If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this scenario.
If both of these things are true this law creates a new right not to be subject to facial recognition which if it doesn't contravene state or federal legislation is perfectly legal.
Do you have a legal theory as to why this law would be problematic? The first amendment seems like a dead end but if you would like to argue it could you please expand on the matter?
Why do you say this?
> If the picture isn't being captured for the purpose of informing their fellow citizenry they have no first amendment rights at all to protect in this scenario.
Even if free press is the only basis for protection of the practice of photography under the constitution, there is no requirement that press activities be exclusively for the purpose of "information their fellow citizenry", and no requirement that the person in question be part of the "citizenry" in the first place.
Someone taking photographs in public is not required to disclose all photographs in order for this activity to be protected. Press generally covers not only publication, but documentation, research, and other press activities. If I take a photo in public, the subsequent activities of performing research and analysis of that photo are also protected activities.
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Wherein do you construe taking a picture to be a first amendment situation save where it constitutes an act of communication? Press in current context could be stretched broadly enough to fit basically anyone with a cell phone but in order for it to be protected it has to be capturing something to share with your fellow man.
A person taking a picture to share with their fellow man or even using facial recognition to enrich that communication with more info could well be protected but an org feeding a video stream into facial recognition to blanket gather info on your fellow man would be apt to be disallowed.
Isn't this statement exactly what the 9th amendment says not to do when interpreting the first 8?
> A person taking a picture to share with their fellow man or even using facial recognition to enrich that communication with more info could well be protected
...well, that's what's prohibited by this law.
> an org feeding a video stream into facial recognition to blanket gather info on your fellow man would be apt to be disallowed
...and that's not prohibited by this law.
That's what we're dealing with here in Portland.
I hate to be an RTA guy, but did have you taken the opportunity to read the ordinance?
> The first bars all city bureaus from acquiring or using the controversial technology with minimal exceptions for personal verification.
> The second blocks private entities from using the software that scans faces to identify them in all public accommodations.
Firstly the city isn't allowed to use facial recognition save for identifying its own personnel. Second private entities ie everyone else including individuals and corporate personages aren't allowed to use it in all "public accommodations"
Here is a legal definition of public accommodations
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181
7E is (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
Here is a "private entity"
> (6) Private entity
The term “private entity” means any entity other than a public entity (as defined in section 12131(1) of this title).
I originally just read the article but reading the full text of the law doesn't change my perception now that I have read it.
It absolutely would forbid walmart from streaming their cams to facial recognition software and while in theory citizen journalism could be negatively effected it seems trivially arguable that any usage that serves the interest of citizen journalism is already covered by the first amendment.
If you wonder WHY people want to ban facial recognition realize it is notoriously inaccurate when applied to a large corpus of data especially with bad photos wherein missidentification can trivially lead to the total destruction of people's lives. Case in point.
https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p...
I'm assuming this exception is to preserve what a lot of people regard as desirable functionality.
In the US I have pretty wide rights to take a photo in a public place for editorial purposes and to publish it (which is a variant of freedom of the press).
That wasn't my understanding. I thought that SCOTUS had repeatedly ruled that you had absolutely no expectation of privacy when in a public location? It seems weird to me to have a legally protected right to make recordings that doesn't extend to their use (at least for personal purposes).
Even so, I suppose the ordinance might be legal because I've never heard of a "right to use of facial recognition technology" or anything that would otherwise imply that. That being said, I find the idea a bit disquieting. I value privacy highly and have serious concerns about the current state of affairs, but specific algorithms being disallowed on the level of an individual person is highly concerning to me.
Isn't it only large actors (ie corporations and governments) where abuse becomes a serious concern due to their geographic reach and available resources?