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

[Aimee Farr]

Shostack:

>Its too bad that they've never caught any criminals using these
> systems; if they had, they could have used one of those pictures.
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:55:04AM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
> | >    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.
> |
> As Richard Jewell might ask, "Yeah, so?"
>
> Adam

[I'm catching heat on the biometric biggies list now...below some of my
comments...]

If a background picture is used for an article and it produces a substantial
falsehood because of the content of the story, courts have found that the
relationship link between the use of a person's identity and the
newsworthiness of the story is not satisfied. See, e.g. Metzger v. Dell Pub.
Co., 207 Misc 182, 136 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1955) (picture as part of story on
gangs, falsely portrayed plaintiff as gang member). However, realize the
power of the First Amendment in more modern contexts.....

Still, I still consider it in very poor taste. The police are not the media.
Due to the concerns here, standards should be at the ceiling -- not the
legal floor. Was that a "permissible purpose?" Or was that a secondary
purpose the man did not anticipate when he walked past the "Smart CCTV"
sign? I would argue that under well-established privacy principles, that was
an impermissible use and secondary purpose. I don't think he anticipated
being used as a "model." Permissible purpose is the cornerstone of
information privacy.

Is one permissible purpose not in their operation and use policy? Obviously
not. Or, they ignored it. Or, nobody explained it to them.  Or, they just
didn't care? (Is the media report about how this came about deceptive?)

Look, I've got celebrities being subjected to CCTV bounties. I'm seeing
rogue surveillance footage on the Net as entertainment. Even wiretap
surveillance.

Any surveillance policy has to incorporate one permissible purpose. That
content should never leave the scope of the security purpose. I don't think
a "publicity purpose" qualifies. A subject's image is not marketing
material. Furthermore, access to material outside of the security purpose
and identified security personnel probably needs to include a subpoena. No,
not even for demonstration. Many people would have considered this an
incident of "data abuse."

At the surface, and based on the media reports (again, suspect) this looks
like a gross violation of public trust.

~Aimee