Also, I've heard approximately zero people from Portland calling for more police presence, even if it would cut down on the non-Portlanders traveling there to start problems. From what I can tell, they're not asking for or welcoming of that kind of "help".
Stay safe, Portland is a good town at times, just it's 2020 you know?
And I've seen enough unreliable technologies hit the market and marketers don't talk about the flaws or limitations in a responsible way. They highlight when the tech has done something miraculous.
With all of this kind of stuff I ask: what happens when the tech is wrong? Who's accountable? Who makes the victim whole? Too often the answer is nobody is accountable.
Many things. Using violence to spread your beliefs is not the sole preserve of fascism and is not the primary identifier of fascism either.
http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-...
it is so damn easy to support the protests in Portland and some other cities when you don't have to experience it. The violence and fear is real, when your city officials effectively abandon their duties to score political points it should tell you your worth.
I live near a not so violent city now; we had a time with it but it died out awhile ago because it was embarrassing an important mayor but I too had coworkers looking to get out of the area. People expect the government they elect to protect people and property and it is very disconcerting when they won't.
Worse is the excuses they use for not doing so making you ask, then at what point would you step in?
Police shutdown the highway and trains. Eventually people gave up and went back to burning downtown.
If it’s in a public place I would absolutely have a constitutional right to use that photograph, sell that photograph etc
You 100% absolutely do if it is in public when it comes to publishing, even commercial publishing. Where do you think news gets their photos? Travel magazines? Professional photographers? You don’t need permission to publish or sell a photograph taken in a public place regardless of who or how many people are in it.
[0] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l... [1] https://www.rightofpublicityroadmap.com/law/oregon
Edit: corrected intended phrasing of 1 sentence.
Nope even your own source confirms it. You can publish a photo taken in public for commercial purposes without permission - the only exception listed there is if your present it in such a way that it appears as an endorsement. Then you need permission (for the endorsement). In that case though it isn’t the photo that is the problem it is the false endorsement (which is illegal no matter what the medium, photo, words etc).
Good test here is if you could reasonably make a civil claim against the person reusing/redistributing the cropped images of themselves for their own purposes after the fact without permission.
As you say it means certain types of uses but does not mean simply that I'm making money off it. I can absolutely take your picture in a public place and , in general, sell it to any newspaper or sell a poster made from it if I want.
You disputed it right here. You 100% have a right to PUBLISH even for commercial purposes without permission.
All of the above are true for me, and I was born here, and I for one applaud the new restrictions on facial recognition.
If your answer to most or all of the above questions is "no", please reconsider telling those of us with actual lives here here how we should want to be policed and why.
I called 911 to report an assault in progress. I was on hold for four minutes, and the police took over an hour to arrive.
I was in a bodega last week when a cop came in to respond to a robbery call that was made over 5 hours prior. The cashier was obviously having a bad day, but still absolutely livid at the response time.
We don't have enough cops to go around right now. Technology helps what cops we do have scale the impact each one can have. Ideally, we'd have more cops _and_ more technology that helps them do their job.
This ordinance is outright silly at best, and detrimental/dangerous at worst, IMO.
Too often we've seen the legal system use flimsy evidence, and comb the earth for experts who'll back up the flimsy evidence. Then years later the city is paying someone for their wrongful conviction.
I don't want to be the person whose life is turned upside-down, and unable to pay legal fees all because of some flawed facial recognition.
When facial recognition is reliable, then we need to talk about privacy and access to the data and how it's used.
I can already imagine what'll happen. Government entities like, law enforcement, will have to jump through hoops to get warrants and prove they have a good reason to access the data. However, private entities like grocery stores, marijuana dispensaries and car washes won't need a good reason. They'll use it for marketing, and making money allowing 3rd parties to access the data.
I'm not cool with any of that.
This is a nightmare sentiment. No, identifying criminals should not be efficient at all. Everyone is a criminal -- whether that's speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, loitering, or whatever, the last thing we need is police having more powers to point to someone they dislike and saying, "We've got footage of you doing X, comply with our demands or suffer the consequences."
Giving police better technology to do their jobs doesn't automatically make them corrupt. Those who are corrupt are going to temporarily have more power, sure, but that's all the more reason to root them out and implement better transparency and balance checks at the same time.
There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life.
We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,
In some (many?) jurisdictions, posted speed limits are not absolute limits but are rather evidence for the judiciary to consider when deciding whether the driver was operating a motor vehicle faster than what was reasonable and proper. (Faster than reasonable and proper being the actual law that has possibly been broken.)
Removing judicial discretion in favor of zero-tolerance laws is a step in the wrong direction I believe.
All of these require due process for something as simple as a speeding ticket.
