases regulation on various surveillance technologies, including license plate recognition, CCTV, and gunshot detection, among other common surveillance technologies, in addition to the 'ban'.

Inside this note, we examine:

Why face recognition is banned
When face recognition is allowed
How surveillance cameras are included in this legislation
Why and how city surveillance camera users must apply for approval
Who is exempt
How is enforcement to be handled
How violations will be handled
San Francisco is not the first city to pass such a law, we examine who is
Why some citizens are against the law
What are potential problems

*** ********* ****** *** legislation *-* *****. ***** the **** *********** '***' has ******* ******** *********** attention **** *** **** few *****, ***** ** more ** ** *** the ************ ********.

**** *** **** ******* ignored ** **** *** same *********** ********* ********** on ******* ************ ************, including ******* ***** ***********, CCTV, *** ******* *********, among ***** ****** ************ technologies, ** ******** ** the '***'.

****** **** ****, ** examine:

*** **** *********** ** banned
**** **** *********** ** allowed
*** ************ ******* *** included ** **** ***********
*** *** *** **** surveillance ****** ***** **** apply *** ********
*** ** ******
*** ** *********** ** be *******
*** ********** **** ** handled
*** ********* ******** ***** **** ** pass **** * ***, we ******* *** **
*** **** ******** *** against *** ***
**** *** ********* ********

[***************]

********

*** ***********, ********** ******, "*** **** ****** ************ Ordinance" ********, ***** ***** things, **** **** *********** wishing ** *******, ** which ******* **** *** use ******* ************ ************, need ** ****** ******* steps ** ***** ** gain ******** *** ********** or ** ******* *** existing *** ** ******* surveillance ************.

****** ********* ***** ** Supervisors(***) *** *** ***** say **** **** ** and ** *** *******. The **-****** ***** ** Supervisors ** *** *********** body *** *** **** and ****** ** *** Francisco.

*** **** ********** **** was **** ******************* ********** **** *** *** lingering ********* ***** *** limiting ***** ** *** legislation.

Why **** *********** *** ** ******

*** ***'* ******** ****** that **** ***********—******* ** page * ** *** law ** "** ********* or ****-********* ******* **** assists ** *********** ** verifying ** ********** ***** on ** **********'* ****"—*** traditionally ********** ***** ****** and ******* ** * manner **** ********* *** good ** ***** **, as **** ** *** following ********** ******** * ** *** Legislative ********** *** *** *, 2019 ***** ** *********** meeting ****** ***** *** bill *** *********:

*** *** **** ****** that ********** *** *** of **** *********** ********** will ** ******* *** city *********** ** **** in *** ********* ********** from **** **:

When **** *********** *** ** *******

******* ***** ****** *** purchasing ** **** ***********, use ** **** *********** data ******** ** *** parties ** ********* ***** the *** *** ** long ** *** *********** was *** ********* *** its ********* *** *** are ********** ** **** in *** ********* ********** from **** **:

How **** ****** ************ **********

************, *** *** ******* defines ************ ********** ***** it ***** ** ******** including ************ *******, **** and ********** **** ********** readers ** *** ********** and **** ******** ** seen ** *** ********* screenshot **** **** *:

New ************ ****** *********** ******* ********

*** **** *********** ******* to ******** ******* ************ technologies, **** ** ************ cameras, **** ** ******* a *****-**** *********** ******* including ********** * ************ Impact ****** ** *** the ********** ** ****** to ******* ******, *** the ********** *** **** used *** ******* ** the ****, ***** ***** details. **** ****** ** then ********* ***** ********* ** *********** Technology (****), ***** **** ******** a ************ ********** ****** which ** ******** ** the *** ***** **** a ************** **** *** board *****, ***** **** modifications ** **** *** request, ** **** ** the ********** ***** **** pages ** *** **:

Existing *********** **** ** ******** ** ****

************, *********** **** ******* have ************ ********** ** use **** ** ******* a ****-********* ******* ** justify ********* *** ** the **********, ********** * proposed ************ ********** ****** ordinance ** *** *** within *** **** ** the ********* **** ** the ***, ** **** in *** ******* **** page ** *****:

**** ***-*** **** ***** was ******* ***** ****** the **** **** *** days.

***********, **** **** ** compile ***** ********* ** surveillance ********** *** *** it ** *** **** within ** **** ** the ********* **** ** the *** ** **** in *** ********** **** page ** *****:

**********, *** *** ****** that ** ******** **** the *** *** *** been ******** ****** *** days ***** *** ********** has ********* ***** ******** Surveillance ********** ****** *********, then **** *** ** discontinue *** ** *** technology ***** ** ** approved, ** **** ** the ********** **** **** 15 *****:

*******, ** ******* **** minute *********, *** *** amended *** ******** ** state **** * ********** could ******** ** *** their ******** ************ ********** until *** *** **** their ********.

**********

*******, ** *** ************ technology ** ******** *** already **** ******** ** the ***, **** * department ******* ** *** that ********** **** *** go ******* *** **** multi-step *******, ** **** in *** ********** **** page ** *****:

*** *** **** ****** city *********** ** *** surveillance ********** **** ******** to ** **** * non-city-department *** ***** **** a ******* ******** ** seen ** *** ********* from **** ** *****:

Who ** ******

********* ********* ********** ** airports *** ******** *** exempt **** *** ***, as **** ** *** screenshot **** **** * below:

***********, *** ******** ******* and *** ******* *** conditionally ****** **** ********** if **** ******* **** surveillance ********** ** ********* to ***** **** *** that ********** **** *** law ********** **** * prosecutorial ** ************* ********. The *** **** ******** that ** **** ***** the *** ** *** technology ** **** * matter ** ****** ******. In ********, ** **** cases, ** ** ******** that *** ******** ******* or ******* **** * declaration **** **********, ** even ** *********** ** why ********** ** ***********, would ******** ***** ****, as **** ** *** screenshot **** **** * below:

How ** *********** ** ** *******

********** **** *** *** will ** ******** *** an ****** ***** ** the **********'* ******, ** seen ** *** ******* from **** ** *****:

How ********** **** ** *******

*** *** ****** **** a ********* ** *** law ** ********** ** injury *** **** *** person *** ***** ***** action ******* *** **** as **** ** *** following ********** **** **** 17:

San ********* ** *** *** ***** **** ** **** **** * ***

***** *** ********* *** received ************* *********, *** county ******* ***** ****** * law ** ****, *** ************-********** *** Community-Safety ********* **** ********* forces ********* ******** ** expose *** ******* ************ currently ** *** *** seek ******** ****** ********** and ***** *** ************ technology, ** **** ** the********** ** *** **** report*****:

***** ***** ******'*********** ** ****** * million********* *** **** ***** has * ****** ********** than *** *********, ** itself.

*** **** ** ******* in ***** ** **** also ****** * ******* law ********* ************ *** public ****** ***** ** city ******** ********** ************ technologies, ** **** ** the ********** ** * news ***** [**** ** longer *********] *****:

California ***** *** *******

************, ********** ******* ***** Hill **** *** ***** County ********* ******* *****-**** surveillance ********** ***********,****** **** ****, **** was **** ** ******** for ******** ** *** of ****. *******, ******** **** ** *********, ********* ** *** Senator's ******. ** *** other ****, *** ******* in *** ********* ***** restart ******* ** **** this ** *** ****** state.

Why **** ******** *** ******* *** ***

************** ****** **** *** May * ******* ** the ***** ** ******************* * ***** ******** of ****** ******** ** the ******** ***.

******* ** **** ********* was* ****** **** * neighborhood-watch-type *****,**** ***** ****** ****** ** ******** ban ** **** *********** is **** ** "******** the **** *** **** the *********":

************* **** * ********* neighborhood **************** **** ********** *** enforcement's ****** ** ************ technologies **** ************, ******* plate ***********, *** ******* detection ******* ***** ******* to ******* *** ****** and ******* ** ********* criminals **** *** ********* is *** ******* ***** safety:

Input **** ***

*** ******** ******** *********** said *** ******* ** the *** *********** "**************" about ********** *** *** an ******* ** ** "ill-informed ******":

******* ** *** ********* represents *** ******* ****** example ***** ************** ***** technology *** **** ** ill-informed ******** **** ****** public ******. *** ******** would ****** ******* ******* on **** ********, ******* intended ** ******** ***** the *** ** **** common ************ **** ***** surveillance. ****** **** ********* unproven ***********, ********* ******* should ******* ****** ******* uses ** ***** ************ in *** *.*. *** related ****, ******** *** common **** ********* **** address **** ******* *** civil ********* ********. *** effort ** ********* ********** constructive ***** ****** *** unreasonably ******** *** ** modern ********** ***** **** have ****** ********* ** public ******.

