It also seems very untimely. Portland is exactly the type of city that needs surveillance, to identify and arrest criminals who are committing property damage, theft, and arson as part of daily riots.
Also, I've heard approximately zero people from Portland calling for more police presence, even if it would cut down on the non-Portlanders traveling there to start problems. From what I can tell, they're not asking for or welcoming of that kind of "help".
Stay safe, Portland is a good town at times, just it's 2020 you know?
And I've seen enough unreliable technologies hit the market and marketers don't talk about the flaws or limitations in a responsible way. They highlight when the tech has done something miraculous.
With all of this kind of stuff I ask: what happens when the tech is wrong? Who's accountable? Who makes the victim whole? Too often the answer is nobody is accountable.
If it’s in a public place I would absolutely have a constitutional right to use that photograph, sell that photograph etc
You 100% absolutely do if it is in public when it comes to publishing, even commercial publishing. Where do you think news gets their photos? Travel magazines? Professional photographers? You don’t need permission to publish or sell a photograph taken in a public place regardless of who or how many people are in it.
You disputed it right here. You 100% have a right to PUBLISH even for commercial purposes without permission.
Good test here is if you could reasonably make a civil claim against the person reusing/redistributing the cropped images of themselves for their own purposes after the fact without permission.
As you say it means certain types of uses but does not mean simply that I'm making money off it. I can absolutely take your picture in a public place and , in general, sell it to any newspaper or sell a poster made from it if I want.
[0] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-right-publicity-l... [1] https://www.rightofpublicityroadmap.com/law/oregon
Edit: corrected intended phrasing of 1 sentence.
Nope even your own source confirms it. You can publish a photo taken in public for commercial purposes without permission - the only exception listed there is if your present it in such a way that it appears as an endorsement. Then you need permission (for the endorsement). In that case though it isn’t the photo that is the problem it is the false endorsement (which is illegal no matter what the medium, photo, words etc).
it is so damn easy to support the protests in Portland and some other cities when you don't have to experience it. The violence and fear is real, when your city officials effectively abandon their duties to score political points it should tell you your worth.
I live near a not so violent city now; we had a time with it but it died out awhile ago because it was embarrassing an important mayor but I too had coworkers looking to get out of the area. People expect the government they elect to protect people and property and it is very disconcerting when they won't.
Worse is the excuses they use for not doing so making you ask, then at what point would you step in?
Police shutdown the highway and trains. Eventually people gave up and went back to burning downtown.
All of the above are true for me, and I was born here, and I for one applaud the new restrictions on facial recognition.
If your answer to most or all of the above questions is "no", please reconsider telling those of us with actual lives here here how we should want to be policed and why.
I called 911 to report an assault in progress. I was on hold for four minutes, and the police took over an hour to arrive.
I was in a bodega last week when a cop came in to respond to a robbery call that was made over 5 hours prior. The cashier was obviously having a bad day, but still absolutely livid at the response time.
We don't have enough cops to go around right now. Technology helps what cops we do have scale the impact each one can have. Ideally, we'd have more cops _and_ more technology that helps them do their job.
This ordinance is outright silly at best, and detrimental/dangerous at worst, IMO.
Too often we've seen the legal system use flimsy evidence, and comb the earth for experts who'll back up the flimsy evidence. Then years later the city is paying someone for their wrongful conviction.
I don't want to be the person whose life is turned upside-down, and unable to pay legal fees all because of some flawed facial recognition.
When facial recognition is reliable, then we need to talk about privacy and access to the data and how it's used.
I can already imagine what'll happen. Government entities like, law enforcement, will have to jump through hoops to get warrants and prove they have a good reason to access the data. However, private entities like grocery stores, marijuana dispensaries and car washes won't need a good reason. They'll use it for marketing, and making money allowing 3rd parties to access the data.
I'm not cool with any of that.
This is a nightmare sentiment. No, identifying criminals should not be efficient at all. Everyone is a criminal -- whether that's speeding, jaywalking, vandalism, littering, loitering, or whatever, the last thing we need is police having more powers to point to someone they dislike and saying, "We've got footage of you doing X, comply with our demands or suffer the consequences."
