Ybor City's face recognition cameras claim their first innocent v ictim.

Aimee Farr aimee.farr at pobox.com
Thu Aug 9 08:55:04 PDT 2001


>    Milliron's photograph was captured in June while he was
> on a lunch break in Ybor City.
>    He didn't know it at the time, but the Police Department
> used his photo to demonstrate the system to local news
> media.

That should violate their policy - if they have one. BIG TIME.

Furthermore, use of somebody's picture as background for an article that
produces a substantial falsehood about them because of the content of the
story = lawsuit, although here I would probably think there was a
substantial connection. But the media didn't even take the pic - the police
did. I understand the article said he wasn't wanted, but that was still
highly suggestive and in bad taste considering the nature of the content.
See, e.g. Mertzger v. Dell Pub. Co 207 Misc. 182, 136 N.Y.S.2d 888
(1955)(picture as part of story about gangs falsely portrayed plaintiff as a
gang member).

Visionics has released a statement in regard to their controversial CCTV
facial recognition technology, calling for federal legislation and
referencing their "responsible use guidelines." The WIRED story is here:
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,45687,00.html (not by Declan)I
asked them for their "guidelines" and was directed to their "privacy
principles."

http://www.visionics.com/newsroom/biometrics/privacy.html
...."In the months to come, the Company will work closely with federal
legislators, privacy       interest and industry groups to share its
knowledge, experience and privacy protection principles pertaining to all
applications of face recognition technology. The Company will continue to
promote an improved public understanding of the creation, use and control of
facial recognition systems and will support public policy that ensures that
deployments of facial recognition are conducted in a way that upholds all
privacy rights." [...]

"Privacy rights" are based on legal doctrines, and not threats identifying
activities that are considered privacy-invasive to the average person. The
term "privacy rights" is not conducive to societal impact analysis or future
technological advances.

The International Biometric Industry Association position is that biometrics
is "electronic code" and not personal information:
http://www.ibia.org/privacy.htm The IBIA has always advocated protective
legislation. For an idea of industry sentiment, the IBIA response to one
California bill is here: http://www.ibia.org/newslett010606.htm (bill would
have required a warrant.)

The push for legislation is pre-emptive in nature.

Curious to hear from our privacy advocates as to whether or not they have
been contacted by Visionics for this initiative.

Visionics has come under fire from within the biometrics industry.

~Aimee





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list