*** **** ********* **** they ****** ** *********** ********* ** ********* and **********’* (****)******** ** **** ***** opinion:

*** ** *** ******* that *** ****** **** is ****’* *********** *** highly ********* ********. * would ********* *** ** review ***** **** ** work ** ***** ******** and ****** ***********. ***** technology ******* *** ******* and *** ********* **** is **** ** *** public.

*******, ***** ***** ** research ********* ******* *** NIST *******, **** ******** alone ** ************ ** prove **** **** *********** should *** ** ****** or *********. **** **** not **** * ******** on *** **********'* ***, just ****** *** ******** or *** ******* ********** are.

** **** *** *** received * ***** ** our ******** ** *** SIA ** ************ ****'* results.

Details ** *** ***

*** ******* ******* *** the *** ************ ***** ******. ***** ******** ** the *** ******* *************** *****,****** ***,******* ******, ********** *****. *********** ***** *** Walton **** ****** **** the *** ** *** meeting *** *** *** vote.

*** *** **** **** effect **** **, ****, or ** **** ***** enactment, ** **** ** the ********* ********** **** page ** ** *** legislative ****** ****** *****:

*** ***, ** ******* 19B, ** ** ********* to ****** ********* ************** ****.

Potential ********

*** ******* *** ******** of ******** ********* *** use ** ******* ************ presents **** ********* *** a ********** ***** *** city *********** **** ***** reports *** ******** ** the ***.

************, ********** **** ****** the ******* ** ******** Attorney **** ********** ** a ****** ************* **** the ********** ** ********* and ** *********** ** why *********** ***** ******** is * ********* ******** for *****.

**-***** *********** ** *****, procedures, ******** ******* *** be ***** ** ************** ****** ** **** 23 ** *** *********** Packet****** *****.

Comments (24)

Undisclosed #1

05/15/19 12:50am

***, **** **** ****** private ********* **** ******** public *******, **** ** the ******** ******** ***** multiple ************ ************** ******* systems **** **** *** side ** ************. ******* such ** ********, **** and ****. * **** find ** ******* **** a *** ** ******* businesses ******** **** ****** exterior ******* ********* **** and ***** **** **** a ****** ****** *** and * ****** ****** FOV. *** **** *** running ** ** **** as ***** *********.

* **** ** ******* at * **** ***** for ********** ** ******* to *** ** (****** conspiracy ******** ****).

**** ******, ** ******* to ***** *****..***** ** FR ** *** ***** Stadium ** ** ** possible **** ******* ******** can **** ********* ** the **** ** *** of *** ***** ***** Office ** *** ******* approval?

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed #1 | 05/15/19 01:50am

** *********** #*. *** law ******* ****** ***********, not ******* ********** ** homes. **** ******* **** Muni ** ********. ******, the ******* ******* ** the **** ********* ************ during *** ******* **** the ****** *** *** to **** ** ***** any ****** ******** ******* in ***** **** *** Muni *******. ** **** that **** **** ****** their ************ ********** ******, it **** ****** ** accepted ***** ****.

*** *** **** *** Santa ***** *** ******** from *** *********'* ** that ** *** *** outright *** ********, **** recognition ********.

***** ***.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #2

05/15/19 12:57am

** **** ***** ******* your **** **** *** go ** ***** ** go ** ******** ** this ***** **** ** considered ******* ** *** community.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Undisclosed Manufacturer #2 | 05/15/19 01:02am

*** ******* **** *** make ***** ***** *** SF *** ** ** government ***, *** ******* use. ****, *** *** use **** *** ** your **** *** *** government ****** *** ** to *** ** **** home, ***.

