“There are many tools available to law enforcement, and facial recognition is one of those tools of convenience,” said Nicole Napolitano, research director at the Center for Police Integrity. However, it is not without its pitfalls. Similar to PimEyes, tools such as Clearview AI can make mistakes and incorrectly identify people; Misidentification arrest. “Police are increasingly relying on what the models are telling them and becoming biased by it,” Napolitano said.
“There is no constitution. “You have the right to cover your face in public,” Myers, the Manhattan Institute’s police chief, charged.
In fact, the legal landscape surrounding how law enforcement can use surveillance technology is murky, explains Beth Harolds, staff attorney for the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The main reason for this is that the law has not kept up with technological advances. development.
For Harolds, the possibility of ubiquitous surveillance means that people don’t really have a reasonable expectation of privacy, a historically important legal standard. “[Surveillance] “Cameras aren’t just in the eyes of police officers,” she said. “They’re probably being monitored in real time, 24/7. They’re feeding images into artificial intelligence and, with the help of algorithms, they can track you down and show you different faces and places you’ve been.” ”
However, the legal haze may finally be starting to clear up.
This summer, a federal appeals court judge declared that geofence warrants violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, but the ruling applies only to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It is. Similarly, a New York judge dominated Warrantless phone searches at border crossings are unconstitutional. Although the ruling only applies to parts of New York, it also includes John F. Kennedy International Airport, one of the nation’s busiest airports.
Mobile phone manufacturers are also making strides in technological solutions to subvert surveillance techniques. google Announced changes There is an issue with how user location data is stored, which will prevent future geofence guarantees from being compliant.
Still, it can be difficult for police to determine when to use surveillance technology. Tushar Joyce, a professor at the City University of New York who studies the intersection of privacy, technology and censorship, said police use surveillance technology “routinely discarding evidence in cases rather than sharing data.” Ta.
Beryl Lipton, a senior research fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology-focused civil liberties nonprofit, says things that law enforcement officials previously could only dream of are now increasingly possible. He said that it has become.
“I think there’s been a big shift in the way we need to think about what it means to expect privacy in public spaces,” Lipton says.
Half a century ago, Lipton explained that you could be walking down the street and see someone following you and listening to your conversation. Currently, that kind of surveillance is less obvious.
“That’s something we really need to reevaluate as a country,” she added. “We don’t want to be in the position of essentially trying to live a life where we’re constantly being followed and listened to, whether as protesters or just as ordinary people.”
