Can I phone a friend? How cops circumvent face recognition bans

Circumventing Bans Through Outsourcing Searches

Several major US cities, including San Francisco and Austin, have prohibited or heavily restricted police use of facial recognition technology. However, police departments in these cities have reportedly sought assistance from neighboring jurisdictions that do not have such bans to perform facial recognition searches on their behalf.

According to an analysis by The Washington Post, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) requested facial recognition searches from other agencies on at least five occasions since 2019, although none of these searches returned a match. Conversely, the Austin Police Department (APD) has made at least 13 such requests since 2020, with some resulting in successful identifications, arrests, and charges.

This practice effectively sidesteps local ordinances by outsourcing the technology use, raising questions about the efficacy of facial recognition bans and the challenges of enforcing them across jurisdictional boundaries.

Legal and Policy Challenges

Both the SFPD and APD have acknowledged that these facial recognition searches were conducted without formal department authorization, indicating potential violations of city policies. While San Francisco officials stated that no penalties have been imposed, the Austin Police Department indicated it would investigate any breaches of local ordinances.

Complicating matters further, some facial recognition service providers, such as Clearview AI, explicitly prohibit sharing facial recognition data with other government agencies. Despite this, law enforcement agencies continue to find ways to exchange information, sometimes under the guise of sharing 'flyers' or other materials that can be processed through facial recognition software.

Legal experts warn that evidence obtained through such circumvention could be challenged in court and potentially deemed inadmissible, especially if it is proven that police knowingly violated local bans. This has led some prosecutors to hesitate in filing charges based on facial recognition-derived evidence.

Technology Bias and Ethical Concerns

One of the primary reasons for enacting facial recognition bans is the technology’s well-documented bias, particularly against people of color. Studies have shown that facial recognition systems often have higher false positive rates for minority groups, leading to wrongful identifications and potential miscarriages of justice.

Even in cities like London, where the Metropolitan Police temporarily suspended facial recognition due to bias concerns, improvements to the technology have been modest. The false positive rate in London was reported to be approximately one in 6,000, a significant figure given the number of people passing cameras daily.

These biases raise serious questions about the ethical use of facial recognition in policing, fueling advocacy for stricter regulations or outright bans to protect privacy and civil rights.

The Broader Landscape of Facial Recognition Use in US Law Enforcement

Despite local bans, facial recognition remains widely used across the United States. Around two dozen jurisdictions have enacted bans or moratoriums, yet many federal agencies and hundreds of police departments continue to employ the technology.

Moreover, partnerships between law enforcement and private companies, such as Amazon Ring, provide police with access to vast amounts of video footage that can be used for public safety and investigations, further complicating the regulatory environment.

The rapid advancement of facial recognition technology has outpaced legislation, leaving gaps that law enforcement agencies exploit. This dynamic underscores the need for comprehensive federal guidelines to address privacy, accuracy, and ethical concerns.

Official Responses and Transparency Efforts

San Francisco police have publicly acknowledged instances where facial recognition was used despite the ban, stating that four cases occurred shortly after the policy was enacted, none of which yielded matches. These incidents were investigated and reported to the city’s Board of Supervisors in an effort to maintain transparency.

Austin officials have committed to reviewing any violations of their city’s facial recognition ordinance, but details about investigations or disciplinary actions remain limited.

The lack of consistent enforcement and transparency complicates public trust and highlights the difficulties in monitoring police compliance with facial recognition restrictions.

What this means

Facial recognition technology presents complex challenges at the intersection of law enforcement, privacy, and civil rights. While local bans aim to curb misuse and protect communities, police departments’ strategies to circumvent these restrictions reveal significant enforcement gaps. The persistence of such workarounds underscores the urgent need for clear, comprehensive policies at all levels of government to regulate facial recognition use effectively. Balancing public safety with ethical considerations and individual rights will require ongoing dialogue, transparency, and technological improvements to ensure that facial recognition serves justice without compromising fundamental freedoms.