Undisclosed Manufacturer #2

In reply to John Honovich | 05/15/19 08:55pm

**** *** **** ********** law *** ** ******** does *** ******** ****** to ********** ** *******:

***** ** ***** **** in *** ********* **** leave *** ********** **** head ** ******.

John Honovich

IPVM | 05/15/19 01:03am

***, **** ****.*** **** ******** *** meeting /**** ******* ** ** ******** below:

Undisclosed #1

05/15/19 01:09am

****....**** *** **** **!

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | 05/15/19 11:25am

**'** ***** *** ********* input **** *** **** the ***** *****:

Input **** ***

*** ******** ******** *********** said *** ******* ** the *** *********** "**************" about ********** *** *** an ******* ** ** "ill-informed ******":

******* ** *** ********* represents *** ******* ****** example ***** ************** ***** technology *** **** ** ill-informed ******** **** ****** public ******. *** ******** would ****** ******* ******* on **** ********, ******* intended ** ******** ***** the *** ** **** common ************ **** ***** surveillance. ****** **** ********* unproven ***********, ********* ******* should ******* ****** ******* uses ** ***** ************ in *** *.*. *** related ****, ******** *** common **** ********* **** address **** ******* *** civil ********* ********. *** ****** to ********* ********** ************ rules ****** *** ************ restrict *** ** ****** technology ***** **** **** become ********* ** ****** ******.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Dan Gelinas | 05/15/19 11:39am

************** ***** **********... ********* ******** assumptions

*** ** ***. ******* ******** *** ******* of ****** ***********. **** ******* ** original ******** *** *** done ** **, *** that ******, **** ******* of?

** *** ***** ** represent *** ********, ** it ******, ***** * substantive ******** ***** ** actual ********, *** * knee **** ******* **********.

Jack Ives

CyberExtruder
In reply to John Honovich | 05/15/19 01:04pm

******** *** **** *********** with *** **** ***** by ****** *** ***** by *** ************ ** one ********* ***'* * solid ********** *** ******* an ****** ***** ** technology ** *** **** did. ***** * **** no ********* ** **** the *** *** ** may *** ** ******* of, *** *** **** for **** ******, * don't ***** **** ******* capability *** ** ** reason ** ***** *** the *********** **** **** is ***-******** ******.

******* **** *********** ** an ******* ******* ** many *******, ***** *** local ******** ** **** as ******* *************. ** single ********** ** ***** to ** *********** *** all ********** *** ******* the ********** ** **** of *** ********* ****** (sorry *** *** ***) stakeholders. *** *******, **** recognition ******* **** ** de-duplicate ***** ******* ********* to ****** *********** **** a ****** ******** (******* credential) ***** ******** ** a **** ****** *** usage ** * ****-**** application **** ********** ********* entry ** ****** ** an *******. ****-******** ****** is **** ******* ** well-informed ***********. ********* *** key **** ** ****** objective *** ******** ******* data ********* ** ******* the *************** ** * technology. **** **** * great *** ** ******* algorithms ** * *** environment ** ***** ***** care ** ******** *** the ***** *** *********** and *** ******* *******.

****** ****, *** *** Biometric ********** ***** ** a ******* ******* ****** place ** *** ******** Test ******** *** ** an *********** **** ** face, **** *** *********** technologies *** ******* *** needs ** ******** ******** stakeholders. ** ********** ** the ****(*) (* ********* can't ***** *** *** or *** ***** ** MdTF) *** ** *********** evaluate ********* ******* ***** goals *** ** ******* and ********** **** ****** through ****** ** ***** of *****.

**** ********* *********** ** either ***** **** **** a **** *********** ********** does *** **** * threat ** "...***** ****** and ******* ** * manner **** ********* *** good ** ***** **." Certainly *** - *** tool *** ** ******* and ****** (****** ***** use * *********** ** a ******?).

** ***** ** ********* selecting *** ***** **** for *** ***, *** having *** ********** *** data ********* ** **** the ******** ** *** first *****, *** *** best **** ** ******** the *** ** ************ like **** *********** ** public ******.

*** *********** **********/******* **** recognition *** *** ******* restrictive ** ***** ************ that ***** *** ****** interest. *** *******, * truly **** ** *** how ********** **** ******* detection ******* ** **********'* civil ****** ** ******** public ****** ** ***** banned.

John Honovich

IPVM | In reply to Jack Ives | 05/15/19 01:59pm

***** * **** ** knowledge ** **** *** SIA *** ** *** not ** ******* **

* **** ****** ** knowledge *** ********** **** what *** ** ******* of *** **** *** 100% *** ******* ** assessing ****** *********** ** really *** ********** *** that ******, *.*., ** ******* **** *** America ********** *** *** ************ ***** ** ISC ****'* **** *** IP ******.

*** ******** *** *** should ****** ** **** ******* ****** ** ** thoughtfully *** **** ********.

*** ****** *** *** own ***** *** ******** the ****, **** ***** get ******'* *********. * knee **** ******** ******** cannot ******* **** *** resources *** ******** **** the **** *** ****.

Jack Ives

CyberExtruder
In reply to John Honovich | 05/15/19 04:04pm

** **** **** * would ***** ** **** experience **** ****** ** the ******* ********* ** SIA. * ***** *** real ***** ****** (******** with ***) **** *** industry ****** ****** ** the ********* ***** ********. ********** I ***** *** *** putting * *** ** emphasis ** *** ****'* test ** ******'* ******* and **** ****** *** position **** *** ** is ***. *** **** is **** *** **** results **** **** ** and ** **** ********** situation ***** (****) ** nothing ** ********.

***, ** *** *** Francisco ***** ** *********** wants ** *** *********** based ** *** **** tests, * ***** **** are ** ***** *******. However, *** *********** **** Dan *** ******* ***** the *** **** ** ban *** **** *********** and **** *** ****** stipulate *** **** ******* at *** ********** **** face *********** "...*** ************* threatened ***** ****** *** liberty ** * ****** that ********* *** **** it ***** **." **** certainly **** **** *** negative ****-**** ******** *** and * ***** ** misplaced.

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | In reply to Jack Ives | 05/15/19 02:02pm

***** ****,

***** *** *** **** comment! **** ** ** clear, *** *** **** not *** ******* *********. Only **** *********** *** by **** *********** *** banned ** **** ***.

***** ************ ****** "************ technologies," **** ******* *********, need ** ** ******** by *** ***** ** Supervisors ***** ** ***** appraisal ** *** ************ Technology ****** ******** ** them ** ****, ***** they ******* ***** ** the ********** **********'* ************ Technology ****** ******.

* ***** ****'* ********* here ** *** ** gunshot ********* ******** ** surveillance **********? *** *** defines ************ ********** **:

*** ********, ********** ******, system ********* ** ********** device, ** ******* ****** used, ********, ** ********* intended ** *******. ******, process. ** ***** *****, electronic, ******, ********, *******, biometric, ********* ** ******* information************ ********** ****, **, capable ** ***** ********** with, *** ********** ** group. (******** *****)

***** * ******* ** is ******* *** ******* detection ** *** **** audio *** ******* *********, I ***'* ***** *** gunshot ** ******* *** be ************ ********** **** an ********** ** *****.

******* ********* ***** ** be **** ** ******** the **** ** ***, but *** * ******** person ******** * ***.

***** ** ********* ******** information ********* *** *** gunshot, *** **** ****** be ************ ********** **** any ********** ** *****.

Jack Ives

CyberExtruder
In reply to Dan Gelinas | 05/15/19 04:07pm

****** ***, *** ****** there *** **** ** me.

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | In reply to John Honovich | 05/15/19 03:17pm

** ******** * ***** back **** *** ** response ** ****'* ******** above:

* ***** ***** *** to *** ******** *********. One ** *** ******* that *** ****** **** is ****’* *********** *** highly ********* ********. * would ********* *** ** review ***** **** ** work ** ***** ******** and ****** ***********. ***** technology ******* *** ******* and *** ********* **** is **** ** *** public.

** ***** **** ******* back:

*** *** *** ************ NIST *******? ***, ***** is ******** *** ** that ***** **** ** should *** ** ********* or ******? **** ** not ****** * ******** on *** ***, **** how ******** ** *** certain ********** ***.