There's a reason we have 'judges' -- the law will never cover all corner cases, and the law needs to set boundaries that are sometimes ok to override. You need a human in the loop evaluating various interpretations and keeping those interpretations current with societal expectations. (And those humans absolutely should not be the police.)
What is there to interpret about a speed limit? If someone is going faster than the speed limit they are breaking the law. Add an error bar for equipment accuracy and the case is as closed as anything can be in life.
We don't want judges making decisions unless it is strictly necessary. That is where racism/sexism/classism/etc start entering the legal system. Judges are empowered to judge, but it'd be better if they can keep it to a minimum,
In some (many?) jurisdictions, posted speed limits are not absolute limits but are rather evidence for the judiciary to consider when deciding whether the driver was operating a motor vehicle faster than what was reasonable and proper. (Faster than reasonable and proper being the actual law that has possibly been broken.)
Removing judicial discretion in favor of zero-tolerance laws is a step in the wrong direction I believe.
All of these require due process for something as simple as a speeding ticket.
Leaving aside the crimes you named, police do need tools to identify, locate, and arrest those who engage in more serious crimes like property damage (car thefts, burglaries, bike thefts, etc), violence (rioters throwing Molotov cocktails, assaults, shootings), looting, etc. Enforcing the law matters in order to retain a stable and just society. It absolutely should be efficient, both in the interest of serving justice so there is a deterrent against crime, but also to save taxpayers’ money by making more efficient use of policing resources. Suggesting we keep police from enforcing the law efficiently is illogical and dangerous, and followed to its conclusion, is no different than arguing that police should also be denied other tools like computers or electricity.
Identifying criminals that are breaking the law should absolutely be easy, efficient and absolute. Either you agree they are breaking the law and that the law is just, or the law is unjust. Otherwise, if you agree that there is a "grey" area between the two, then you're just inviting abuse by virtue of selective-policing.
Giving police better technology to do their jobs doesn't automatically make them corrupt. Those who are corrupt are going to temporarily have more power, sure, but that's all the more reason to root them out and implement better transparency and balance checks at the same time.
Yes they do, it's called civil disobedience, and many Americans from marginalized groups wouldn't have the rights they enjoy now without it. In fact, as people like to point out, America was born from it.
The point is to show respect for the rule of law while at the same time calling attention to an injustice.
The notion that you can commit arson, theft, assault, vandalism, and so on with impunity as long as you self-proclaim you are doing it for a just cause is not what "civil disobedience" is about, IMHO.
Your reference to the founding of America only seems relevant if you think the current government is illegitimate and needs to be replaced forcefully and in its entirety (i.e. you are making a revolutionary argument). If someone wants to make that argument then I think they should be able to justify that drastic measure with a rationale that is a bit more coherent than protest slogans and be able to explain what they intend to put in place instead of the current government.
Facial recognition and citizen movement tracking is a slippery slippery slope I want nobody in power to control.
The thing that confuses me is this is clearly done for the rioters but they're the ones with the ideology that generally results in this type of draconian citizen tracking.
Its an upside down world man.
I do agree that limits on photography are probably unconstitutional though.
And I'm not sure the gain justifies the cost. Not being able to facial rec a robbery suspect is going to have tragic outcomes.
In theory, but not in practice, we can ensure governments aren't using it but businesses and private individuals seem almost impossible. Certainly underground businesses will take advantage of it like the mafia or other groups who figure out how to weaponize it.
If you think anti-authoritarianism is an exclusively right-wing value you're sorely mistaken. Even the term 'libertarian' was co-opted from lefties. You'll learn more if you approach confusing issues with curiosity rather than calling Portland "upside down world" because your biases conflict with reality.
I'm happy to discuss this topic with you as long as you're willing to hold up your end of the conversation.
Deal?
Presently, the only way to identify the police officers who are polluting our town with toxic gasses and brutalizing families who are trying to assemble to protest the existence of their employers, is by their face.
So don't pretend for a second like it's we, the protestors, who are trying to hide.
So it's the pervasive always-on nature that makes it different.