SACRAMENTO, Calif. (March 16, 2023) – A California bill would extend a temporary ban on police use of facial recognition and biometric scanners with police officer cameras for 10 more years.
Asm. Lori Wilson (D) introduced Assembly Bill 1034 (AB1034) on Feb. 15. On Jan. 1, 2020, a law went into effect prohibiting law enforcement agencies or law enforcement officials from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. This includes body-worn and handheld devices. This law sunset on Jan. 1, 2023. SB1034 would reenact the law and keep it in effect until 2034.
The law had a major impact even before it even went into effect. In December 2019, San Diego announced it would shut down one of the largest facial recognition programs in the country to comply with AB1215. According to an agenda released by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the facial recognition system used by more than 30 agencies was suspended as of Jan. 1, 2020. The announcement came after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sent a letter demanding the shutdown of the massive program to comply with AB1215.
Asm. Philip Ting (D), Sen. Steven Bradford (D), and Assm Kevin McCarty (D) introduced Assembly Bill 642 (AB642) on Feb. 9. While the legislation purports to restrict law enforcement use of facial recognition, the bill is written in a way that would give police sweeping statutory authorization to use facial recognition in virtually limitless scenarios. For instance, the bill puts limits on facial recognition surveillance of First Amendment activities but includes exceptions that would easily allow it.
Under the proposed law, police could use facial recognition to aid an investigation, but they would be prohibited from using it as the sole reason for an arrest or search warrant. This would open the door to almost unlimited police use of facial recognition surveillance in California.
It’s particularly problematic that AB642 lacks any limits on facial recognition databases and allows virtually unlimited sharing of facial recognition information with other law enforcement agencies.
A coalition opposing the passage of AB642 said the proposed law would normalize and incentivize unprecedented mass surveillance systems in California communities, exacerbate racial profiling, and erode the civil rights and safety of people in the state.
Activist Nathan Sheard told CBS Bay Area that allowing the use of facial recognition at all is problematic.
“Really, there’s no way to separate the harm and risk of government use of facial recognition from the use of the technology at all.”
IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS
A 2019 report revealed that the federal government has turned state driver’s license photos into a giant facial recognition database, putting virtually every driver in America in a perpetual electronic police lineup. The revelations generated widespread outrage, but the story wasn’t new. The federal government has been developing a massive facial recognition system for years.
The FBI rolled out a nationwide facial recognition program in the fall of 2014, with the goal of building a giant biometric database with pictures provided by the states and corporate friends.
In 2016, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law released “The Perpetual Lineup,” a massive report on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology in the U.S. You can read the complete report at perpetuallineup.org. The organization conducted a year-long investigation and collected more than 15,000 pages of documents through more than 100 public records requests. The report paints a disturbing picture of intense cooperation between the federal government, and state and local law enforcement to develop a massive facial recognition database.
“Face recognition is a powerful technology that requires strict oversight. But those controls, by and large, don’t exist today,” report co-author Clare Garvie said. “With only a few exceptions, there are no laws governing police use of the technology, no standards ensuring its accuracy, and no systems checking for bias. It’s a wild west.”
Despite the outrage generated by these reports, Congress has done nothing to roll back this facial recognition program.
There are many technical and legal problems with facial recognition, including significant concerns about the accuracy of the technology, particularly when reading the facial features of minority populations. During a test run by the ACLU of Northern California, facial recognition misidentified 26 members of the California legislature as people in a database of arrest photos.
With facial recognition technology, police and other government officials have the capability to track individuals in real time. These systems allow law enforcement agents to use video cameras and continually scan everybody who walks by. According to the report, several major police departments have expressed an interest in this type of real-time tracking. Documents revealed agencies in at least five major cities, including Los Angeles, either claimed to run real-time face recognition off of street cameras, bought technology with the capability, or expressed written interest in buying it.
In all likelihood, the federal government heavily involves itself in helping state and local agencies obtain this technology. The feds provide grant money to local law enforcement agencies for a vast array of surveillance gear, including ALPRs, stingray devices and drones. The federal government essentially encourages and funds a giant nationwide surveillance net and then taps into the information via fusion centers and the Information Sharing Environment (ISE).
Fusion centers were sold as a tool to combat terrorism, but that is not how they are being used. The ACLU pointed to a bipartisan congressional report to demonstrate the true nature of government fusion centers: “They haven’t contributed anything meaningful to counterterrorism efforts. Instead, they have largely served as police surveillance and information sharing nodes for law enforcement efforts targeting the frequent subjects of police attention: Black and brown people, immigrants, dissidents, and the poor.”
Fusion centers operate within the broader ISE. According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant. Known ISE partners include the Office of Director of National Intelligence which oversees 17 federal agencies and organizations, including the NSA. ISE utilizes these partnerships to collect and share data on the millions of unwitting people they track.
Reports that the Berkeley Police Department in cooperation with a federal fusion center deployed cameras equipped to surveil a “free speech” rally and Antifa counterprotests provided the first solid link between the federal government and local authorities in facial recognition surveillance.
In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. The passage of state laws and local ordinances banning and limiting facial recognition eliminates one avenue for gathering facial recognition data. Simply put, data that doesn’t exist cannot be entered into federal databases.
Both AB1034 and AB642 are in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The bills must pass the committee by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.