** **** *** *** heard **** **** *** with * ********.

Evan Nardone

In reply to John Honovich | 05/15/19 03:50pm

* **** *** ***'* response ** ** ******* more ** *** ************** of **** *******, ****** state, *** ******* ****** than **** ******* ** the ****** **********. ** all **** *** ****** of *** ******* ** softwares *** *** ******** biases **** *** ******* though. *** * ***** tend ** ***** **** the *** **** **** ban *** **** **** to ** **** ******'* fear ** *** ********** "spying" ** **** **** anything ****. *** **** would **** **** **** better ** ****** * comprehensive **** ********** *** protection *********** ******* ** an ******** ***.

Douglas Button

05/15/19 12:47pm

**** ****, * ***'* think *** ** *** of ****. ****'* "*******" of *** ****** *********** system *** *********** **** all ****** *********** ******* are ****** *** ********** is *** **** * would ******** * ******** evaluation ** *** **********. SIA *** *** ***** to **** ****** *********, only **** ***** *** current *** ***** ** the *.*. **** ***** help ******** *** *********'* hard-line ******** ** ************. I ***** ** ********** in ******* **** ******** the **** ******* ** developing **** ***********.

****** *** *** ***** report ***!

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | In reply to Douglas Button | 05/15/19 12:48pm

***** ***, ****.

Undisclosed #3

05/15/19 02:18pm

*****'* * ******* ********** between **** ******* ******* using ****** *********** *** creepy ********* ***/** ******** when **** *********** ****** enters ***** ******** *** when * ********** **** it ** *** ** citizens *** *********** **** away ***** *******. ** far ** * *** this, ** **** ***** government *********** ** *** people ***** ******** *** it's ***** ** ***** agencies ** ******* ***** use ** *** ********** and **** *** ********* of **** ********** ******. If ****'* ***** ** cause *** ********* ** somehow ****** "******" **** that **** *** ****** problems **** **** ***.

Undisclosed #4

In reply to Undisclosed #3 | 05/19/19 07:49pm

"** *** ** * see ****, ** **** makes ********** *********** ** the ****** ***** ******** and **'* ***** ** force ******** ** ******* their *** ** *** technology *** **** *** existence ** **** ********** public. "

********* *** ** *** in **** *** ***, I ***** **** **** take ** **** ***% - *** ** ** along **** ******.

** *** **** *** LE ** ** **** to ** **** **** do ** *** **** of ***** *********. *** when ***** **** ** agencies**** *** ************ '******' *** ********** that **** **** *****/********* (think ********* - *****, not **************, *** ******* in **** ***********) ** citizens *** ********* *** worried.

** ** *** ********** the ****-**** ******** ** 'accountability ** ***** **** serve' **** **** **** trialing *** **** *** tech, **** ** ******** would *** ***** ********** ** ** ******* about *** *** **** and ** ******** ******* - *** ****** ***** of ****** **** *** Brave *** ***** ***** fall *** *************.

Sean Patton

IPVM | 05/15/19 03:29pm

** ******* ******* *** skepticism **** ****, ************ because ** ** ** San ********* ** ******* to **** *******:

** * **** ***** dozens (********?) ** *******, venture-funded ********* ****** ** be ********** **** *********** solutions, ** ** ****** creating * ******** *********** for ***** ******* ********* to ****** ****/****** ****** cameras, ******* *** **** recognition ** * *******, and ******* **** **** back ** *** ****. This ***** **** ** the******** *** **** ********** model*** *****.

******* * ** **************** this ******* ** *** law, ***** ** **** as *** **** ** not ********** *** **** recognition, ***** ** ** issue?

Dan Gelinas

IPVM | In reply to Sean Patton | 05/15/19 03:47pm

**** *** ******* *'** done, ****, * ******* you're *****. *** *** states **** *** **** department *** *** **** recognition **** **** * 3rd ***** ** **** as ** ****'* "*******" said **** *** **** document's *** ********* *** use:

Michael Miller

05/16/19 12:28am

*** **** ******** ***** Ban **** *********** ************ By *********.

** *** **** **** that *** ********* ***** ** ****** the ***** **** ** the ****** ****** ** ban ********** *** ** face *********** ************, *** New **** ***** *********** introduced * **** ** ban *** *** ** facial *********** ************ ** residential *********.

Vincent Tong

05/16/19 04:51pm

**** ** ********** ** anything ** ********