SFPD allegedly violates facial recognition technology ban: suit
(KRON) — The city, county, and police departments of San Francisco are being sued for the alleged use of facial recognition technology (FRT) despite the technology being banned. Secure Justice, a non-profit advocating against “the state abuse of power,” filed the lawsuit on Tuesday.
The plaintiffs allege that FRT is known for having “significant” difficulties accurately identifying individuals with darker skin tones or different genders. According to a 2018 study, the error rate is sometimes as high as 35% for darker-skinned women. “All the more concerning in the context of policing,” the suit read.
“We’ve already seen confirmed unlawful arrests and incarceration due to the use of this error-prone technology – and all but one of the victims have been Black individuals,” said Brian Hoffer, Secure Justice’s Executive Director.
Surveillance Ordinance:
In June 2019, the City and County of San Francisco enacted the “Surveillance Technology Ordinance” to help the city differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate uses of surveillance technology, including the ban on FRT.
San Francisco generated international news coverage because it was the first city to include a prohibition on the use of FRT nationwide. Many have since joined in banning the use of this controversial technology, including Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda.
By July 2020, SFPD had identified “at least” 42 preexisting surveillance technologies in its inventory and had successfully received policy approval for its ShotSpotter technology and Automated License Plate Readers the following year.
In June 2021, “Secure Justice received documents that confirmed that SFPD
was violating the prohibition on FRT by outsourcing FRT use to third parties—like
the Daly City Police Department and the Northern California Regional Intelligence
Center,” the suit read in part.
For “unknown reasons,” SFPD quit complying with the Surveillance Ordinance. According to the suit, SFPD “has not submitted any further proposed use policies for pre-existing technology to the BOS beyond July 27, 2021.”
In June 2023, Secure Justice issued a letter to SFPD and San Francisco, referencing SFPD’s 42 previously identified technologies that did not have a corresponding Board of Supervisors (BOS)-approved use policy. “SFPD has made no effort to cure its lapse,” the letter read in part.
In March this year, SF City Attorney David Chiu wrote a Proposition E implementation memo to SFPD Chief Scott with the following guidance: “The Department must submit a proposed policy within a year after the date the Department first used or acquired the technology – whichever is earlier. Failure to submit a policy within a year is a violation of Chapter 19B,” Chiu wrote.
After not hearing back for over a year, Secure Justice issued a second right-to-cure notice to SFPD in May, again referencing the 42 previously identified technologies in SFPD’s possession.
At present, the BOS and the people of San Francisco have no idea how such technologies are being used, with whom data might be shared, what data on San Francisco residents and visitors is being collected, or whether the technology is even working—a timely question as San Francisco is attempting to rapidly expand its use of surveillance technology.
The lawsuit filed by Secure Justice read in part
UC Berkeley study finds toxic metals in major tampon brands
2024_07_15_SJ_Petition_for_Writ_FILEDDownload
Moving forward:
Secure Justice requests that SFPD “submit to Committee on Information Technology (COIT) and the BOS the required impact statements and proposed use policies for its 42 previously identified and acquired or used surveillance technologies in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 19B.”
In the alternative that SFPD could not provide an impact statement, the non-profit requested “that SFPD permanently ceases its use of the 42 previously identified and acquired or used surveillance technologies,” the suit read.
Aside from changes within the police department, Secure Justice requests attorney fees and court costs.
KRON4 has reached out to SFPD for a statement but has not heard back from them as of this report.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KRON4.