Identifying criminals that are breaking the law should absolutely be easy, efficient and absolute. Either you agree they are breaking the law and that the law is just, or the law is unjust. Otherwise, if you agree that there is a "grey" area between the two, then you're just inviting abuse by virtue of selective-policing.
Leaving aside the crimes you named, police do need tools to identify, locate, and arrest those who engage in more serious crimes like property damage (car thefts, burglaries, bike thefts, etc), violence (rioters throwing Molotov cocktails, assaults, shootings), looting, etc. Enforcing the law matters in order to retain a stable and just society. It absolutely should be efficient, both in the interest of serving justice so there is a deterrent against crime, but also to save taxpayers’ money by making more efficient use of policing resources. Suggesting we keep police from enforcing the law efficiently is illogical and dangerous, and followed to its conclusion, is no different than arguing that police should also be denied other tools like computers or electricity.
Yes they do, it's called civil disobedience, and many Americans from marginalized groups wouldn't have the rights they enjoy now without it. In fact, as people like to point out, America was born from it.
The point is to show respect for the rule of law while at the same time calling attention to an injustice.
The notion that you can commit arson, theft, assault, vandalism, and so on with impunity as long as you self-proclaim you are doing it for a just cause is not what "civil disobedience" is about, IMHO.
Your reference to the founding of America only seems relevant if you think the current government is illegitimate and needs to be replaced forcefully and in its entirety (i.e. you are making a revolutionary argument). If someone wants to make that argument then I think they should be able to justify that drastic measure with a rationale that is a bit more coherent than protest slogans and be able to explain what they intend to put in place instead of the current government.
Facial recognition and citizen movement tracking is a slippery slippery slope I want nobody in power to control.
The thing that confuses me is this is clearly done for the rioters but they're the ones with the ideology that generally results in this type of draconian citizen tracking.
Its an upside down world man.
I do agree that limits on photography are probably unconstitutional though.
And I'm not sure the gain justifies the cost. Not being able to facial rec a robbery suspect is going to have tragic outcomes.
In theory, but not in practice, we can ensure governments aren't using it but businesses and private individuals seem almost impossible. Certainly underground businesses will take advantage of it like the mafia or other groups who figure out how to weaponize it.
If you think anti-authoritarianism is an exclusively right-wing value you're sorely mistaken. Even the term 'libertarian' was co-opted from lefties. You'll learn more if you approach confusing issues with curiosity rather than calling Portland "upside down world" because your biases conflict with reality.
I'm happy to discuss this topic with you as long as you're willing to hold up your end of the conversation.
Deal?
Presently, the only way to identify the police officers who are polluting our town with toxic gasses and brutalizing families who are trying to assemble to protest the existence of their employers, is by their face.
So don't pretend for a second like it's we, the protestors, who are trying to hide.
So it's the pervasive always-on nature that makes it different.
I don't know how you possibly came to this conclusion from the ordinances, but I would rethink this take.
As a nice side benefit, the sort of neoliberal surveillance-advertising monolith that we see in "Minority Report" is also banned.
Edit: So many downvotes! Do y'all want to use your words? It's starting to seem like HN users want to build panopticons and they're upset that we legislated that possibility away.
Better and more automated enforcement might reduce the amount of police we want/need and the amount of police interactions we have as well. The quicker we get there, the quicker we can actually decide which laws are non-sense and perhaps just require fines instead of physical jail time.
Imagine a hypothetical perfect scenario whereby we have a non-corruptible AI that watches security-camera footage that is next to ubiquitous in public areas. Suppose it has really good facial recognition capabilities too and can clearly detect + see who committed an assault/rape/murder. Have a bit of "manual" vetting by prosecutors (add double-blind + other steps to prevent bias) before proceeding, and voila you have N-amount less need of having police patrolling around to "deal" with this specific crime that can be automatically picked up.
Even being able to automatically pick up on a murder/assault/rape happening and automatically and immediately dispatching police can save lives, so many lives. Just this simple scenario is one that should be so powerful to convince people of the benefits, yet hypothetical "big brother", "privacy" and "potential abuse" counter-arguments are somehow more important than peoples' lives.
No it's not.
> 4.10.040 Exceptions
> ...
> C.In automatic face detection services in social media applications.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5967c18bff7c50a0244ff...
I'm not seeing your claimed explicit ban on advertising. Could you quote it please?
IANAL but sec. A: defines FRT as "comparing the facial features of a probe image with the features of images contained in an image repository (one-to-many search)."
"Private Entity shall not use Face Recognition Technologies in Places of Public Accommodation"
"John Anderton, you could use a Guinness right now!" style targeted advertising requires matching features of the face (eyes) to a repository to get the name.
While I understand the difference between detection and recognition I think an exception naming both recognition and detection is likely to be viewed by a court as permissive.
