After years of failed To try reduction monitoring methods, Baltimore is about to launch one of the country’s biggest obstacles facial recognition. But the ban that Baltimore wants to be very different from Laws in San Francisco or Portland, Oregon: It would have been only a year, the police would not have been compelled, and the use of other secret methods would have been illegal.
Kristerfer Burnett, the city council’s founder, said it was created by Baltimore’s government, although protesters complained that it could punish, or even imprison, private individuals who use the technology.
Last year, Burnett introduced a type of bill that would ban the use of the city in any form. When this failed, he instead founded the nation, and built a one-year “sunset” that required the council to approve. In early June, the city council voted 12-2; is now awaiting a signature from Mayor Brandon Scott.
“It was important to start discussions now next year to explain what it would look like,” Burnett said.
The Act seeks to establish a team to make regular reports on the purchase of new monitoring equipment, stating its cost and effectiveness. Cities like New York and Pittsburgh have it made the same armies, but ridiculed as “Dirty” as members have no power or power to coerce.
Burnett says the reports are important, because a year from now, Baltimore politics could look very different.
Since 1860, the Baltimore Police Department has been under state control, not the city. The city council and the mayor appoint a police commissioner and set a budget, but the city council does not have the power to ban police use of faces.
However, residents of Baltimore they will have a chance voting to restore the police department to city administration early next year. Mayor Scott himself aid this change in time as the city council. Local improvement measures can be seen in the voting process as the one-year ban expires, while Burnett and other privacy advocates can benefit from the annual survey on the banned results.
Negotiations for the return of the police to the city administration have resumed the death of Freddie Gray in 2015 he is in the hands of the police. Then-Mayor Catherine Pugh set up a task force to provide feedback on police reform; in 2018, employees released a report warning that “BPD will not be held accountable at all to its citizens until it has reviewed everything in the city.”
Adding to the pressure to restore your control were the revelations used by the police media control software and face recognition monitoring opponents after his death Gray. Burnett says the city needs to think about the proper use of surveillance equipment “before we get to the point [surveillance] has become so widespread that it is difficult for you to break free. In contrast, he says, the government has often “done very well.”
Opponents say the ban is an example of negligence. The police department and the city’s Police Force are opposed to this. A police spokesman sent WIRED to the department’s letter to the city council, stating that “instead of refusing to ban the use of some new technology, it is prudent to establish security measures.”
Commercial groups also opposed the funding, especially those affecting the private use of the face. As noted, the bill not only fines offenders, but also imposes a criminal offense, which can land up to 12 months in prison. Portland Law prohibiting the use of facial confidentiality, which enabled offenders to pay interest and attorneys.
Groups such as the Security Industry Association say this could lead to secrecy for private businesses, that is, the need for facial recognition to replace, or schools for online proctoring companies that use the technology. Councilor Isaac Schleifer also said the consequences of breaking the law were crucial to his “no” vote on the measure.
Source link
