Current Events > LAPD lied alot about not using facial recognition tech. Bye Bye your privacy.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200927/11441345393/after-years-claiming-it-
doesnt-use-facial-recognition-software-lapd-admits-it
-has-used-it-30000-times-since-2009.shtml

The Los Angeles Police Department apparently loves using facial recognition tech. It doesn't like talking about its love for this tech, though. It told the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology it had nothing to give the Center when it asked for its facial recognition tech documents.

The Los Angeles Police Department has repeatedly announced new face recognition initiativesincluding a smart car equipped with face recognition and real-time face recognition camerasyet the agency claimed to have no records responsive to our document request.

The LAPD flatly denied using the tech as recently as 2019.

"We actually do not use facial recognition in the Department," Rubenstein told the LA Times in 2019, adding an exception of "a few limited instances" where outside agencies used it during joint investigations.

Here's what the LA Times has discovered, thanks to public records that the LAPD finally decided to stop withholding.

The Los Angeles Police Department has used facial recognition software nearly 30,000 times since 2009, with hundreds of officers running images of suspects from surveillance cameras and other sources against a massive database of mug shots taken by law enforcement.
The new figures, released to The Times, reveal for the first time how commonly facial recognition is used in the department, which for years has provided vague and contradictory information about how and whether it uses the technology.

When a citizen misleads a cop, it's obstruction. When cops mislead the public, it's just an honest mistake. But the reality of the situation is this: more than 300 officers have access to the database which contains 9 million photos. And the software the Sheriff's Department uses is run by Dataworks, which made news recently for being instrumental in two false arrests predicated on facial recognition searches run on its platform.

All the more reason to wear a mask

---

Kinky

---

that's it, I'M NOT DOING SHADY SHIT IN LA ANYMORE!

---

The Trent posted...

that's it, I'M NOT DOING SHADY SHIT IN LA ANYMORE!

Thanks alot. The LAPD probably read this post and got excited.

Muh freedoms crowd will be silent about it this

---

WingsOfGood posted...

Thanks alot. The LAPD probably read this post and got excited.

LAPD is like skynet if skynet also beat you up

---

Imagine thinking you have any semblance of privacy left anyways

---

Why is this supposed to be a bad thing?

FantasticAssGas posted...

Why is this supposed to be a bad thing?

a good portion of CE does not want to catch criminals, 2020 account owner

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

Imagine thinking you have any semblance of privacy left anyways

You do until you adopt your line of thinking. There are legal privacy protections in different countries you can invoke. But I am sure anyone who tramples on such would be giddy to know this is the attitude that prevails.

WingsOfGood posted...

You do until you adopt your line of thinking. There are legal privacy protections in different countries you can invoke. But I am sure anyone who tramples on such would be giddy to know this is the attitude that prevails.

I mean, I was kinda limiting this to the US, not other countries.

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

I mean, I was kinda limiting this to the US, not other countries.

So think about it this way.
Why did the LAPD deny that they had this practice?
Why did they

yet the agency claimed to have no records responsive to our document request.

According to you they did nothing illegal or shady and we should all expect that it is done. So why deny?

WingsOfGood posted...

So why deny?

I'm not denying that they did anything wrong. My original statement had nothing to do with this specific case. It was just a general statement.

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

I'm not denying that they did anything wrong. My original statement had nothing to do with this specific case. It was just a general statement.

If they violated any laws then you statement was absolutely wrong. If they were afraid to admit what they did because they themselves figured they might have violated some laws, them your statement was absolutely wrong.

WingsOfGood posted...

If they violated any laws then you statement was absolutely wrong. If they were afraid to admit what they did because they themselves figured they might have violated some laws, them your statement was absolutely wrong.

My overall point is that privacy as we know it is gone, regardless of whether or not those monitoring your information are doing so lawfully.

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

My overall point is that privacy as we know it is gone, regardless of whether or not those monitoring your information are doing so lawfully.

Your privacy is not gone if you have protections that are there to guarantee you retain it.
It is only then gone when you throw your hands up and do not seek to utilize such protections.

ironic

Le_seuI___dieu posted...

ironic

that they got such software from communist China?

you'll become a rich man one day

http://www.aclu.org
Volunteer, "help them", spread the word. DO something.
---

WingsOfGood posted...

Your privacy is not gone if you have protections that are there to guarantee you retain it.
It is only then gone when you throw your hands up and do not seek to utilize such protections.

What protections do you have in mind?

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

What protections do you have in mind?

Here is one that already exists for Illinois:
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57

But basically this site lays it out:

https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2020/07/facial-recognition-here-we-have-no-laws/166711/

First, to address privacy risks, Congress should pass a national privacy law that disciplines the collection and use of biometric data, including facial scans. The European Unions data protection laws have been used to punish misuse of facial recognition systems and can be a model in this regard.
Second, to address bias risks, Congress should establish testing requirements, standard-setting, and certification mechanisms to prevent deployment of biased facial recognition systems. Where automated facial identification could affect individuals lives, human review should be mandated. And photo databases used by police for facial recognition must themselves be unbiased, for example by excluding the mugshots of people not convicted of any crime.
Third, laws should limit the use of facial recognition to conduct mass surveillance and real-time identification. Such scanning should require a warrant and should be prohibited in First Amendment scenarios such as protests and religious observances.

And until protections are in place, just ban it

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/2-democratic-senators-propose-ban-use-facial-recognition-federal-law-n1232128

You seem to be fixating a little too hard on strictly facial recognition items, so let me take a step back a bit.

Do you have a smartphone?

---

PatrickMahomes posted...

You seem to be fixating a little too hard on strictly facial recognition items, so let me take a step back a bit.

Do you have a smartphone?

title of the thread:
LAPD lied alot about not using facial recognition tech. Bye Bye your privacy.

If someone counters your argument and opens your mind to knew info you did not know existed, just be man enough to admit it and move on. I am not engaging you in a debate that has nothing to do with the title and purpose of this thread which is strictly facial recognition.

WingsOfGood posted...

title of the thread:
LAPD lied alot about not using facial recognition tech. Bye Bye your privacy.

If someone counters your argument and opens your mind to knew info you did not know existed, just be man enough to admit it and move on. I am not engaging you in a debate that has nothing to do with the title and purpose of this thread which is strictly facial recognition.

My point from the start is that privacy is already gone, and that this scenario changes nothing. If your "counter" to aforementioned argument is that privacy as we know it is not gone, then have I got a bridge to sell you!

---

Imagine thinking we still have privacy.

---