https://www.fastcompany.com/90436355/portlands-proposed-facial-recognition-ban-could-be-the-strictest-yet

>Oregon locality tries to say nope, will end up traptured.

>As the federal government plods along on developing privacy laws, some
cities are taking matters into their own hands -- with facial
recognition technology at the top of the list. Now, Portland, Oregon,
has plans to ban the use of facial recognition for both the government
and private businesses in the city, a move that could make Portland's
ban the most restrictive in the United States. The proposed ban comes
after cities including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley in
California, and Somerville in Massachusetts, have already banned the
use of facial recognition by their city government agencies, including
police departments. But Portland's ban goes a step further by
expanding to private businesses -- if it makes it into law and takes
effect in spring 2020, as planned. It could be a preview of what to
expect across the country. "I think we're going to start to see more
and more [private sector bans]," says ACLU of Northern California
attorney Matt Cagle, who helped draft the San Francisco legislation
that later served as the model for Oakland and Berkeley. "People are
really concerned about facial recognition use and the tracking of
their innate features by governments and private corporations."

I find this planned Portland rule foolish and highly improper, at least in regard to how it controls "private corporations". (Governments are presumably entitled to restrict their own use of such a practice, so I do not dispute that aspect of the rule.)

As a lifetime libertarian, I believe in the NAP (Non Aggression Principle, which I prefer to call the NIOFP, the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, lest this be misinterpreted as some variant of Pacifism. ). Do you recall the saying, "The rights of your fist end at my nose"?. It's not at all clear how a private business' use of facial recognition technology somehow initiates aggression against somebody else. (It's equivalent to hiring a person who recognizes everybody in Portland. That's not illegal...yet. ) Absent this, why should it be prohibited?

And I note that this restriction does not purport to name ordinary people, for example ordinary citizens, as being prohibited from using facial recognition systems. Is that because such a prohibition is next? Is the City of Portland avoiding mentioning prohibiting ordinary people from using facial recognition because they are planning a "divide-and-conquer" campaign? Or, why are they not prohibiting that, too? Are we to suppose that this targeted prohibition is merely a convulsion of anti-business sentiment typical for Portland's super-progressive politics?

There is a practical reason for this improper development: In the last few years, Portland has been wracked by riots by left-wing people, often going under the label "Antifa". Yes, they are seemingly triggered by demonstrations by Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys, but that doesn't justify the initiation of a riot merely because one's political opponents put on a demonstration. (Does it? Really?!?) It is widely suspected that the Portland Police have been instructed by Portland government to go easy on the violent rioters, and they have indeed done so. Do a Google search for 'Portland riot antifa assault journalist'. One result is: https://www.wsj.com/articles/antifa-attacks-a-journalist-11562021361 Another is: https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/why-a-journalist-was-attacked-by-antifa-in-portland-oregon

What would be the effect of Portland businesses using facial recognition software? It would mean, quite simply, that more of the rioters would be identified, caught, prosecuted, and jailed. Or, if the Portland government failed to prosecute, it would become even more clear on what side the Portland government really is. That eventuality no doubt alarms the Portland 'riot-class', as well as the government that supports them.

Is it the proper business of the City of Portland to protect rioters from being identified by prohibiting businesses from using facial recognition? Because that's what they are effectively proposing to do.

Jim Bell