Otherwise what does that exception mean? I'm not aware of any detection functionality in any social media application that isn't tied to recognition.
Getting back to Portland - if you haven’t kept an eye on what’s happening there, and are denying that there are disruptive riots virtually every night in one part of the city, then you are gaslighting. There is a mountain of evidence that a group of antifa/BLM participants willfully partake in criminal activity under the guise of racial justice with regularity (example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/portland-protests-police-declar...). One of them even murdered another citizen recently (see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arres...).
It's widely agreed that an Antifa-supporting protester killed someone. whether it was murder we'll never know as he was killed by US Marshals prior to trial (and whether or not that was murder, we may not know any time soon either). there was a strong self-defense argument to be made - and yes I read the criminal complaint that was used to swear out the warrant, and don't think it would have stood up to close scrutiny.
How do you figure? From the evidence collected it appeared to me (and others) to be premeditated. [0] Particularly interesting to me were images from the garage security camera showing Reinoehl lying in wait.
[0] - https://www.mcda.us/index.php/documents/state-of-oregon-vs-m...
Reinoehl's presence in the garage does not seem to me to meet any definition of 'lying in wait', since he had no prior knowledge of anyone coming that way, and indeed Danielson (the shooting victim) and Pappas (his buddy) did not go in that direction. As documented, Reinoehl looked over his shoulder, appeared to notice the two men walking behind him, and entered the garage where he paused briefly and seemed to draw his weapon. It is just as easily argued that he took cover out of anxiety that he was being followed, and then exited the garage after assuring himself that he had access to the weapon. You will recall that the same photographs you cite seem to show Danielson holding a large canister of pepper spray and a baton in his hands (documented on p17).
Lying in wait is an aggravating factor demonstrating a murder's prior intent to assail an unwary victim. Ducking out of sight and readying a weapon might be a very reasonable thing to do if you discovered you were being followed by a person bearing two weapons.
A trial would have looked into what interactions those parties had earlier in the day, and the exact sequence of events around the shooting, ie who approached who and whether Reinoehl shot Danielson first or whether the shooting was a response to Danielson spraying Reinoehl. I don't know the answer to the first two questions and while it appeared to me that the use of pepper spray preceded both gunshots, being sure would require access to the original video and testimony from the multiple witnesses.
Lying is technically a different angle, yeah.
The protests aren't peaceful, but that's deliberate. "No Justice; No Peace" means something. The protesters have been non-violent, but non-peaceful on purpose. The police have consistently escalated (just like they did in Seattle.)
* Defunding. There was a moderate budget cut already, but we want more, and we want the city to not just remove budget from PPB but actually put money into social welfare programs.
* Non-violence. The city council and mayor theoretically have the power to order the police to stop using tear gas right now, and similarly they could order the police to be less violent in all of their activities.
* Justice. The police are failing to arrest fascist street thugs, and instead send them text messages letting them know not to show up [0]. Meanwhile they do nothing to prevent federal officers from using unmarked vans to yank people off the streets.
* Polis. The police mostly live in Vancouver or its suburbs, over in Washington State. This is absurd; police ought to live in their respective precincts, just like how city councillors must live in their district. Even my credit union requires me to live in my county!
* Reform. There are many popular initiatives [1] which would force police work to be more humane and considerate, if only they were adopted.
I would consider any of those to be a victory. We got some defunding earlier, and protestors agreed that it was a good token effort but not enough.
Nobody wants the old routine of police violence and abuse. Nobody particularly wants to be tear-gassed, I think.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disturbing-texts-betwee...
I am too far away from the details and the history of the Portland police department to pretend to know what the right course of action is, but it seems to me that the "non-peaceful" part of the protest is actually making any resolution that much more difficult. That is to say it is a tactic that makes the problem worse not better.
I'm also pretty mystified as to why the normal political process was not able to resolve concerns about police activities/methodologies. As far as I can tell from afar, all the Portland elected officials are ideologically aligned with those initiatives. What prevented them from responding and if there really isn't the political will to make those changes through normal peaceful means, by what right to the protesters get to force their will on the entire community?
If there is really a story about elected officials ignoring or contributing to violations of individual rights, failure to ensure due process, failure to manage the police force, and so on then why isn't that story being told or reported on? If that is really the back story then the protestors have utterly failed to communicate that in an environment where it should be almost trivial to gain public visibility for those problems.
Portland is even more puzzling because I believe the Mayor is also the police commissioner so there shouldn't be any problem with control of police policy as there can be in other jurisdictions where there is less direct oversight of the police.
It also seems very untimely. Portland is exactly the type of city that needs surveillance, to identify and arrest criminals who are committing property damage, theft, and arson as part of daily riots.