It requires police to disclose basic information about what surveillance technologies they have, how they work, how they're used and how often it covers tech ranging from cell phone location, trackers, automated license plate readers, body cameras, and social media monitoring software. This summer, the city passed the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology act or the POST Act. And it's a threat to democracy itself when you have the police operating without any oversight, but it also makes it impossible to have the sort of public pushback we need to start banning these tools when we don't know that they're being used in the first place. In another example from the NYPD, a New York Knicks player stands in for the suspect.Īlbert Fox Cahn: But even our elected officials, our city council don't know what tools they're using. We don't know how often this happens, but we know it's more than once. A detective noticed the suspect looked a little bit like the actor, Woody Harrelson, and after running pictures through the system, they found a match. The camera captured his face, but not well enough for the facial recognition system to return any matches. A few years ago, investigators were searching for a suspect caught on tape, stealing beer from a drug store in New York City. Jennifer Strong: There's even a name for this called the celebrity comparison. You have them feeding in doppelgänger photos and we have no idea how many times this has been done. And the NYPD is going through and using in a way that only makes that risk more pronounced. He's been arguing with the NYPD about how they use this technology for a number of years.Īlbert Fox Cahn: You have this incredibly powerful technology, but it's already prone to certain types of errors and to certain types of bias. Jennifer Strong: But scare tactics aren't the only ones he's concerned about. We just wanted to scare the public into thinking we had facial recognition so that they wouldn't skip their fare. And recently we got a favorable decision from a New York state judge who said that the MTA wrongly withheld information about those monitors without providing us any explanation of how they were being used, whether there was facial recognition involved and what the purpose of setting them up in the first place was because the MTA's justification for using these monitors was "don't worry." These aren't facial recognition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |