Skip to main content

San Francisco bans facial recognition software

Lawmakers in San Francisco have voted to outlaw the use of facial recognition tools. It is a move which will have implications for police surveillance – and also for transit agencies. It was reported last year that Bay Area Rapid Transit (Bart) was considering the introduction of face recognition software on its cameras, for example – but Bart will not now be able to do so. The 8-to-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors means San Francisco is the first city in the US to take this step – and the decis
May 15, 2019 Read time: 2 mins

Lawmakers in San Francisco have voted to outlaw the use of facial recognition tools.

It is a move which will have implications for police surveillance – and also for transit agencies.

It was reported last year that Bay Area Rapid Transit (7357 Bart) was considering the introduction of face recognition software on its cameras, for example – but Bart will not now be able to do so.

The 8-to-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors means San Francisco is the first city in the US to take this step – and the decision may form a precedent which other cities feel bound to follow.

Some police forces are already using live facial recognition (LFR) tools for surveillance.

Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch said last year that the London Metropolitan Police’s use of LFR in public spaces was “98% inaccurate – it identified people correctly only 2% of the time”. Elsewhere in the UK, South Wales Police’s live facial recognition “was inaccurate 91% of the time and had resulted in the misidentification of 2,451 people”.

In an interim report earlier this year, the UK government’s Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group concluded: “There are a number of questions about: the accuracy of LFR technology; its potential for biased outputs and biased decision-making on the part of system operators; and an ambiguity about the nature of current deployments.”

Related Content

  • February 1, 2012
    Enforcement needs automation and communication
    TISPOL's Peter van de Beek questions whether the thought processes which drive enforcement technology development are always the right ones. Peter van de Beek sees an ever-greater role for technology in traffic enforcement but is concerned that the emphasis of technological development and discussion is not always in the right places. 'Old-fashioned' face-to-face policing remains as valid as it ever did, he feels, but adds that there should be greater communication with those engaged at the sharp end of saf
  • November 15, 2017
    TM 2.0 boost TMC data feed and driver influence
    TM 2.0 views connected vehicles and V2I as two-way communications channels, benefitting traffic management and drivers, as Alan Dron discovers. As connected vehicles are progressively rolled out there will come a point at which traffic managers and traffic management centres (TMCs) will have to gear up to cope with a rapidly-evolving road scenario. The TM 2.0 Platform (see box) is promoting a concept of new-generation traffic management (which carries the same TM 2.0 title) and is studying how future T
  • September 23, 2020
    Why New York MTA needs $12bn – now!
    Memo to US government: Public transit has been put under severe strain by Covid-19 – and New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is sounding the alarm
  • July 8, 2019
    London needs just one road user charge, says report
    London’s patchwork of road charging schemes should be replaced by a single, distance-based user charge, according to new research. Apart from anything else, it would be much fairer… The UK capital’s multiple road charging schemes require a radical overhaul, according to a new report by the Centre for London thinktank. The suggested solution is to replace existing levies on drivers with a single, distance-based user charge which would more fairly reflect how much, and at what time, people are using London